In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 8, 7:56 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >I've also found a lot of information indicating net losses of ice
>> >in the Arctic, and a net loss in the world's glaciers, but
>> >information
>> >on the former is not easily converted to net mass so I'm still not
>> >clear on the recent net change, if any, in the global ice inventory.
>>
>> It's worth noting that, whatever the effects of loss of ice in the north polar
>> cap may be, rising sea level is *not* among them: the north polar cap is
>> floating, and melting all of it won't affect sea level.
>
>Not entirely correct because the meltwater is freshwater that is less
>dense than the seawater displaced by the ice. But you are correct
>in that effect is very small compared to the effect of an equal mass
>of ice melting on land.
The difference in density between the meltwater and the ocean water won't
amount to a hill of beans. Yes, ocean water is more dense (by 2.7%), but
there's also a whole lot more of it, too, and the fresh water isn't going to
just lay there on top of it, either. Once it's mixed in, there won't be a
noticeable effect.
>
>It is also worth noting that I used the term "sea ice" incorrectly.
>
>By definitions, an ice sheet is on land, an ice shelf is ice that has
>moved out onto water from a glacier or an ice sheet, and sea ice
>forms on water by freezing or precipitation. The Arctic ice cap is
>all or nearly all sea ice. Antarctica has all three.
>
>>
>> The south polar cap is an entirely different story. Some Antarctic ice is
>> floating; some of it is on land, above sea level; and some of it is on land
>> *below* sea level -- that is, it's in the ocean and resting on the ocean
>> floor. Melting of ice in this last category will cause sea level to *drop*.
>
>Does the ice in that category extend from the ocean floor to some not
>insignificant height above mean sea level?
If it does, I can't find any indication of it in either of my world atlases.
>
>>
>> Whether sea levels will rise or fall in response to melting polar ice caps
>> depends on the relative proportion of submarine Antarctic ice to land-based
>> ice in Antartica and Greenland.
>>
>> I've not been able to find data indicating what that proportion is.
>>
>Keep in mind also that if you reduce an ice shelf, the associated ice
>sheet accelerates toward the sea.
>
>My interest is not in estimating sea level change, but in estimating
>the energy gained or lost by the phase change. That is to say,
>isothermal warming or cooling.
Hmmmm.... now that's an interesting thought. Hadn't considered that
perspective. Certainly, the ice absorbs heat as it melts -- a lot of heat (80
calories per gram) -- whether that's significant on a planetary scale may be a
different matter.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 17, 12:36 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >> (what they usually mean is western
>> >> civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
>> >> industrial nations apparently has no effect).
>>
>> >Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.
>>
>> That's an inference, drawn from the fact that the Kyoto Protocol exempts
> China
>> and other developing industrial nations from the restrictions that it imposes
>> on Western industrial democracies.
>>
>
>IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
>scientific data.
You're completely missing the point, Fred.
If excess CO2 emission is a terrible thing that's going to bring about the end
of the world as we know it --- why are emission restrictions imposed only on
Western industrial democracies, and not on the developing industrial nations
such as China and India?
Kyoto says, basically, CO2 emitted by the US, Germany, UK, Canada, and Japan
causes global warming and must be severely reduced -- but CO2 emitted by China
and India is OK.
What conclusions do *you* draw from that?
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Feb 21, 9:17 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:58:46 -0800, Larry Blanchard
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
> >>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
> >>>he holds them outside the country.
>
> >> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
> >> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>
> >I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals. In the first
> >case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
> >Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
> >criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
>
> >But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
> >combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
> >I'm saying.
>
> The assertion that "Bush can hold anyone (including US citizens)" is
> incorrect. The law in question is the "military commissions act" and
> it explicitly _excludes_ US citizens. The assertions to the contrary
> are based on a very early draft of the legislation, not on the final
> version that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the
> President.
This is true so long as the Constitutional guaranteed
of the writ of habeas corpus (e.g. the "great writ" as
opposed to _Federal_ habeas) is preserved for all persons.
If it is not, then no citizen's rights are protected as no
citizen accused of being a non-citizen, can require
the government to show evidence that they are not
a citizen.
--
FF
On Feb 22, 3:14 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >This is true so long as the Constitutional guaranteed
> >of the writ of habeas corpus (e.g. the "great writ" as
> >opposed to _Federal_ habeas) is preserved for all persons.
>
> >If it is not, then no citizen's rights are protected as no
> >citizen accused of being a non-citizen, can require
> >the government to show evidence that they are not
> >a citizen.
>
> Sure we can. That's why we have the Second Amendment.
I agree that is potentially a vital function of the Second
Amendment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that is
WHY we have it, people can vote for the same amendment
for different reasons. I also try to keep in mind that the
Iraqi population was well-armed throughout the reign
of Saddam Hussein.
Being a liberal, I'm generally opposed to gun 'control'.
>
> Really. I'm quite serious about that. The purpose of the Second Amendment is
> not to preserve the ability to hunt, or to go target shooting. And it's only
> tangentially about crime, or repelling invasion. What it's really about is
> this: the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many pieces of
> paper, and their guarantees of rights only so much hot air, unless We The
> People possess the means to *compel* the government to abide by them.
>
> And we do.
However, don;t you agree that is a good thing to be able
to take the matter to the courts before opening fire?
Ballot box, jury, box, ammo box. Let's keep use them
in that order.
--
FF
On Feb 24, 6:09 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >NO armed person on a battlefield is a protected person
> >in the context of the 1949 Protocols.--LEAST OF ALL
> >uniformed soldiers of a regularly constituted armed
> >forces.
>
> That's kinda the point, Fred....
No, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of summary execution.
> [...]
>
> >Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping
> >in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument,
> >he would be subject to summary execution.
>
> Since when is a barracks a battlefield?
Again, non-sequitor. The topic is NOT killng in battle
it is summary execution.
>
> >> [remainder snipped]
>
> >First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statements,
> >then you refuse to discuss further. I though better of you.
>
> And then, after that, you have the nerve to accuse *me* of presenting bogus
> arguments.
Because you have nothing but present bogus arguments
and obfuscation.
The issue at hand is summary execution. You have never
presented a single citation to support your claim that
summary execution of a spy or saboteur is permissible
Why did you you snip the reference to the 1907 Hague
conventions and to the Articles of War? Was that so
you could continue to pretend they do not exist?
--
FF
On Feb 24, 6:09 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping
> >in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument,
> >he would be subject to summary execution.
>
> Since when is a barracks a battlefield?
>
When the persons therein are being captured by
enemy combatants. Historical precedents exist,
though they predate the 1949 Protocols. Examples
include battles at Ticonderoga and Detroit, as I recall.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
>Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
>the United States...".
A person owing "an allegiance or duty to the United States" would be a
U.S. citizen. That phrase may encompass legal resident aliens as well.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 24, 6:09 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >NO armed person on a battlefield is a protected person
>> >in the context of the 1949 Protocols.--LEAST OF ALL
>> >uniformed soldiers of a regularly constituted armed
>> >forces.
>>
>> That's kinda the point, Fred....
>
>No, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of summary execution.
Not at all. It's the central point.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping
>> >in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument,
>> >he would be subject to summary execution.
>>
>> Since when is a barracks a battlefield?
>
>Again, non-sequitor. The topic is NOT killng in battle
>it is summary execution.
Not a non-sequitur at all.
>
>>
>> >> [remainder snipped]
>>
>> >First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statements,
>> >then you refuse to discuss further. I though better of you.
>>
>> And then, after that, you have the nerve to accuse *me* of presenting bogus
>> arguments.
>
>Because you have nothing but present bogus arguments
>and obfuscation.
>
>The issue at hand is summary execution. You have never
>presented a single citation to support your claim that
>summary execution of a spy or saboteur is permissible
>Why did you you snip the reference to the 1907 Hague
>conventions and to the Articles of War? Was that so
>you could continue to pretend they do not exist?
>
We were talking about the Geneva Convention.
Look -- the last time this came up, several of us showed pretty conclusively
that you have misread, misinterpreted, and ignored parts of the GCs to suit
your own preconceived notions. I'm not going to rehash that with you again. If
you want to rehash it on your own, be my guest.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>This is true so long as the Constitutional guaranteed
>of the writ of habeas corpus (e.g. the "great writ" as
>opposed to _Federal_ habeas) is preserved for all persons.
>
>If it is not, then no citizen's rights are protected as no
>citizen accused of being a non-citizen, can require
>the government to show evidence that they are not
>a citizen.
Sure we can. That's why we have the Second Amendment.
Really. I'm quite serious about that. The purpose of the Second Amendment is
not to preserve the ability to hunt, or to go target shooting. And it's only
tangentially about crime, or repelling invasion. What it's really about is
this: the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many pieces of
paper, and their guarantees of rights only so much hot air, unless We The
People possess the means to *compel* the government to abide by them.
And we do.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
the United States...".
Renata
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:17:56 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The assertion that "Bush can hold anyone (including US citizens)" is
>incorrect. The law in question is the "military commissions act" and
>it explicitly _excludes_ US citizens. The assertions to the contrary
>are based on a very early draft of the legislation, not on the final
>version that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the
>President.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 22, 3:14 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >This is true so long as the Constitutional guaranteed
>> >of the writ of habeas corpus (e.g. the "great writ" as
>> >opposed to _Federal_ habeas) is preserved for all persons.
>>
>> >If it is not, then no citizen's rights are protected as no
>> >citizen accused of being a non-citizen, can require
>> >the government to show evidence that they are not
>> >a citizen.
>>
>> Sure we can. That's why we have the Second Amendment.
>
>I agree that is potentially a vital function of the Second
>Amendment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that is
>WHY we have it, people can vote for the same amendment
>for different reasons. I also try to keep in mind that the
>Iraqi population was well-armed throughout the reign
>of Saddam Hussein.
>
>Being a liberal, I'm generally opposed to gun 'control'.
'Gun control' means using both hands, and being able to hit your target.
>
>>
>> Really. I'm quite serious about that. The purpose of the Second Amendment is
>> not to preserve the ability to hunt, or to go target shooting. And it's only
>> tangentially about crime, or repelling invasion. What it's really about is
>> this: the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many pieces of
>> paper, and their guarantees of rights only so much hot air, unless We The
>> People possess the means to *compel* the government to abide by them.
>>
>> And we do.
>
>However, don;t you agree that is a good thing to be able
>to take the matter to the courts before opening fire?
Actually, I see the courts as constituting the greatest part of the threat
that the government may decide to ignore the rights we are guaranteed.
It's happening already: the Supreme Court ruled that the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance "reform" bill (which restricts certain types of political
advertising and commentary) does not violate the First Amendment. The language
of the Amendment is plain and clear -- and yet they ruled that it does not
prohibit that which it plainly, clearly does. What part of "Congress shall
make no law..." is unclear to them?
>
>Ballot box, jury, box, ammo box. Let's keep use them
>in that order.
Of course.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:58:46 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
>>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
>>>he holds them outside the country.
>>
>> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
>> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>
>
>I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals. In the first
>case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
>Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
>criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
>
>But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
>combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
>I'm saying.
The assertion that "Bush can hold anyone (including US citizens)" is
incorrect. The law in question is the "military commissions act" and
it explicitly _excludes_ US citizens. The assertions to the contrary
are based on a very early draft of the legislation, not on the final
version that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the
President.
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
>> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>
> The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
> Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
> general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
> winters.
>
> Chris
Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If it's
cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's because of
global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's because of global
warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes, it's because of global
warming.
jo4hn wrote:
> Joe Bleau wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp
>>> wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better
>>> weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps
>>> and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna
>>> get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>>> luck to all,
>>> jo4hn
>>
>>
>> It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
>> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>>
>> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
>> with spotted owls.
>>
>> Joe
> Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
> that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
> dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
Not so. It is the highest it has been *in a long time*, not "ever".
> years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
> aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
> or you might try prayer,
> jo4hn
Now all you have to do is:
a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date).
At this point you will earn a Ph.D.
b) Demonstrate that human action is causal for the increased CO2 levels (not done to date).
At this point you will get tenure.
c) Demonstrate that global warming's effects are severe and harm the environment
(entirely speculative to date).
At this point you will get unlimited funding.
d) Demonstrate that mankind can actually substantially do something about
it by changing behavior (wild speculation to date).
At this point you might be electable to public office.
Gore and the Earth Worshiping Pantheists wanna skip a-c and go right to d.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Feb 15, 11:29 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:34:20 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
.
>
> >When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead
> >singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay.
>
> >... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the
> >drummer better beaver shots in the front row!
>
> I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise?
>
You gave that waaay to much thought....LOL
On Feb 17, 12:09 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:12:48 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
> >>>> the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
> >>>> dynamic in nature.
>
> >>> If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
> >>> that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
> >>> doesn't
> >>> it?
>
> >>Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.
>
> >And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra,
> >exactly how?
>
> Let's not lose site of the fact that the earth is not an open-cycle
> system. CO2 is added and subtracted due to photosynthesis and other
> mechanisms. Those processes themselves are complex, closed-loop systems,
> thus making a purely "addition-driven" computation show only part of the
> equation.
>
The biggest uncertainty seems to be in the ocean's capacity to remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5285590
Here's an interesting discussion of why that matters:
http://sedac.ciesin.org/mva/TW1993/TW1993.html
And here is something else to worry about:
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>The biggest uncertainty seems to be in the ocean's capacity to remove
>carbon dioxide from the atmosphere:
>
>http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5285590
There's also considerable uncertainty regarding the ability of the biosphere
to remove CO2 as well. It's been suggested that increased CO2 levels will spur
an increase in plant growth as well, and this may be a good thing.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
> >... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the
> >drummer better beaver shots in the front row!
>
> I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise?
It also diffuses in direct proportion with the distance from the nozzle. You
want it straight, or with a chaser?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:34:20 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Robatoy" wrote in message
>>
>>> I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
>>> lantern going for a while.
>>> But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
>>> 4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.
>> Actually, reminds me of a lead singer or two I've known.
>>
>> When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead
>> singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay.
>>
>> ... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the
>> drummer better beaver shots in the front row!
>
> I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise?
It does on this newsgroup.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:52:40 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
>>>>it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
>>>>millions of people and billions of dollars in property.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But will it warm us tomorrow?
>>
>>
>> So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed
>> to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything
>> right and has been known to do some things for political expediency --
>> this appears to be one of them.
>>
>Who are you and what have you done with the real Mark?
There are many occasions where I have disagreed with Bush's positions.
Just because he was the best of the bad choices available doesn't make him
perfect. While Bush is more conservative than the alternatives that were
available, that doesn't make him a conservative.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:12:48 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
>>>> the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
>>>> dynamic in nature.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
>>> that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
>>> doesn't
>>> it?
>>
>>Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.
>
>And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra,
>exactly how?
Let's not lose site of the fact that the earth is not an open-cycle
system. CO2 is added and subtracted due to photosynthesis and other
mechanisms. Those processes themselves are complex, closed-loop systems,
thus making a purely "addition-driven" computation show only part of the
equation.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:34:20 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Robatoy" wrote in message
>
>> I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
>> lantern going for a while.
>
>> But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
>> 4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.
>
>Actually, reminds me of a lead singer or two I've known.
>
>When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead
>singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay.
>
>... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the
>drummer better beaver shots in the front row!
I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Bleau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Up to my groin in snow.
> >Just a few drifts.
> >*poke, poke, poke*
> >"There's a car in here somewhere..."
>
> Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
> you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
> might help you out.
Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.
Gore did have a lot to do with the growth and funding of them thar
intarweb tubes.
There are a lot of Americans who are wondering how things would have
turned out had the popular vote actually won in 2000.
I have not seen Gore's movie, but many people that have, liked it.
Obama/Clarke 2008. ANYbody but that douche-nozzle Clinton. I have said
too much.
Were there ANY hurricanesin 2006? That is so weird... what, there 5
big mofo's in 2005?
On Feb 14, 2:02 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Up to my groin in snow.
> Just a few drifts.
> *poke, poke, poke*
> "There's a car in here somewhere..."
Temperature changes cause weather patterns to shift. It's about the
average GLOBAL temperature, not local.
Mike
On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
> cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past
> few years.
That one year is warmer or cooler than the next is irrelevent; it's
about the historical trend.
See the graph at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Mike
On Feb 20, 12:06 am, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : I've never seen a journal article in which the author was listed as
> : "anonymous".
>
> When the article is published, yes, the author(s) name(s)
> appear.
>
> When the manuscript is sent out by an editor to a set of reviewers,
> the name and affiliation of the author(s) is removed; any footnote
> acknowledging assistance from a grant, colleagues, etc. is removed;
> and all reasonable efforts are made to conceal any identifiers.
The rules for anonymity vary with the journal.
Some offer optional anonymity of the reviewer.
I was a minor coauthor on one paper which was
reviewed anonymously by one person and non
-anonymously by another.
The anonymous reviewer advised against publication
the other and the editor disagreed and so we were
published. Our assumption is that the anonymous
reviewer was doing similar work and wanted to stall
us so he could publish first. About six months after
we published, a similar article was published in another
journal, with a similar title except for "First Ever"
(inaccurately) pre-pended to the title...
>
> As for your employer not knowing or caring, consider
> : yourself fortunate.
>
> Huh?
>
> :>It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's
> :>how science works.
>
> : No, that's how peer-review is _supposed_ to work. Peer review isn't
> : "science", it's part of a process. And things don't always work as
> : they are supposed to.
>
> Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it.
>
NO!
Peer-review is part of the publishing process in any
number of fields, scientific or not.
Publication is NOT part of the scientific process. A
scientist can do perfectly good science all by himself,
(e.g. Gregor Mendel) but obviously no one benefits
from it without publication.
Regardless, publication is a separate activity.
--
FF
On Feb 20, 7:21 pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> :>
> :> Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it.
> :>
>
> : NO!
>
> : Peer-review is part of the publishing process in any
> : number of fields, scientific or not.
>
> : Publication is NOT part of the scientific process. A
> : scientist can do perfectly good science all by himself,
> : (e.g. Gregor Mendel) but obviously no one benefits
> : from it without publication.
>
> : Regardless, publication is a separate activity.
>
> Weeeelllllll ... you're wrong. Mostly.
>
> Mutual interchange of ideas, guesses, facts, hypotheses, etc. IS a regular
> part of scientific work. Sure, some lone scientists did good work
> in complete isolation, with no knowledge of what others
> (contemporaneous or historically prior) did, but those are
> few and far between, and for good reason.
Non-Sequitor. The same is true of all, or at least most,
scholarly work and even some flimflam. Historians, linguists,
economists, self-described 'skeptics' (e.g. _The Skeptical Enquirer_)
even polygraphers publish in peer-reviewed journals.
> (To take your example of Mendel,
> he was basing his work on millennia of selective crop breeding, as well
> as his university training. He published his work, and presented it at
> scientific conferences, though it was was ignored for several decades.
Oh, I wasn't aware that he did publish (without peer review, right?)
> He's not quite the lone untrained genius some make him out to be).
Thanks.
>
> It's true that this interchange can happen in a variety of ways --
> from conversation in a room to formally published, publicly available
> journals and books.
>
> But the evaluation process that is formalized in peer-review
> realy isn't some tangential activity (like, say, doing popular TV
> science shows, or writing press releases, is). It's a central mechanism
> for two things: getting ideas and results out where other scientists can see
> and use them; and trying to make sure that standards are maintained (for
> experimental rigor, for addressing previous work, acknowledgment or prior
> ideas, etc.).
But the point is that communication isn't part of the scientific
process. It's a good thing, to be sure. So are grant proposals.
--
FF
J. Clarke wrote:
> No? Then how do you propose to move large numbers of people to
> another planet?
>
>> Bill
I don't.
That's Hawkings idea.
I propose that we take really, really good care of the one we have until
we are CERTAIN we have found another and KNOW how to get there.
I don't call that 'earth worship' ... but simple prudent stewardship.
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com
This article makes a interesting read
Rod
http://www.opinionjournal.com:80/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693
Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.
BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s,
it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for
fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000
people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures
had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward
across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in
history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to
A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of
the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to
1850, the Little Ice Age.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:10:29 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>>No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
>>>>>Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.
>>>>
>>>> And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
>>>> viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?
>>>
>>>First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government.
>>
>> Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the
>> money.
>
>Not for the reviews I have been involved with. I do it on my own
>time.
So what do you live on? Whether you are getting paid to write the
review or not, you are still getting paid by _somebody_ to do
_something_ and if you are regarded as having sufficient expertise in
the field to be selected to provide peer-review then one would hope
that that "something" is in the field in which the paper you are
reviewing was written.
Further, one would hope that you would have a publication history by
which the editor could determine your biases.
>My employeer doesn't know or care about the comments I make in
>a review. Reviewers are anonymous. The authors are also anonymous.
I've never seen a journal article in which the author was listed as
"anonymous". As for your employer not knowing or caring, consider
yourself fortunate.
>It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's
>how science works.
No, that's how peer-review is _supposed_ to work. Peer review isn't
"science", it's part of a process. And things don't always work as
they are supposed to.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Bill in Detroit wrote:
>
>| We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
>| facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
>| opportunity to alter those conclusions.
>
>An observation worthy of consideration. It seems to me that a wise
>person might well consider the consequences of all courses of action
>(as well as the special case of "do nothing").
>
>In the absence of "hard" information, we do well to consider all the
>scenarios we can imagine - with an eye toward avoiding the seriously
>adverse outcomes. To reinforce Bill's point, I'll point out that
>avoidance is not a strategy that can be applied retroactively.
>
>| And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large
>| enough to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that
>| the US will be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing
>| nations of China and India look to be harder hit than the US. The
>| US has already gone through its coal stage, but those other
>| countries are just now amping up to an industrialized society. The
>| US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even move beyond petroleum
>| fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to secure the supply
>| of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums in
>| obsoleting those fuels.
>
>Whether we'll be hindered or not is immaterial to the making of the
>decisions. If we find that we _need_ to travel from "here" to "there",
>the fact that the trip might be uphill or downhill is a secondary
>consideration.
>
>Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies altogether.
Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.
>The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
>uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing our
>offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en route.
>My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people who
are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem to
think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see little
difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and using
fuel burned ten feet away.
>| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
>| there, would it make sense to use this one up?
>
>Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
>question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
>condition as we found it.
Define "good condition". If you mean "exactly the same" you will
eventually end up fighting natural processes to keep it there.
J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|| altogether.
|
| Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
| hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
| we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.
Umm - ok. I was fairly sure that /someone/ was bound to muddy the
water if I didn't provide anti-nitpick definitions. Let's limit the
discussion to the planet on which we (well, most of us) find
ourselves; and just stipulate that the planet is the recipient of a
bounty of energy produced by a remote fusion reaction for which we
need not provide the fuel.
|| The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
|| uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing
|| our offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en
|| route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
|
| The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people
| who are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem
| to think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see
| little difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away
| and using fuel burned ten feet away.
I've never actually encountered even a single person who demanded that
we abandon fueled technologies in the sense I used the phrase. I can
understand that you are concerned about our hydrogen budget; but I try
to restrict my attention to those things that'll have greatest impact
in the more immediate (say, within the next million years or so) time
frame.
With the time frame so restricted, the difference between fuel supply
10' away from you and that being consumed by our sun should be clear
even to the most obtuse among us...
||| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to
||| get there, would it make sense to use this one up?
||
|| Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
|| question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
|| condition as we found it.
|
| Define "good condition". If you mean "exactly the same" you will
| eventually end up fighting natural processes to keep it there.
Yes - I can see that I really should have been more specific about the
time frame.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Prometheus wrote:
| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|| altogether. The path from where we are to there appears to me to
|| be bumpy and uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that
|| of preparing our offspring to make that journey and produce sound
|| decisions en route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting
|| that challenge.
|
| I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the sun
| is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some things
| are free, while others are not.
Yes, the sun consumes fuel - let's get past that. It consumes it's
fuel and will continue to do so no matter what. It was doing so before
humans appeared on the scene and will probably still be doing so long
after we're gone.
The practical difference is that the fuel cost of solar radiation is
nil; and that the supply is (for practical purposes) inexhaustable.
The energy delivered is limited to roughly a kilowatt per square meter
over half of the planet's surface at a time.
We can expect that at some point, we'll have exhausted the planetary
supplies of petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium. Long before
they're gone, their prices will increase to the level where ordinary
folks won't be able to afford to buy either the commodity or the
energy produced from it.
I'm _not_ an advocate of converting everything to solar for the simple
reason that it isn't the best source of energy for all applications.
All energy sources have their own unique set of advantages and
disadvantages; and I've found it interesting to search for
applications and problems that match up with the particular advantages
and disadvantages of low-to-moderate temperature (100F-1000F) solar
heating.
What I'm doing has nothing intentional to do with global
warming/cooling. It has to do with finding more cost-effective ways of
doing things already being done with other technologies. I see
economic and social benefit in significantly reducing heating costs,
in pumping liquids, and providing refrigeration with simple (few or no
moving parts) devices and using freely available energy.
| When I say I'm not going to do anything to change my habits, I mean
| just that. I don't think we're going to change what is happening at
| this point, and it may not be in our best interests to do so in any
| case. It's time to look at the possible results of climate change,
| whatever the causes may be, and plan accordingly. Who knows, global
| warming might be the best thing that has happened in ages- what if
| it translates into longer growing seasons to feed us all, and opens
| up the Antartic for settlement while making the winters less bitter
| and solar power a more viable option? Or, it may be a really rough
| road for us all. In either case, we need some ideas about just
| what the hell we're all going to do about it when it comes rolling
| along, instead of moping and pointing fingers.
FWIW, global warming won't make solar power a more viable option -
except, possibly, for wind applications.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:14:17 -0500, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]>
wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here
>> after all.
>>
>
>For now. Stephen Hawkings has suggested that we need to get busy on that
>colonization stuff.
>
>But ... what does he know? he's just some school teacher in a wheel chair.
So you'd support launching Orions?
No? Then how do you propose to move large numbers of people to
another planet?
>Bill
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>
>>>Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking.
>>
>> So you're saying that the groundbreaking first paper to ever "debunk"
>> a "popular misconception" has yet to be published? Do tell.
>
>
> Try reading what I write. I also suggest reading what you wrote as well.
>
>
>>>>>And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these
>>>>>conceptions.
>>>>
>>>> Such as?
>>>
>>>The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson
>>>
>>>On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993)
>>
>> I was not aware that there were any popular conceptions of any kind
>> with regard to Ethernet traffic in 1993.
>
> Obviously. There were many. That's why Boogs wrote
> "Measured capacity of an Ethernet: myths and reality" in 1988.
I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of "popular
misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken notion
held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets dispelled
by an obscure scientific paper from 1988.
todd
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "todd" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of
>> "popular
>> misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken
>> notion
>> held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets
>> dispelled
>> by an obscure scientific paper from 1988.
>
> Sigh. I think you need to re-read the thread. Let me quote AGAIN:
>
> OP>>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And
> OP>>the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals.
>
> Jim> If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
> Jim> biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
> Jim> rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
> Jim> wrong.
>
> Me>I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular
> misconceptions.
> Me>They also love to be first with groundbreaking research.
>
> Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
> scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.
Is it my turn to sigh for effect? Please look up the word "popular" in the
dictionary. You'll see that it does not apply to a number of scientists.
If you meant something else, I suggest you use words that say what you mean.
I suggest you substitute "widely-held scientific beliefs" for "popular
misconceptions". Apparently, you believe these are synonymous, but they
aren't.
todd
In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
>hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
>we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.
Never mind the hydrogen available in the rest of the solar system -- there's
more than enough available right here.
>
>The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people who
>are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem to
>think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see little
>difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and using
>fuel burned ten feet away.
I've seen estimates of the sun's remaining lifespan ranging from a few hundred
million years, to a few billion years. Either end of this range constitutes an
effectively infinite resource.
With respect to the *mass* available for fuel (whether chemical or nuclear),
this planet is for all practical purposes a closed system, and therefore the
fuel available ten feet (or ten miles, or ten thousand miles) away must be
considered a finite resource.
Until we develop a practical means of generating power by nuclear fusion, that
is.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>While if unqualified, popular means the masses, but in many cases
>"popular" is qualified by mentioning the group in question.
>
>If one is popular in High School, that doesn't mean that
>the entire world thinks that person is popular.
>
>If I said a cartoon was popular among pre-schoolers, that
>doesn't mean the entire world watches.
>
>If I was at a conference, and said a partitular topic was popular,
>it would be clear that I was referring to those attending the conference.
Oh, please.
>
>I acept your criticism, but in this case I thought in was clear that
>when I said "popular" and talking about research papers, it was
>implied to be "among scientists."
That wasn't at all clear -- and it still isn't. The phrase "popular
misconception" has a well-understood meaning, which is considerably at
variance with the manner in which you say you meant it.
Language has meaning. If one uses the word "black" to mean "white", or "up" to
mean "down", one can hardly blame one's readers or listeners for not
understanding.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Bill in Detroit wrote:
>
>| We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
>| facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
>| opportunity to alter those conclusions.
>
>An observation worthy of consideration. It seems to me that a wise
>person might well consider the consequences of all courses of action
>(as well as the special case of "do nothing").
>
>In the absence of "hard" information, we do well to consider all the
>scenarios we can imagine - with an eye toward avoiding the seriously
>adverse outcomes. To reinforce Bill's point, I'll point out that
>avoidance is not a strategy that can be applied retroactively.
Knowing your particular line of work makes me inclined to agree with
you here- I'm not so interested in having the government or activist
groups beat me on the head about what bad people we are, but finding
new and better ways to do things is usually a good strategy,
especially if the old way depends on finite resources.
>| And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large
>| enough to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that
>| the US will be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing
>| nations of China and India look to be harder hit than the US. The
>| US has already gone through its coal stage, but those other
>| countries are just now amping up to an industrialized society. The
>| US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even move beyond petroleum
>| fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to secure the supply
>| of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums in
>| obsoleting those fuels.
>
>Whether we'll be hindered or not is immaterial to the making of the
>decisions. If we find that we _need_ to travel from "here" to "there",
>the fact that the trip might be uphill or downhill is a secondary
>consideration.
>
>Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies altogether.
>The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
>uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing our
>offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en route.
>My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the sun
is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some things
are free, while others are not.
When I say I'm not going to do anything to change my habits, I mean
just that. I don't think we're going to change what is happening at
this point, and it may not be in our best interests to do so in any
case. It's time to look at the possible results of climate change,
whatever the causes may be, and plan accordingly. Who knows, global
warming might be the best thing that has happened in ages- what if it
translates into longer growing seasons to feed us all, and opens up
the Antartic for settlement while making the winters less bitter and
solar power a more viable option? Or, it may be a really rough road
for us all. In either case, we need some ideas about just what the
hell we're all going to do about it when it comes rolling along,
instead of moping and pointing fingers.
Not every change is bad. I have serious trouble swallowing some sort
of "waterworld" senario where we all have to live on boats and the sun
will fry us all without spf5000 sunblock. Some things just change no
matter what you do, and we've got to roll with those changes or lay
down and die.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:04:30 -0500, "John Flatley"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >
| >For example: If person A says it is raining outside
| >and person B challenges the statement because they
| >disagree, they are doubtful or they are skeptical;
then
| >logically, who has the burden of proof of the
| >statement?
| >
| >
| > text deleted
| >
|
| Person A must defend his assertion that it is
raining. The burden of
| proof is on the person making the initial assertion,
it is not on
| those challenging his assertion to disprove it.
|
Thanks for your response. I understand your point and
I almost agree with it. Almost but not quite.
When one asks for supporting data, inference suggests
that the asker would/could analyze that data. A few
points here. If the person requesting the data can
analyze that data, he probably has some prior subject
knowledge. If that person has some prior subject
knowledge he has probably found a problem with the
original presentation. If he has found a problem with
the original presentation then he is disingenous to ask
for supporting data. Rather, he should respectively
challenge the original presentation with confliciting
data. The confrontational "give me your data' is a
valid approach if you want to count coup or you collect
gotchas.
It is difficult enough to draw conclusions when all
parties have access to the same data. It is
meaningless if not impossible when the sides don't have
the same data. (Just the facts, ma'am, justr the
facts.)
| >
| >
| >Instead of this new confrontational response, I
would
| >rather see an orderly presentation of facts and
logic
| >that supports one's position rather than attacking
| >another's position.
| >
| >
Since my original post on this, I have talked to a
friend who is a union member and he says this
confrontational "show me your data" is a relatively new
union talking points response when answering minimum
wage questions, or political contribution questions,
etc. Challenge the speaker rather than providing
contrary data. (I did not ask him for supporting
documentation on his statement. He did not provide
bibliographical references.)
| >
| >
|
| I suggest that you enroll in a paleoclimatology
program somewhere.
| >
| >
Thank you for your suggestion on enrolling in a
paleoclimatolgy program. However, I must make the
choice to spend my time in my new shop. I guess I will
remain a skeptic. (Randi where are you on this one?)
To paraphrase that famous libertarian Dennis Miller:
"That's my opinion, I could be wrong."
Right now I wish global warming would hurry and hit the
local climate and warm the average local temperature.
It is 44 degrees now with a forecasted overnight low of
37 degrees. On average, my shop is cold tonight.
John Flatley
Jacksonville, Florida
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:04:30 -0500, "John Flatley"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke, Robatoy, et.al.,
>
>I need some help here. (although some would say I'm
>beyond help) I'm coming across a new, at least new to
>me, conversational response to statements.
>
>For example: If person A says it is raining outside
>and person B challenges the statement because they
>disagree, they are doubtful or they are skeptical; then
>logically, who has the burden of proof of the
>statement?
>
>In my example above, must person A prove their 'claim'
>that it is raining outside or must person B prove it is
>not raining?
Person A must defend his assertion that it is raining. The burden of
proof is on the person making the initial assertion, it is not on
those challenging his assertion to disprove it.
>I bought a burfl from Tinker Bell for $100.00 dollars.
>When I state that burfls are expensive, I might be
>challenged to provide documentation showing what I
>paid. But, if you know you can buy a burfl for $19.95,
>should you challenge my price statement or should you
>present the documentation to support your position.
>
>It would seem to me that effective dialog consists of
>presenting different points of view with a bit of hope
>that one might sell one's view based on facts.
>
>Instead of this new confrontational response, I would
>rather see an orderly presentation of facts and logic
>that supports one's position rather than attacking
>another's position.
>
>I don't pretend to be an expert in climate, weather or
>even woodworking. But, I am always trying to learn.
>
>As I said in an earlier post, I didn't buy into the
>coming ice age, the global starvation, the running out
>of oil in six years. I am a still a first class
>skeptic on global warming because the facts seem to be
>distorted, over-hyped, AlGored, conveniently ignored or
>just plain wrong.
>
>I will continue to search for effective dialog.
I suggest that you enroll in a paleoclimatology program somewhere.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
: I've never seen a journal article in which the author was listed as
: "anonymous".
When the article is published, yes, the author(s) name(s)
appear.
When the manuscript is sent out by an editor to a set of reviewers,
the name and affiliation of the author(s) is removed; any footnote
acknowledging assistance from a grant, colleagues, etc. is removed;
and all reasonable efforts are made to conceal any identifiers.
As for your employer not knowing or caring, consider
: yourself fortunate.
Huh?
:>It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's
:>how science works.
: No, that's how peer-review is _supposed_ to work. Peer review isn't
: "science", it's part of a process. And things don't always work as
: they are supposed to.
Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it.
-- Andy Barss
[email protected] wrote:
:>
:> Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it.
:>
: NO!
: Peer-review is part of the publishing process in any
: number of fields, scientific or not.
: Publication is NOT part of the scientific process. A
: scientist can do perfectly good science all by himself,
: (e.g. Gregor Mendel) but obviously no one benefits
: from it without publication.
: Regardless, publication is a separate activity.
Weeeelllllll ... you're wrong. Mostly.
Mutual interchange of ideas, guesses, facts, hypotheses, etc. IS a regular
part of scientific work. Sure, some lone scientists did good work
in complete isolation, with no knowledge of what others
(contemporaneous or historically prior) did, but those are
few and far between, and for good reason. (To take your example of Mendel,
he was basing his work on millennia of selective crop breeding, as well
as his university training. He published his work, and presented it at
scientific conferences, though it was was ignored for several decades.
He's not quite the lone untrained genius some make him out to be).
It's true that this interchange can happen in a variety of ways --
from conversation in a room to formally published, publicly available
journals and books.
But the evaluation process that is formalized in peer-review
realy isn't some tangential activity (like, say, doing popular TV
science shows, or writing press releases, is). It's a central mechanism
for two things: getting ideas and results out where other scientists can see
and use them; and trying to make sure that standards are maintained (for
experimental rigor, for addressing previous work, acknowledgment or prior
ideas, etc.).
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:33:10 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:03:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they
>>>> do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it
>>>> except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never
>>>> before been tested.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals.
>>
>> Yes, there have, but most of them were not "popular misconceptions".
>
>Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking.
So you're saying that the groundbreaking first paper to ever "debunk"
a "popular misconception" has yet to be published? Do tell.
>>>And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions.
>>
>> Such as?
>
>The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson
>
>On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993)
I was not aware that there were any popular conceptions of any kind
with regard to Ethernet traffic in 1993.
>>>I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models.
>>
>> Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field?
>
>The use of the Poisson distribution for estimating the delays between packets in a network.
Nothing involving a Poisson distribution can be considered to be a
"popular misconception". Most people can't even tell you what a
Poisson distribution _is_.
You seem to be confusing matters which are quite esoteric with
"popular misconceptions".
>>>> As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they
>>>> are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at
>>>> issue is the policies of journals.
>>>
>>>And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly
>>>regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by
>>>thousands of other articles.
>>
>> And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper.
>
>No. It's those that reference the paper.
And the editor has a TARDIS so that he can go into the future and find
out who will reference the paper?
I'm sorry, but "those that reference the paper" don't decide what gets
published.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:22:16 GMT, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bill in Detroit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough to
>> have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will be
>> unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and India
>> look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through its
>> coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
>> industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even
>> move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to
>> secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums
>> in obsoleting those fuels.
>>
>
>Hey Bill, care to speculate on the fate of any politician who said he was
>going to take your car away?
>
>Neat thing is that manufacturers and power generating companies will gladly
>use or provide power generated from whatever source we want. Ought to be
>easy for an intelligent individual like yourself to chose one. Care to do
>so?
I'd be happy to- put a nuclear power plant in my town. No NIMBY here-
that would provide plenty of jobs and cheap electricity.
Even so, we don't really need it in the context of this debate- the
power here is mainly hydroelectric, and has been for some time. Just
wanted to make the point that I have absolutely no problem with one in
my backyard- I'd get a nice fuzzy feeling about it every time I saw
the cooling towers.
I'd be even better if that plant provided low-cost power for a decent
train system that connected cities that had usable bus lines. None of
those things are for environmental reasons- I would just really enjoy
being able to read a book when travelling instead of having to watch
the road- especially with the cost savings that would entail if I did
not need to fill up my gas tank every week and my car insurance was
lower. And I would certainly have no problems at all with a lower
electric bill- especially if that translated into a cheap enough
source of electricity that would make shutting off the gas a good
option and going with baseboards as a cost-saving measure.
Considering the safety record of nuclear power, they could put the
sucker across the street, and I'd have no objections (unless they had
too many really, really, bright lights shining through my windows)
"todd" <[email protected]> writes:
> I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of "popular
> misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken notion
> held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets dispelled
> by an obscure scientific paper from 1988.
Sigh. I think you need to re-read the thread. Let me quote AGAIN:
OP>>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And
OP>>the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals.
Jim> If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
Jim> biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
Jim> rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
Jim> wrong.
Me>I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions.
Me>They also love to be first with groundbreaking research.
Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.
Heaven knows that the public has thousands of popular misconceptions,
and scientists really don't consider taking a position that differs
from the common misconceptions on alien abduction, reincarnation,
ghosts, ESP, flat earth, etc. to be "groundbreaking." Do you really
consider a "UFO's don't exist" paper to be groundbreaking? Hardly.
It is, however, groundbreaking to provide strong evidence that
assumptions the majority of scientists hold is wrong. And as I said -
scientists LOVE to be able to do this. But the science has to hold up.
Otherwise you end up with Cold Fusion.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking.
>
> So you're saying that the groundbreaking first paper to ever "debunk"
> a "popular misconception" has yet to be published? Do tell.
Try reading what I write. I also suggest reading what you wrote as well.
>>>>And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions.
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>
>>The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson
>>
>>On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993)
>
> I was not aware that there were any popular conceptions of any kind
> with regard to Ethernet traffic in 1993.
Obviously. There were many. That's why Boogs wrote
"Measured capacity of an Ethernet: myths and reality" in 1988.
>
>>>>I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models.
>>>
>>> Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field?
>>
>>The use of the Poisson distribution for estimating the delays between packets in a network.
>
> Nothing involving a Poisson distribution can be considered to be a
> "popular misconception". Most people can't even tell you what a
> Poisson distribution _is_.
You apparently forget what you wrote. We WERE talking about peer-reviewed journals and
scientists "systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint" Let me quote you.
>Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field?
> You seem to be confusing matters which are quite esoteric with
> "popular misconceptions".
Peer-reviewed journals. Scientists. Sigh. Let me quote you:
> If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
> biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
> rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
> wrong.
You claim that scientists are systematically rejecting
a minority viewpoint. You have not given ANY evidence that this is fantasy.
I, on the other had said that your knowledge of scientists is wrong,
and gave a counter-example. You didn't believe me. I listed at least
one example. There are others.
You have not yet given ANY EVIDENCE for your far-fetched theory.
It's just something that came to you from the sky.
I'd like to see some hard evidence that your theory is true.
------------paste---------
Me>And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly
Me>regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by
Me>thousands of other articles.
Jim> And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper.
------------end paste---------
Me>No. It's those that reference the paper.
Jim> And the editor has a TARDIS so that he can go into the future and find
Jim> out who will reference the paper?
Jim>
Jim> I'm sorry, but "those that reference the paper" don't decide what gets
Jim> published.
Sigh. It's like talking to a brick wall. I had to paste back the comments
you deliberately deleted.
Why on earth would time travel be needed to reference a paper that
occured in the past? you DO know what a reference is, right?
WHat's the point.
You are deliberately distorting the debate to support a fantasy
theory. You show great ignorance in a process that you criticize, and
refuse to learn how the process operates. You are arguing for the sake
of arguing. You can't even remember what you wrote yourself, even
when it's quoted in the document.
I don't see any point in arguing with a troll.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"todd" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
>> scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.
>
> Is it my turn to sigh for effect? Please look up the word "popular" in the
> dictionary. You'll see that it does not apply to a number of scientists.
> If you meant something else, I suggest you use words that say what you mean.
> I suggest you substitute "widely-held scientific beliefs" for "popular
> misconceptions". Apparently, you believe these are synonymous, but they
> aren't.
While if unqualified, popular means the masses, but in many cases
"popular" is qualified by mentioning the group in question.
If one is popular in High School, that doesn't mean that
the entire world thinks that person is popular.
If I said a cartoon was popular among pre-schoolers, that
doesn't mean the entire world watches.
If I was at a conference, and said a partitular topic was popular,
it would be clear that I was referring to those attending the conference.
I acept your criticism, but in this case I thought in was clear that
when I said "popular" and talking about research papers, it was
implied to be "among scientists."
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
Rove spin.
The rest is out-of-context semantics.
Here is Snopes:
Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say
anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore
said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-
context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf
Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked
to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
improvements in our educational system."
Snopes continues:
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-
serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the
sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was
responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the
development the
technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was
seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet
is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close
presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the
words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.
On Feb 14, 9:17 pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Gore never said that.
>
> Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
> needed to change to words a bit.
Context....context.
On Feb 14, 10:12 pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Snopes=another Gore apologist. Event the Democrats (dipshits) realized that
> Gore had not only stuck his foot in his mouth but swallowed the whole leg.
> They spent a lot of time doing damage control. If you had watched the
> interview, Gore's intent was clear.
Nonsense. The Dems attempt at damage control was a direct result from
the piranha-like feeding frenzy of the biased media. What Gore said
was stupid, because he left himself wide open to misinterpretation.
Nobody in their right mind believes that Gore tried to lay claim on
inventing the internet. Gore paid for his awkward word choices but
some people feel the need to take a piss on a corps.... imaginary or
real.
In The Netherlands there is a saying which translates as follows: "He
who wants to beat a dog, can always find a stick."
You label Snopes as Gore apologists. Why? Because it helps you make
your case?
How typical. How Rovian. How arbitrary.
On Feb 14, 10:49 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
while you're add it,
> add up the volcanoes and buffalo farts throughout history and see where they
> lead you.
>
I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
water.
I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
lantern going for a while.
But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.
On Feb 15, 2:00 am, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No need. We already have the liberals' new version of the Nazi
> reference...Karl Rove.
>
> todd
You said it, not me. If there is a difference, it is the fact that
Rove is feeding people dirt, and they're liking it. Goebbels wasn't
that clever.
On Feb 15, 6:15 am, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joe Bleau wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
> >> you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
> >> the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
> >> melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
> >> Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
> >> luck to all,
> >> jo4hn
>
> > It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
> > before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>
> > Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
> > with spotted owls.
>
> > Joe
>
> Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em.
> Taste like chicken.
>
> Glen
Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them
though,
Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me.
On Feb 15, 7:55 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> >> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>
> >That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
> >Rove spin.
>
> Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
> all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
> that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
> elected to Congress.
>
That's the spin Rove gave it. You bought into it. He's good, eh?
I actually admire Rove, in a sick way. He's one of the brightest in
the administration.
Gore said something that was open to misinterpretation, something that
is quite clear when you read his statement. But that would mean you'd
have to have an open mind, and put biases aside. But you can't do that
anymore, Doug.... Rove got to you first. Now your mind is set, which
also means that we should stop this part of the thread.
If you think Rove has nothing to do with media spin, on a grand scale,
think Swift-boats.
On Feb 14, 4:57=EF=BF=BDpm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > All right guys, settle down. =A0The experts have said we have global
> > warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>
> The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
> Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
> general. =A0So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
> winters.
>
> Chris
The concept was recently amended to "climate change". Probably due to
the fact there was an ice age preicted 30 years ago, and when the
evidence started to point in a different direction, they went with
"global warming". Now they have come to the realization that they
can't really predict such things, and the pendulum might swing again.
Therefore, they need an all-encompassing term for their fear-
mongering.
The problem I have is that there seems ot be a general objective
consensus that temperatures may be rising, but there is far from a
consensus on cause, particularly in light of the fact that the earth's
history has shown repeated episodes of climate extremes with no
possibility of human intervention. Yet we are supposed to
dramatically change the way we operate in the US while other countries
are not going to be bound by the same constraints.
Seems more like politics to me...
On Feb 15, 10:23 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
> exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.
>
> --
If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting
to it?
So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement?
On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>
> One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not quali=
fy
> as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
> "computer modeling".
>
> In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refine=
d;
> insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
> statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
> always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]
Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, =B1
10%. (May not be valid in your state).
Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
strings attached?
Follow the money.
As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
them."
Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
outside and have the stink blown off ya...
Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
in bankrupting your company.
On Feb 15, 5:13 pm, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Those who do NOT
> acknowledge GW have offered little here but sarcasm and kneejerk
> reaction. The weight of evidence that it exists is overwhelming.
>
> Bob
Facts, schmacts. Global Warming doesn't exist, because they SAY so.
Isn't that enough proof?
Mike
On Feb 15, 5:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:13 pm, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Those who do NOT
> > acknowledge GW have offered little here but sarcasm and kneejerk
> > reaction. The weight of evidence that it exists is overwhelming.
>
> > Bob
>
> Facts, schmacts. Global Warming doesn't exist, because they SAY so.
> Isn't that enough proof?
>
> Mike
That's the okay I was looking for.
>From this day forward, I shall give no fiddler's fu*ck about GW.
(Tinker's damn, rat's ass...whatever) I am through caring about air
pollution, I haven't farted in since Kyoto and now I am going to let
one fly.
This is gonna get ugly.
On Feb 15, 4:11 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including
> > the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we
> > forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart.
>
> > These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago
> > that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was
> > coming soon.
>
> > Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
> > show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
> > a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
>
> WHoa, backup, and slowdown there Bubba. It is not "the scientists" who
> are idiots, it's the people who take their incomplete work and make
> political fodder out of it *pretending* it is science. Science in
> the service of politics - left- or right- - is prostitution, nothing more
> or less. If you respond to this prostitution of science rather than to
> the actual known science, then you get nowhere but into another endless
> debate of political ideology.
>
> If I may, let me summarize that I think the current state of the actual science is:
>
> 1) There is some global warming taking place. It is slight, in keeping with
> the 20,000 or so year trends since the last ice age, and far lower than
> all the climatology models thus far were predicting.
>
> 2) We are at local (with the last 200 year) highs in injecting CO2 into the
> carbon cycle of the planet. BUT ... they are not "all time" highs (that
> happened millenia ago) AND no one is certain that a) CO2 actually causes noticeable
> and uncontrolled warming or b) That global warming - however much it may be happening -
> is necessarily a bad thing.
>
> 3) To the extent that global warming is actually happening, there not yet an unimpeachable
> *causal* relationship between human action and warming. There is that suspicion, but it
> is not yet demonstrated. No serious scientist on any side of the scientific debate
> believes humans *cause* GW. The most aggressive claim is that humans are amplifying a
> natural process and in so doing may change the quiescent state of things drastically - sort of the
> straw that breaks the camel's back model. However, even if this eventually turns out
> to be demonstrated as being so, it is far, far, far less clear that humans could actually
> modify their behavior sufficiently to make a real difference. One of the reasons not to
> rush off and go start randomly trying to "stop" global warming is that it may well be
> better to use our limited resources to *adapt* to it's consequences. For instance,
> over the past 20,000 years, the ocean levels have risen about 600 feet. This translates
> to about 1 cm per year. Now, let's say that human action were to double that. It is
> probably a lot more socially, economically, and politically practical to adapt to
> a 2cm/yr rising coastline than trying to radically retool modern energy-dependent
> economies all at once.
>
> 5) There is also considerably more debate about this particular topic within scientific
> circles than the popular political discussion would have you believe. That's because
> politicians like to use words like "consensus" - as if scientists vote on what the laws
> of nature will become. But science proceeds by means of skepticism and *data* - which, to date,
> are insufficient to come to any final conclusions about GW, who causes it, and whether anything
> can be done about it.
>
> In the end, it is in everyone's best interest to preserve and protect the "commons" - the things
> we cannot divide up as private property that are common to us all. However, the political
> spewing, exaggeration, and flatout lies about the nature and severity of the problem
> are causing otherwise smart people to make really stupid judgments. This is not unusual.
> We're terrified by the thought of someone breaking into our homes and killing us while
> we sleep (which very rarely happens) but don't think twice about driving on highways that
> kill 30,000 people a year in the US alone. The disaster prophets of the political left
> and the deniers of the political right have one thing in common: They want to create
> and artificial sense of emergency in the minds of the public and then none-too-gently
> propose themselves as the solution. The *real* (smart) idiots are people like Gore who wants
> to terrify the population into electing him and <insert your favorite rightwinger here> who
> wants to terrify the population with spectre of economic meltdown if we even consider
> a strategy of alternate fuels and lower emissions.
>
> The fact is that the politicians are ignoring the *real* driver here: Energy independence
> for the West would mean we could rapidly disentangle ourselves from the sewer that is
> the oil-producing Middle East, Africa, and South America. That's because they don't have
> the brains, will, or selling skills to get the public rallied behind them in a cross-partisan
> way. The politicians will only act if it is good for "their side", and almost never when
> it is just "good". The reason to hold people like Gore in complete contempt is that they
> both lie about what is known, and play patently obvious political games while utterly failing
> to address more pressing short-term threats.
>
> Bah, humug, and blech upon both the earth-worshiping pantheists as well as the commerce-at-all-
> costs worshiping idolators. We all - every one of us - ought to be thinking about what is
> in our own long term durable self-interest. It is not in our interest to "save the planet"
> if it means the highway death toll goes up 10x because we're all riding in tin boxes with
> exploding batteries. Commerce is a good thing - essential to human freedom and happiness -
> but it cannot be used as an excuse for justifying *everything*. Most importantly, we need
> to stop looking to any politician for answers on these (and most all other) issues.
> The fact is that Western democracies are good for defending personal liberty and very little
> else. The "answer" to global warming - if it is needed at all - will come from a better
> understanding of real science, not listening to Gore's Inconvenient Pack Of Exaggerations And Lies...
Bravo!
On Feb 15, 12:59 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>(Nice red herring, though.)
Likely mercury poisoning. HgO is often red.
On Feb 15, 9:17 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to
> Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less
> a fact.
>
Is English your second language, Doug?
On Feb 16, 5:49 am, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Roasted on a spit, it tastes somewhat like alaskan curlew - stewed
> with vegetables, it tastes just like chicken (and not at all like a
> spotted owl)
>
> --
alaskan curlew is more like platypus, imho.
With a hint of mint-sauce, panda is nice eating too, especially the
white meat.
On Feb 16, 10:16 am, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
> a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way
> galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a
> bit of the Sun's heat.
> b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes
> more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse.
> c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to
> the plane of the ecliptic.
> d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago.
> Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d)
Banalities?
On Feb 14, 5:32 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2007 14:28:03 -0800, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
> >warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> >And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.
>
> >I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
>
> I dunno--if he got the idea that he could have a career in show biz it
> might keep him out of politics. ...
Its pretty clear that he has no intention of ever running for office
again. He could change his mind of course, but it would be a
change.
--
FF
On Feb 14, 7:38 pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including
> the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we
> forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart.
No, the breakup of Pangaea was caused by local warming.
>
> These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago
> that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was
> coming soon.
>
> Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
> show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
> a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
>
OK, I'll take you up on that by showing you Kevin Trenberth:
Here is quoted as saying, in effect, that there is global warming and
it
its anthropogenic:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334
And here is his bio,showing he is a scientist:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Your turn. Don't forget to include the biographical information
needed to show the hundred on your list ARE scientists and
not economists, engineers or whatever else.
Then maybe we can discuss the "lst of Steves".
> The fossil records speak very clearly. Areas 10,000 years ago were
> once deserts, now they are lush and other areas where giant lakes and
> forests are now arid.
>
> Global cycles yes, man made global warming, a big fat NO.
Do you deny that the Earth's albedo has been changed
by human action?
--
FF
On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
> >> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> > I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>
> > The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
> > Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in> > general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
> > winters.
>
> > Chris
>
> The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
> cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past
> few years.
I'd like you to show some support for either statement.
Here are some photos showing a buttload of ice lost from Antarctica
in 2002:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/mar/antarctica/
If there has been a gain since, it is doubtful that it has made up f
or what was lost.
--
FF
On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Bleau <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >Up to my groin in snow.
> >> >Just a few drifts.
> >> >*poke, poke, poke*
> >> >"There's a car in here somewhere..."
>
> >> Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
> >> you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
> >> might help you out.
>
> >Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.
>
> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
In context, Wolf Blitzwer asked, "Why should Democrats, looking
at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill
Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What
do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to
this
process?
Gore replied, "During my service in the United States Congress,
I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative
in
moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to
be important to our country's economic growth and environmental
protection, improvements in our educational system."
If you want to make a joke by an overly literal out-of-context
interpretation of a comment, here's another one:
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
--
FF
On Feb 14, 9:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Gore never said that.
>
> >Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
> >needed to change to words a bit.
>
> Not quite -- he said "I took the initiative in creating the internet."
>
> Which *also* wasn't true.
>
The people who DID create the internet, disagree with you.
--
FF
On Feb 14, 10:29 pm, "DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>
> [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>
> I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
> dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
> after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
> earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
> correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
Most people have no concept of conservation of energy.
Many of those who do, can't seem to grasp its application.
Some from each of those groups may read this and claim
conservation of energy is irrelevant. They probably also
don't understand albedo.
--
FF
On Feb 14, 10:49 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DouginUtah" wrote in message
>
> > "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>
> > [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>
> > I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we
>
> can
>
> Well, I don't understand the lack of "thought processes" of those who can't
> grasp the scientific difference between opinion, hypothesis, and theory ...
> particulary those who continually engage in a demonstrable and unscientific
> confusion of correlation and causation.
>
>
>
> > dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year,
> year
> > after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
> > earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
> > correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> Otherwise known as "Statistics of small numbers" ... while you're add it,
> add up the volcanoes and buffalo farts throughout history and see where they
> lead you.
>
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html
--
FF
On Feb 14, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
> warming adherents,
I'm very interested in the data on which you base that conclusion.
> ...
> Even more so those who are convinced that all of that CO2
> increase is man-made and man-caused
I'm pretty sure that estimates of man-made CO2 are based on
estimates of fossil fuel use, cement production, forest burning
and so on. There are pretty solid numbers for that, don't you
agree?
> (what they usually mean is western
> civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
> industrial nations apparently has no effect).
Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.
--
FF
On Feb 14, 11:28 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>
> >[Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>
> >I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
> >dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
> >after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
> >earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
> >correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
> the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
> dynamic in nature.
>
If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
doesn't
it?
Screw historical correlation, model the effect.
--
FF
On Feb 15, 1:51 am, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
> > care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
> > affirming or denying global warming?
>
> > --
> > Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
> > --Benjamin Franklin
>
> > Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
>
> How about a job? How about continued funding? Anyone who disputes global
> warming is labeled a crackpot, so there's a huge disincentive to question
> the conclusions at this point.
>
You can show this?
--
FF
On Feb 15, 2:57 am, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
> logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
> Brennan.
>
> We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
> regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
> their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
> by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
> continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
> creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
> shivering under.
As the Polar ice cap recedes more open water is exposed.
Open water is much more effective at cooling the air passing
over it than is ice.
>
> If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
> contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
> is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
> weather fronts?
Are you claiming a downward trend in global temperature?
--
FF
On Feb 15, 8:20 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Larry) wrote:
> >Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
> >care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
> >affirming or denying global warming?
>
> Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is
> warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be
> recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.
>
Neither should receive funding. The last comment I heard from a
_real_
NASA scientist on the study of "Global Warming" was an adhomition to
us to refer to the study of "Global Temperature Change", reminding to
avoid presuming a conclusion.
Now, if a scientist wants funding to study some factor that can
influence
global change she doesn't write a proposal to prove a particular
change,
she writes a proposal to measure that factor and evaluates it's effect
on global change.
This is not like English composition where the author presumes a
conclusion and then 'proves' it by writing about ti.
--
FF
On Feb 15, 8:23 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Several obvious questions:
> >1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like
> >urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?
>
> >2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or
> >simply statistical "noise"?
>
> >3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those
> >temperatures during the late 19'th century?
>
> >4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored
> >because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?
>
> 5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the
> recently observed shrinkage of the polar ice caps on ***MARS*** ?
>
> That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the Earth
> is warming due to human activity.
>
Why?
--
FF
On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Given that climate is the statistical summarization of "weather", and
> that the climate being scientifically codified is the statistical modeling
> of the weather as measured, it is relevant that weather models are
> notoriously unreliable -- how then can climate models be any more reliable?
If you cannot predict the trajectory of a gas molecule in
a tank of gas with any precision, how can you predict the
macroscopic behaviour of the gas?
--
FF
On Feb 17, 12:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Feb 15, 8:23 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> 5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the
> >> recently observed shrinkage of the polar ice caps on ***MARS*** ?
>
> >> That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the Earth
> >> is warming due to human activity.
>
> >Why?
>
> Because if Mars is warming, it's pretty clearly due to increased solar output;
> if solar output has increased, that would explain warming here too -- in fact,
> it would make warming here pretty much unavoidable.
>
> Or perhaps you're prepared to posit some mechanism by which human activity on
> Earth causes global warming on other planets too?
>
The solar output as measured near the Earth has been decreasing
during the same period as when warming was observed on Mars.
Do you suggest that a different sun shines on Mars than on the
Earth?
Would you agree that the great Martian Dust Storm of 1971 was
not anthropogenic?
Does that prove that the Depression era dustbowl was also not
anthropogenic?
Or perhaps you're prepared to posit that the Earth and Mars can
have similar trends for entirely different reasons?
--
FF
On Feb 17, 12:58 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
> >> the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
> >> dynamic in nature.
>
> > If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
> > that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
> > doesn't
> > it?
>
> Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.
No. He said humans were dumping some amount of CO2 into
the atmosphere each year.
The next poster said that was 1% of the total in the atmosphere.
If both statements are true, the implication is a 1% increase
per annum, don't you agree?
--
FF
On Feb 17, 1:08 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
Earlier, Leon wrote:
"Since 1999 it [the Earth, FF] has been
cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by
over 10% in the past few years. "
and I replied"
>
> > I'd like you to show some support for either statement.
>
> > Here are some photos showing a buttload of ice lost from Antarctica
> > in 2002:
>
> >http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/mar/antarctica/
>
> > If there has been a gain since, it is doubtful that it has made up f
> > or what was lost.
>
...
>
> Ok, you provided that support with your link. The peninsula that you
> mention has been retreating for 50 years long before our so called global
> warming became the new world problem.
The link I provided says the Larsen B
ice sheet has been in retreat for the last 50 years. That is
the same period over which most global temperature change
models conclude that warming has ocurred.
So where did you get the information about retreat
of the Larsen B ice shelf over a 50 year period that
preceded global warming?
> OTOH as I said and is backed up by
> the link you provided the interior is cooling and the glaciers are
> thickening.
>
No, you said that "the ice at Antarctica has increased by
over 10% in the past few years. "
the article says:
"Larsen B is one of five ice shelves -- large floating
extensions of ice sheets covering the continent -- that's
been on retreat. While Antarctica's interior seems to be
cooling and its glaciers thickening, studies show the
Antarctic Peninsula has been warming over the past
50 years."
Nowhere in that article is that increase quantified.
The amount if ice lost from Larsen B in 2002 alone is
quantified -- 500,000,000,000 tonnes.
> Larsen B is one of five ice shelves -- large floating extensions of ice
> sheets covering the continent -- that's been on retreat. While Antarctica's
> interior seems to be cooling and its glaciers thickening, studies show the
> Antarctic Peninsula has been warming over the past 50 years.
Since the article does not quantify any gains at all in any part of
Antarctica, it certainly does not support your claim of a net gain.
No honest person reading and understanding the article would claim
that it does.
--
FF
On Feb 17, 12:36 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >> (what they usually mean is western
> >> civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
> >> industrial nations apparently has no effect).
>
> >Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.
>
> That's an inference, drawn from the fact that the Kyoto Protocol exempts China
> and other developing industrial nations from the restrictions that it imposes
> on Western industrial democracies.
>
IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
scientific
data.
--
FF
On Feb 16, 10:02 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Yes, I do. Weather is transitory, climate is long-term.
>
> Then I would reason the "man" has not been around long enough to affect the
> climate.
You could reach that conclusion, but not by reason.
Reason would require that you evaluate human capacity to
effect the change. Time is only one factor.
--
FF
On Feb 16, 5:05 pm, Mark or Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:35:13 GMT, John Santos
>
> ...
>
>
> >> > As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating
> >> > the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway.
>
> >> Which isn't even close to being on point.
In fact, it's spot on.
>
>
> ... and as far as I know, Eisenhower never made a statement that said,
> "While president, I took the initiative in creating highway systems".
The statement is true, notwithstanding.
--
FF
On Feb 16, 7:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> Because if Mars is warming, it's pretty clearly due to increased solar output;
> if solar output has increased, that would explain warming here too -- in fact,
> it would make warming here pretty much unavoidable.
>
> Or perhaps you're prepared to posit some mechanism by which human activity on
> Earth causes global warming on other planets too?
>
That actually makes sense. For once.
On Feb 16, 11:05 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 17, 12:36 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >> (what they usually mean is western
> >> >> civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
> >> >> industrial nations apparently has no effect).
>
> >> >Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.
>
> >> That's an inference, drawn from the fact that the Kyoto Protocol exempts China
> >> and other developing industrial nations from the restrictions that it imposes
> >> on Western industrial democracies.
>
> >IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
> >scientific
> >data.
>
> WHOOSH! And irony flies right over Fred's head, again.
>
But the point that your criticism is not based on science,
remains valid. Sort of like some of the the folks who criticize
claims that more energy is utilized producing ethanol than
is recovered in use, by arguing that the study was funded
by Big Oil.
--
FF
On Feb 14, 1:02 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Up to my groin in snow.
> Just a few drifts.
> *poke, poke, poke*
> "There's a car in here somewhere..."
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm
GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S.
TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH
Feb. 16, 2007 - The combined global land and ocean surface temperature
was the highest for any January on record, according to scientists at
the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The most
unusually warm conditions were in the mid- and high-latitude land
areas of the Northern Hemisphere. In the contiguous United States, the
monthly mean temperature was near average in January. (Click NOAA
image for larger view of January 2007 global temperature anomalies.
Please credit "NOAA.")
Global Temperatures
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.53
degrees F (0.85 degrees C) warmer than the 20th century average of
53.6 degrees F (12.0 degrees C) for January based on preliminary data,
surpassing the previous record set in 2002 at 1.28 degrees F (0.71
degrees C) above the average. Last month's record was greatly
influenced by a record high land-surface temperature, which was 3.40
degrees F (1.89 degrees C) warmer than average. Separately, the global
ocean-surface temperature was fourth warmest in the 128-year series,
approximately 0.1 degrees F (0.05 degrees C) cooler than the record
established during the very strong El Ni=F1o episode in 1998.
A moderate El Ni=F1o episode that began in September 2006 continued into
January but weakened during the month. The presence of El Ni=F1o, along
with the continuing global warming trend, contributed to the record
warm January. Monthly mean temperatures more than 8 degrees F above
average covered large parts of Eastern Europe and much of Russia, and
temperatures more than 5 degrees F above average were widespread in
Canada. The unusually warm conditions contributed to the 2nd lowest
January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent.
During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at
a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate
of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F
(0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature
increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
U=2ES. Temperatures
The average January temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 31.8
degrees F (-0.1 degrees C), or 0.9 degrees F (0.5 degrees C) above the
20th century average of 30.9 degrees F based on preliminary data. In
the central and eastern U.S., the pattern of spring-like temperatures
that began late December, continued during the first two weeks of the
year. For the month, 29 states were warmer than average east of the
Mississippi River and in the northern High Plains. Alaska also was
warmer than average at 0.9 degrees F above the 1971-2000 mean. (Click
NOAA image for larger view of January 2007 statewide temperature
rankings in the United States. Please credit "NOAA.")
The same upper-level wind pattern responsible for the warmer-than-
average temperatures in the East, brought colder-than-average
temperatures to the southern Plains and much of the West in January.
Hundreds of daily low temperature records were either tied or broken
during a mid-January cold outbreak that extended snowfall as far south
as Arizona and southern California. Below-average temperatures had
spread across much of the country by the end of the month.
The warmer-than-average temperatures in the eastern half of the nation
helped reduce residential energy needs for the nation as a whole.
Using the Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index (REDTI-an index
developed at NOAA to relate energy usage to climate), NOAA scientists
determined that the nation's residential energy demand was
approximately 3 percent lower than what would have occurred under
average climate conditions for the month. This was much less than the
estimated 20 percent temperature-related reduction in residential
energy demand that occurred during the record warm January last year.
U=2ES. Precipitation
January 2007 precipitation for the contiguous U.S. was near average,
with sharply contrasting conditions across the country. Near-average
to drier-than-average conditions occurred along much of the East
Coast, Southeast, Upper Midwest and the northern High Plains to the
Pacific Northwest. Precipitation was above average from southern Texas
and New Mexico to the Midwest and parts of the Northeast, while much-
drier-than-average conditions were present in parts of the
Intermountain West and California. (Click NOAA image for larger view
of January 2007 statewide precipitation rankings in the United States.
Please credit "NOAA.")
A series of snow and ice storms struck the central U.S. in January,
with severe winter weather as far south as San Antonio and Houston.
Three winter storms affected Oklahoma City. For much of the
mountainous West, below-average seasonal snowfall totals persisted.
Snowpack was below average throughout most of the West through early
February, with only portions of the Northern Cascades and the Front
Range of the Rockies in Colorado and New Mexico above average.
Snowpack that normally builds during the winter is an important source
of water for the western U.S., as spring and summer snow melt flows
into reservoirs throughout the region. NOAA scientists caution that if
rain and snow patterns don't change soon, more areas of the West could
face below-average water supplies this year, despite the fact that
reservoirs in the Northwest and California continue to benefit from
more snow than average last year.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, drought covered 25 percent of
the contiguous U.S. at the end of January. The most severe conditions
were in areas of southern Texas, Wyoming, the western High Plains and
northern Minnesota.
NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200
years of science and service to the nation. From the establishment of
the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the formation
of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries in the
1870s, much of America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA. NOAA
is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety
through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related
events and information service delivery for transportation, and by
providing environmental stewardship of the nation's coastal and marine
resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than
60 countries and the European Commission to develop a global
monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes,
predicts and protects.
On Feb 17, 12:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 14, 1:02 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Up to my groin in snow.
> > Just a few drifts.
> > *poke, poke, poke*
> > "There's a car in here somewhere..."
>
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm
>
> GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S.
> TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH
>
..and how will that help me find my car?
I had NO idea that this would trigger such an avalanche of responses.
But, as with every thread which explodes, a nugget pops out which wins
the thread.
This is the winner:
>I see little
>difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and using
>fuel burned ten feet away.
On the left, our sun, source of all life on earth, on the right a
Kawaswaki weed-whacker.
Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
Little difference.... other than the fact that I can turn off the weed-
whacker.
*bangs head on desk*
r
On Feb 17, 12:30 pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)
The Canuckistani Space Exploration program suggested we send some of
our astronauts to the sun. So we wouldn't burn up, we'd go at night.
>
> Hope you find your car.
Thanks
The remote starter helped me find it.
r
On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
> being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
> people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to.
How? But first you need to define 'scientific orthodoxy' (one
of your favorite terms) and explain how it is established.
>The models
> are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
> a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
> is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
> of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
> just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
> thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.
Would not a vigorous debate in serious scientific circles
HELP to raise more funding? Who is going to fund
a program to study something that is already well-
established?
>
> > And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
> > cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
> > Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
>
> The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
> oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.
Who has the money to fund the politicians who budget the
government research?
>
> > Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
> > scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
> > argument is completely invalid.
>
> No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
> has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there
> remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
> but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
> how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.
In the absence of publication, how did you establish
the existence of significant debate among serious
scientists?
> And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
> far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
> administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
> bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
> among he earth worshipers.
>
Gore has''t run for office since 2000 and plainly has
no plans to ever run again. If he has ulterior motives for
what he is promoting, what are they?
--
FF
On Feb 17, 2:39 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And now we see the fundamental problem with the solar or nothing
> loons.
Where did I say 'solar or nothing'?
>They don't grasp that regardless of where the energy comes
> from some resource is being used up to provide it.
Used up...as in.. when I heat my pool with a solar heater, the sun
will glow dimmer?
>The energy that
> that Kawasaki uses came from "our sun, source of all life on earth"
> (actually that's hardly true), it's just stored in a convenient form.
If that isn't true, where _did_ it come from, directly or indirectly?
And drilling thousands of feet in some cases, to fetch this energy is
hardly 'convenient', especially when you include the transportation,
refining, and further distribution. Speaking of loons, I didn't even
touch on the geopolitical/military consequences to the fetching of
this convenient source. Nor did I touch on the noise and the stink of
this convenient form.
r
On Feb 17, 11:55 am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 11:05 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >On Feb 17, 12:36 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> C'mon folks, we've beaten this topic to death. Nobody is changing anyone
> else's mind any more, if ever. Let's drop it.
>
But the Earth is poised to kill us all with a giant fart bubble:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/energy%20punctuation%20marks%20morrison.htm#Figure%2014:%20Abyssal%20Hydrates%20Collapse
(Who says I don't have a sense of humor?)
--
FF
On Feb 17, 7:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >> No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
> >> being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
> >> people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to.
>
> > How?
>
> Because its easier to get funding that way.
>
> > But first you need to define 'scientific orthodoxy' (one
>
> > of your favorite terms) and explain how it is established.
>
> We've been down this road before, you and I.
As I recall, you didn't define it then either.
> ...
>
> > In the absence of publication, how did you establish
> > the existence of significant debate among serious
> > scientists?
>
> By listening to dissenting scientific voices elsewhere.
Such as?
> These are well documented.
Please point us to that documentation.
> Serious climatologists have spoken vigorously in opposition to today's overstated
> certainty about causes, severity, and results of GW and have been shunned from
> overtly political tomes like the IPCC through more serious peer-reviewed
> journals. The absence of journal presence does not imply the absence of
> dissent, merely the inability to get the dissent aired in an open way.
> DAGS if you really don't believe there are serious opposing voices.
DAGS on variation of the solar constant. You'll find an awful lot
of work is being funded and published, contrary to your assertions
of repression.
> > Gore has''t run for office since 2000 and plainly has
> > no plans to ever run again. If he has ulterior motives for
>
> You are seriously kidding yourself. He is drooling the shadows waiting for
> Mrs. Bill and Barak Obama to eviscerate each other in the primaries and then
> wants to ride in as a "healing candidate" to "save" the libs.
>
More conspiracy nonsense.
--
FF
On Feb 18, 6:04 am, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:32:14 +0000 (UTC),
>
> [email protected] (Larry) wrote:
> >Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
> >care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for> >affirming or denying global warming?
>
> I don't know many scientists, so it's a wild-assed guess.
>
> But could it have something to do with a scientist studying something
> like global warming depends on government funds for grants to pursue
> their research, and somebody has a politically motivated say on who
> gets that money and who does not? Even without overt pressure, I
> could imagine some unconcious skewing in the data to help ensure next
> year's grants.
You would have a strong argument if climatologists
studied global warming. They do not. They study climate
and climate change. Global warming is a conclusion
culled from that study.
Climate would still be studied even if the conclusions
were more mundane.
Surely there is a tendency for a scientist to hype the
importance of his work, he/she HAS to 'hype' it as a
routine part of the grant proposal process. So you do
have an argument in that respect.
For a scientist to bias his results in order to obtain
more funding is a different matter. That would be
like a doctor faking test results in order to treat
a patient for the wrong illness.
Unconscious bias is always a concern, indeed,
in science the word bias is defined broadly, to
include all systematic effects, known and unknown,
that confound a conclusion. We certainly have
seen 'epidemics' of caesarian sections and
multiple personality disorder sweep through
the medical industry. But historically we
have also seen scientists criticized for hyping
the dangers of smoking, silicosis, nonsterile
surgical conditions, hiv/aids, and for promoting
fluoridation, immunization, and pollution
abatement.
What separates the grain from the chaff? Left to
to its work, science does.
One of the most 'popular' alternatives to anthropogenic
causes that is suggested for global climate change
is variation in the solar constant. Even a casual
web search shows that research in that area is
funded and published. No fewer than five (5)
satellites have contributed to the data base.
I agree that one should regard with skepticism
a scientist who hypes global warming, but the
same skepticism should be applied to equally
vocal people who hype the opposite. Fund the
vast quiet (not silent, but quiet) majority and they
will do the hard work to sort things out.
--
FF
On Feb 21, 2:39 am, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>
> >> Does your newsreader support threading?
>
> > Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
> > doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
>
> I call 'malarky'.
>
> "Read and delete" is not normal behavior. The first problem with it is
> that it immediately kills -any- hope of useful threading. Among other
> things, this leaves you vulnerable to folks like myself who, innocently
> enough, figure that you either have a good memory or, failing that,
> written records. To have a full participation on Usenet, you really need
> one or the other.
That is one of many reasons why I prefer the Google interface to any
newsreader.
However, there is still no excuse for not quoting sufficient material
or summarizing it, to establish the context of your own remarks.
Consider, for instance, that many times more than one issue
will be addressed in the preceding article. It is clear to you
what parts you are addressing, but not necessarily any one
else.
It is just a matter of that all too uncommon commodity, common
courtesy.
> One nice thing about having the written records is that I am sometimes
> able to make a useful contribution to a long-dead thread. ...
Yet another reason why I like Google.
>
> I won't be held accountable for reading your mind. Either arrange to use
> a better set-up newsreader or accept that you won't be able to follow
> some of my postings. With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
> reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
> quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.
>
Ordering other people to compensate for your lack of nettiquette
is one clear way to flag yourself as a road hog on the information
superhighway.
--
FF
On Feb 21, 2:39 am, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[snoipped for brevity]
>To have a full participation on Usenet, you really need
> one or the other. After all, how can you hold a grudge if you can't
> remember who you are mad at and can't look it up, either?
LOL...thanks for that. I needed a good laugh.
r
On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
> >>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
> >>>he holds them outside the country.
>
> >> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
> >> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>
> >I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.
>
> There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
> individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
> "saboteurs".
And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
to determine their status.
>
> > In the first
> >case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
> >Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
> >criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
>
> And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's been
> the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.
Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
execution of accused spies has been prohibitted internationally
since at least the Hague Conventions early int eh 20th century.
ISTR that I have pointed this out to you before, even
citing the relevant documents.
Thus for a couple of hundred years now people
in general have accepted the basic truth that
the notion that "some people don't have a right
to trial" in fundamentally illogical as, absent trial
it is not possible to determine who is or is not
disqualified. It would appear that logic escapes
you.
>
>
>
> >But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
> >combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
> >I'm saying.
>
> That's a little over the top (and I think you know that, really). There is NO
> assumption that "anyone" can be declared an enemy combatant, except on your
> part. If you want to ensure that you're not regarded as an enemy combatant,
> then don't behave like one; i.e., don't carry arms on a battlefield involving
> U.S. military personnel while wearing civilian clothing, don't carry bombs in
> the trunk of your car or in your shoes, etc.
>
The ssue is how does the US determine who has
or has not engaged in an act of perfidy.
Bush simply declared that all captives in Afghanistan,
had done so. That was morally, legally, and inexcusibly
wrong,
--
FF
On Feb 16, 12:38 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
> ...
>
> Now all you have to do is:
>
> a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date).
>
To the contrary, the contribution of CO2 to
the green house effect is well-established.
To prove that raising the concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere will not cause global warming,
would require that you disprove the established
spectroscopic properties of the common atmospheric
gases, or that you disprove conservation of energy.
Either of those, might earn you a Nobel prize.
At issue is what other factors affect global climate
change and how. The notion that it is 'unproven'
that CO2 does, is just plain asinine.
--
FF
On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
>
> ....
>
> >I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.
>
> There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
> individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
> "saboteurs".
>
> > In the first
> >case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
> >Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
> >criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
>
> And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's been
> the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.
>
Cite please.
--
FF
On Feb 24, 12:22 am, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > You're missing the point very badly. The point is that your newsreader is
> > including that context -- and then *you* are snipping it before you post.
>
> > Now -- to drive the point home -- let's see you reply to this message, WITHOUT
> > doing anything else, just click 'reply to' like you said -- and restore the
> > text that I snipped.
>
> There is no need for that. If I so desire, I can review the prior posts
> .. as you should also be able to do.
>
He cannot if the previous article never made it to
his server. You just do not understand how NNTP
servers operate. UseNet is not a bulletin board.
There is no guarantee that two people downloading
from different servers will have access to the same
articles, or even the same newsgroups.
AFAIK, there are no longer any UseNet servers
that rely on mailed tapes to exchange articles with
other servers but there is still propagation delay and
we also have blacklists now.
You seem to think that everyone has exactly
the same resources as you do, or worse,
that those who do not, are not deserving of
even a modicum of courtesy.
--
FF
On Feb 24, 12:37 am, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> now I am done with this thread.
>
Meaning, I presume, that you still have no regard for
what anyone else has to say.
--
FF
Or we could all top-post as that would have much the same effect.
--
FF
On Feb 24, 2:34 pm, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> writes:
> >D Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> >> He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me about
> >> them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed again (with
> >> effort, probably minimal).
> >The human effort to refetch articles already read isn't large, but in this
> >newsgroup, with the number of postings, fetching EVERY article, and
> >applying the killfile filters does take time - several minutes.
>
> In my newsreader, a few keystrokes to get all the article headers for
> the current subject, or for a particular author. Yes, not much, but as you
> point out, it does take time.
>
> On the other hand, if *everyone* began posting with no included
> context, forcing readers to refetch articles by thread to discover what is
> being discussed, the forum would become so useless that nobody would read
> it and the number of posting per day would drop significantly. That would
> solve the problem, wouldn't it? ;-)
On Feb 16, 11:13 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon.
> >>> They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
>
> >> Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
> >> Right. I got it.
>
> >Nope--the Ice ages were a comparatively recent phenomenon, geologically
> >speaking.
>
> The fact that they're a *recent* (geologically speaking) cyclical phenomenon
> does not alter their cyclical nature.
>
Indeed.
Nor does observation of past cycles imply a continuation of
those same cycles.
--
FF
On Feb 15, 5:52 pm, "celticsoc" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 4:57?pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > All right guys, settle down. ?The experts have said we have global
> > > warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> > I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>
> > The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
> > Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
> > general. ?So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
> > winters.
>
> > Chris
>
> The concept was recently amended to "climatechange". Probably due to
> the fact there was an ice age preicted 30yearsago, and when the
> evidence started to point in a different direction, they went with
> "global warming".
Global warming was predicted 30 years ago.
If you look hard enough, you probably can find someone
who still predicts an impending ice age.
> Now they have come to the realization that they
> can't really predict such things, and the pendulum might swing again.
> Therefore, they need an all-encompassing term for their fear-
> mongering.
>
"They" are not all of like mind. Such generalities are,
in general, not useful.
> The problem I have is that there seems ot be a general objective
> consensus that temperatures may be rising, but there is far from a
> consensus on cause, particularly in light of the fact that the earth's
> history has shown repeated episodes ofclimateextremes with no
> possibility of human intervention. Yet we are supposed to
> dramaticallychangethe way we operate in the US while other countries
> are not going to be bound by the same constraints.
>
Causality needs to be understood before one can have
confidence in predictions.
--
FF
On Feb 15, 9:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> DouginUtah wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
> in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming.
That statement is wrong. The spectral characteristics
of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are well understood.
OTHER factors that affect climate change are not as well
understood. It is whence the uncertainties exist.
The macro trend
> for warming has been positive since the last ice age - well before industrial
> CO2 production amplified the rate of injection into the carboncycle. Is it
> worth studying? Sure. But it's also worth noting that the geophysical history
> of the planet suggest far HIGHER CO2 maximums in geologic history than we see today -
> and correspondingly good environmental health at the same time.
>
While I don;t argue against studying those correlations,
doing so is no substitute for understanding causality.
--
FF
On Feb 15, 3:54 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2007 18:02:03 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >That one year is warmer or cooler than the next is irrelevent; it's
> >about the historical trend.
> >See the graph at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> >Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>
Far more important:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory
While it is difficult to estimate how much CO2 nature
produces and recovers each year it is not difficult
to predict how much CO2 is produced by humanity
each year. Fossil fuel production is sufficiently important
to the world's economy that good estimates are
available. It is reasonable to suppose that annual
burning is pretty much equal to annual use.
The observed rate of rise of CO2 is less than the
total human contribution. This shows, pretty conclusively,
that nature can recover all of the naturally produced
CO2 and some of the anthropogenic.
The spectral characteristics of CO2 are well understood,
so it is clear that absent other factors the Earth's
temperature will rise.
Two other factors that are well studied, but not as
well studied include variation in the solar constant,
and dispersion of particulates and ice crystals in
the stratosphere, primarily by jetliners.
>
> Several obvious questions:
> 1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like
> urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?
>
> 2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or
> simply statistical "noise"?
>
> 3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those
> temperatures during the late 19'th century?
>
> 4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored
> because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?
>
> ... and of course the most obvious issue, this is a small snapshop of 150
> years. That is a relatively small snapshot in time. Small rises in
> temperature such as this, neglecting the likely urban heat sink local
> warming issues, are very likely due tosolarcycles that have nothing to do
> with human causes.
>
Indications are that the solar constant is either not
changing or slightly increasing. But atmospheric
particulates and ice particles have increased
dramatically over the last 50 years (just look at
a satellite picture of a 'clear day'. That should
drive global temperture down.
Additionally, water and ice provide a strong buffering
effect so that ANY change is going to be slower than
would be expected if the atmosphere alone were
heating or cooling.
So it looks like we've been driving the temperature
BOTH ways.
I don't have any confidence in the temperature time
series, but it does look like the Earth's ice inventory
has been dropping fast and THAT is strong evidence
that the heating effects are, for now, winning out.
For something truly scary, read up on ocean clathrates
and the methane gun hypothesis. Extermination by
a giant Gaia fart, what a way to go.
--
FF
On Feb 17, 9:11 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 12:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >On Feb 15, 8:23 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:> >> >> 5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the
> >> >> recently observed shrinkage of thepolaricecapson ***MARS*** ?
>
> >> >> That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the
> > Earth
> >> >> is warming due to human activity.
>
> >> >Why?
>
> >> Because ifMarsis warming, it's pretty clearly due to increased solar
> > output;
> >> if solar output has increased, that would explain warming here too -- in
> > fact,
> >> it would make warming here pretty much unavoidable.
>
> >> Or perhaps you're prepared to posit some mechanism by which human activity on
> >> Earth causes global warming on other planets too?
>
> >The solar output as measured near the Earth has been decreasing
> >during the same period as when warming was observed onMars.
>
> Source for that statement? I think that's incorrect.
Sure, in fact I did this several days ago but it appears the
posting failed. Are you, by any chance, an electrical or
electronics engineer?
First though, let's consider a little sense. Regardiing
Martian warming you wrote:
"That, alone, is more than enough to discount
the entire notion that the Earth is warming due
to human activity.
... Because if Mars is warming, it's pretty clearly
due to increased solar output; if solar output has
increased, that would explain warming here too
-- in fact, it would make warming here pretty much
unavoidable."
To be confident in those statements you would have
to KNOW:
1) The solar constant is increasing.
and
2) NO other factors affect warming on either
the Earth or Mars.
Back to facts.
Have you heard of the eleven year solar cycle?
The last solar max was in 2000-2001, we are
now near solar minimum. It is over that same
period that Martian warming was observed.
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=102
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html
The studies I have found put an upper limit of about
+0.1 W/sqm on any change in the solar constant over
the last 30 years which is calculated to have at most,
one quarter of the effect of the increased CO2 over the
same period.
Have you found anything that estimates it as
being higher? OH, I forgot for a minute, you
don't believe in citing sources.
>
> >Would you agree that the great Martian Dust Storm of 1971 was
> >not anthropogenic?
>
> Of course. Would you agree that a dust storm that occurred 36 years ago is not
> relevant to changes in Martian climate that are occurring now?
No. Dust storms are an important feature of the
Martian climate:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast16jul_1.htm
Long-term climate change is influenced by variation
in the alignment of the solstices, between the polar
axis of the planet and the semi-major axis of its orbit
and the orbital eccentricity.
For Mars, those effects are all
much larger than for the Earth, and obviously
quite independent. Mars also has a thinner atmos-
phere and lacks the Earth's oceans so it does not
benefit from the buffering effect of each.
These days here on the Earth the summer solstice is
near apohelion, which minimizes Northern Hemisphere
heating during the Northern Summer. Thus summer
in the Southern Hemisphere is shorter. IOW we
are in a period of minimal climate forcing due to
orbital considerations. I dunno about Mars.
Why don't you check and get back to us?
>
> >Or perhaps you're prepared to posit that the Earth andMarscan
> >have similar trends for entirely different reasons?
>
> Or perhaps you're just a hypocrite who wants to have it both ways. Here's your
> position, summed up in two sentences:
>
> Earth gets warmer at the same time human industrial activity increases --
> cause and effect.Marsgets warmer at the same time Earth does -- coincidence.
>
False.
OTOH, your approach appears to be based on
steadfastly avoiding any effort to educate yourself.
--
FF
On Mar 1, 6:11 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...
>
> These days here on the Earth the summer solstice is
> near apohelion, which minimizes Northern Hemisphere
> heating during the Northern Summer.
Sorry, minimal seasonal variation in insolation occurs when the
equinoxes, not the solstices, are coincident with apo- and
perihelion.
So we are near a maximum, not a minimum. The last maximum
was around the end of the last ice age and we've had one
minimum roughly halfway between then and now, demonstrating
that large scale variation of the Earth's climate are not caused
(at least not soley) by those effects.
--
FF
On Mar 2, 11:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 6:11 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> ...
> So we are near a maximum, not a minimum. The last maximum
> was around the end of the last ice age and we've had one
> minimum roughly halfway between then and now, demonstrating
> that large scale variation of the Earth's climate are not caused
> (at least not soley) by those effects.
>
And, long-term climate change on the Earth is
driven by or at least heavily influenced by
long-term changes in eccentricity and obliquity.
That is over periods of time greater than the
precessional period:
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050330_earth_tilt.html
http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/milankovitch-cycles
Those are cyclical effects with periods of several tens
to a couple of hundred thousands of years.
The global warming being modeled based on the observed
change in CO2 concentration is a much shorter-term
phenomenon, over a period of a couple of hundred
years, superimposed on those long-term effects.
--
FF
On Feb 17, 3:00 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 17, 1:08 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> Earlier,Leonwrote:
>
> "Since 1999 it [the Earth, FF] has been
> cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by
> over 10% in the past few years. "
>
> and I replied"
>
> > > I'd like you to show some support for either statement.
>
> > > Here are some photos showing a buttload of ice lost from Antarctica
> > > in 2002:
>
> > >http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/mar/antarctica/
>
> > > If there has been a gain since, it is doubtful that it has made up f
> > > or what was lost.
>
> ...
>
> > Ok, you provided that support with your link.
And I pointed out that wasn't so, concluding:
>
> Since the article does not quantify any gains at all in any part of
> Antarctica, it certainly does not support your claim of a net gain.
>
> No honest person reading and understanding the article would claim
> that it does.
>
However, if I am reading the abstract of this paper correctly,
(Note it is in .pdf format)
http://www.igsoc.org/news/pressreleases/Zwally509.pdf
There was a net gain of ice in both Antarctica and Greenland
over the period of the study, 1992 - 2002. Averaged over that
ten year period the gain was 27 billion tons per year (Gt/a).
The net gain in Greenland was due to a gain in the interior
despite a loss at the margins. In Antarctica there was a net
loss on land net gain in sea ice.
I don't know if that data includes the March, 2002 collapse of
the Larsen B ice shelf, which was a loss of about 500 Gt.
I'll check with one of the authors to see.
I've also found a lot of information indicating net losses of ice
in the Arctic, and a net loss in the world's glaciers, but
information
on the former is not easily converted to net mass so I'm still not
clear on the recent net change, if any, in the global ice inventory.
--
FF
On Mar 8, 7:56 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >I've also found a lot of information indicating net losses of ice
> >in the Arctic, and a net loss in the world's glaciers, but
> >information
> >on the former is not easily converted to net mass so I'm still not
> >clear on the recent net change, if any, in the global ice inventory.
>
> It's worth noting that, whatever the effects of loss of ice in the north polar
> cap may be, rising sea level is *not* among them: the north polar cap is
> floating, and melting all of it won't affect sea level.
Not entirely correct because the meltwater is freshwater that is less
dense than the seawater displaced by the ice. But you are correct
in that effect is very small compared to the effect of an equal mass
of ice melting on land.
It is also worth noting that I used the term "sea ice" incorrectly.
By definitions, an ice sheet is on land, an ice shelf is ice that has
moved out onto water from a glacier or an ice sheet, and sea ice
forms on water by freezing or precipitation. The Arctic ice cap is
all or nearly all sea ice. Antarctica has all three.
>
> The south polar cap is an entirely different story. Some Antarctic ice is
> floating; some of it is on land, above sea level; and some of it is on land
> *below* sea level -- that is, it's in the ocean and resting on the ocean
> floor. Melting of ice in this last category will cause sea level to *drop*.
Does the ice in that category extend from the ocean floor to some not
insignificant height above mean sea level?
>
> Whether sea levels will rise or fall in response to melting polar ice caps
> depends on the relative proportion of submarine Antarctic ice to land-based
> ice in Antartica and Greenland.
>
> I've not been able to find data indicating what that proportion is.
>
Keep in mind also that if you reduce an ice shelf, the associated ice
sheet accelerates toward the sea.
My interest is not in estimating sea level change, but in estimating
the energy gained or lost by the phase change. That is to say,
isothermal warming or cooling.
--
FF
On Mar 8, 4:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>I've also found a lot of information indicating net losses of ice
> >>in the Arctic, and a net loss in the world's glaciers, but
> >>information
> >>on the former is not easily converted to net mass so I'm still not
> >>clear on the recent net change, if any, in the global ice inventory.
>
> > It's worth noting that, whatever the effects of loss of ice in the north polar
> > cap may be, rising sea level is *not* among them: the north polar cap is
> > floating, and melting all of it won't affect sea level.
>
> > The south polar cap is an entirely different story. Some Antarctic ice is
> > floating; some of it is on land, above sea level; and some of it is on land
> > *below* sea level -- that is, it's in the ocean and resting on the ocean
> > floor. Melting of ice in this last category will cause sea level to *drop*.
>
> > Whether sea levels will rise or fall in response to melting polar ice caps
> > depends on the relative proportion of submarine Antarctic ice to land-based
> > ice in Antartica and Greenland.
>
> > I've not been able to find data indicating what that proportion is.
>
> So the only ice that, if melted, would raise the sea level is ice
> resting on land masses.
Pretty much so.
> When one subtracts out ice on or in the ocean,
> how much ice is left, and where is it?
I think addressing that question is part of the ICESAT mission:
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/intro.html
> Also, that's the air temperature
> over the land-based ice?
Variable, of course.
> Because if the temperature is 20 degrees F,
> and global warming raised the temperature to 22, or even 25 degrees F,
> it still isn't going to melt.
And let's suppose the prevailing wind blows form west to east
across someplace like Greenland. If the west coast warms
a bit and melts a bit faster that could increase the local humidity
so that the air moving across it sees evaporative cooling and then
more cooling as it rises across the still below-freezing interior.
The result would be a transfer of ice from the coast to the
interior with no net loss and maybe even a short-term net gain
in total ice.
I think that sort of mechanism is the basis for some of the global
warming predictions of greater snow and ice accumulations in some
places.
Regardless, energy is conserved. If the Earth is warming there will
be lat least ONE of the following: less ice and snow, more humidity
or something will have a higher temperature. There is no intrinsic
reason why one or two of those could not remain stable or go the
other way, so long as the other(s) compensated.
The data in the paper I mentioned does not include Antarctic data
past the Spring of 2001. It also excludes some Antarctic ice that
does not affect, directly or indirectly, sea level as the focus of the
paper was on sea level change. Note that ice shelves do not
directly affect sea level but they do influence their associated
ice sheets that do affect sea level.
So if Leon was recollecting a net increase in Antarctic ice and snow
prior to 2002 or a recent increase in precipitation in the interior he
may well be right. That doesn't tell us about net global change,
one way or the other.
--
FF
On Mar 9, 8:06 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Mar 8, 7:56 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> It's worth noting that, whatever the effects of loss of ice in the north polar
> >> cap may be, rising sea level is *not* among them: the north polar cap is
> >> floating, and melting all of it won't affect sea level.
>
> >Not entirely correct because the meltwater is freshwater that is less
> >dense than the seawater displaced by the ice. But you are correct
> >in that effect is very small compared to the effect of an equal mass
> >of ice melting on land.
>
> The difference in density between the meltwater and the ocean water won't
> amount to a hill of beans. Yes, ocean water is more dense (by 2.7%), but
> there's also a whole lot more of it, too, and the fresh water isn't going to
> just lay there on top of it, either. Once it's mixed in, there won't be a
> noticeable effect.
I don't think it matters whether the water molecules are
all in one blob or distributed over the entire ocean. So
the effect would be 2.7% of the volume of the meltwater
which we agree is not significant.
> ...
>
> >> The south polar cap is an entirely different story. Some Antarctic ice is
> >> floating; some of it is on land, above sea level; and some of it is on land
> >> *below* sea level -- that is, it's in the ocean and resting on the ocean
> >> floor. Melting of ice in this last category will cause sea level to *drop*.
>
> >Does the ice in that category extend from the ocean floor to some not
> >insignificant height above mean sea level?
>
> If it does, I can't find any indication of it in either of my world atlases.
>
NASA probably has the data. Unfortunately net-vandals have forced
NASA into computer security practices that make it harder to get
the data out of the Distributed Data Archives free access to which
NASA was trying to provide to the world. It is hard to overestimate
the damage done to the world by spammers, crackers, and other
net-vandals.
>
> ...
>
> >My interest is not in estimating sea level change, but in estimating
> >the energy gained or lost by the phase change. That is to say,
> >isothermal warming or cooling.
>
> Hmmmm.... now that's an interesting thought. Hadn't considered that
> perspective. Certainly, the ice absorbs heat as it melts -- a lot of heat (80
> calories per gram) -- whether that's significant on a planetary scale may be a
> different matter.
>
I think that a comparison with how much the air temperature would
rise or fall if all of the heat were lost or absorbed by the air alone
might
be instructive.
Of course the latent heat of evaporation and the high heat capacity
of water overwhelms that. Small global changes in humidity or ocean
temperature absorb or emit huge amounts of heat. That is a real good
thing as it provides us with stability. It also make it devilishly
difficult
to tell if the Earth is warming or cooling and at what rate, without
very long observation, unless the rate is dangerously large.
--
FF
On Mar 9, 1:21 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Of course the latent heat of evaporation and the high heat capacity
> > of water overwhelms that. Small global changes in humidity or ocean
> > temperature absorb or emit huge amounts of heat. That is a real good
> > thing as it provides us with stability. It also make it devilishly
> > difficult to tell if the Earth is warming or cooling and at what rate,
>
> > without very long observation, unless the rate is dangerously large.
>
>
>
> I suspect it also oretty much drowns out the effect of minute changes in
> atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Depends what you mean by drown out.
Minute changes in CO2 would only have a minute
effect in the first place.
Those aformentioned phenomena do not change
the rates at which the Earth absorbs or emits energy.
So they don't nullify the effect of changes in
those rates regardless of what causes those changes,
Milininkov cycles, solar variation, volcanism, asteroid
impact, variations in the concentration of Greenhouse
gases etc.
They slow the effect of those changes. If the small
observed variation in insolation causes an observable
change then certainly the much larger variation in
CO2 concentration will too--unless the net effect of
those two is offset by yet another changing parameter
like global dimming form stratospheric particulates and
ice crystals.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
winters.
Chris
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:00:35 -0600, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
>>>> it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
>>>> millions of people and billions of dollars in property.
>>>>
>>> But will it warm us tomorrow?
>>
>> So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed
>> to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything
>> right and has been known to do some things for political expediency --
>> this appears to be one of them.
>>
>
>Shrub sucking up to the left.
>Right.
>
Wow, you haven't seen evidence of that? And you call the members of the
right narrow-minded and unable to see the obvious?
Let's see, just a couple of examples, one recent, one not so recent:
1. Let Teddy Kennedy write the education bill early in Bush's presidency.
Teddy ain't exactly John Birch society material. Sucking up to the left?
Absolutely, since Bush was readily willing to chuck one of the pillars of
his original plan -- school choice in the name of "bipartisanship"
2. When John Murtha made his traitorous statements yesterday regarding the
attempt to assure the defeat of our troops, as well as the "non-binding"
resolution demonstrating to the terrorists our country's divided house and
that some are willing to surrender to the terrorists, all that the White
House could come up with was Tony Snow's comment to the press, saying the
administration does not doubt Congress' patriotism but cautioned against
denying funding to the military effort. That is hardly the makings of a
strong stand against the left and closer to sucking up to them.
Other examples abound, including stands on the border and willingess to
accept numerous other leftist domestic plans. Signing that egregious
violation of the first amendment (campaign finance reform bill) serves as
another example.
>No doubt he was softening them up to give him $225 billion more for that
>sinkhole of a war.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Robatoy wrote:
> Up to my groin in snow.
> Just a few drifts.
> *poke, poke, poke*
> "There's a car in here somewhere..."
>
OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn
Joe Bleau wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
>>you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>>the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>>melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>>Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>> luck to all,
>> jo4hn
>
>
> It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>
> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
> with spotted owls.
>
> Joe
Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn
Steve wrote:
> Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
> show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
> a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
I was going to stay out of this off-topic argument, but the above is pure BS.
Where were your hundreds of dissenters at the recent global warming
conference? I suspect you've got the ratios reversed.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Bob Schmall wrote:
> Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush
> to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who
> support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal
> advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be
> trusted on any issue.
That's exactly what the "righteous right" would have us believe :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down
J. Clarke wrote:
> Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here
> after all.
>
For now. Stephen Hawkings has suggested that we need to get busy on that
colonization stuff.
But ... what does he know? he's just some school teacher in a wheel chair.
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000714-2, 02/16/2007
Tested on: 2/17/2007 1:14:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Doug Miller wrote:
> And by that definition, global warming is not science.
>
No. The facts CAN be proven ... it's the conclusions that are still at
issue.
We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
opportunity to alter those conclusions.
And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough
to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will
be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and
India look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through
its coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps
even move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars
to secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar
sums in obsoleting those fuels.
Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
there, would it make sense to use this one up?
Then why push the envelope on what this planet can recover from?
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000714-2, 02/16/2007
Tested on: 2/17/2007 1:30:50 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:05 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 17, 12:36 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> [email protected] wrote:
C'mon folks, we've beaten this topic to death. Nobody is changing anyone
else's mind any more, if ever. Let's drop it.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Doug Miller wrote:
> What conclusions do *you* draw from that?
>
I can't speak for Fred, but it looks like 'politics as usual' to me.
What conclusion do -you- draw from it?
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:45:44 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
>Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
>the United States...".
You seem to be ignoring that pesky "§ 948d. Jurisdiction of military
commissions
(a) JURISDICTION.A military commission under this chapter
shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this
chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful
enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001."
Note that pesky word "alien", which is defined in the act as
"ALIEN.The term alien means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States."
You are also ignoring that pesky "subject to this chapter", as in "Any
person ****subject to this chapter***** who, in breach of an
allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally
aids an enemy
of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy,
shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter
may direct."
I find it interesting that you excised "subject to this chapter" in
your version of that statement. "Any person subject to this chapter"
is quite different from "any person".
Sorry, but the jurisdiction of military commissions clearly does not
extend to US citizens.
The full text of the bill as signed may be found at
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf>.
>
>Renata
>
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:17:56 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>The assertion that "Bush can hold anyone (including US citizens)" is
>>incorrect. The law in question is the "military commissions act" and
>>it explicitly _excludes_ US citizens. The assertions to the contrary
>>are based on a very early draft of the legislation, not on the final
>>version that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the
>>President.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)
>
> Hope you find your car.
>
Wouldn't do any good, Morris. The people on the other side (bottom) of
the earth would only turn it back on again and you KNOW that turning it
on and off too often is what causes them to burn out.
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:20:10 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:59:51 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:45:44 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
>>>Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
>>>the United States...".
>>
>-snip-
>>. "Any person subject to this chapter"
>>is quite different from "any person".
>>
>>Sorry, but the jurisdiction of military commissions clearly does not
>>extend to US citizens.
>>
>>The full text of the bill as signed may be found at
>><http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf>.
>>
>>>
>Perhaps you should have a chat with Mr. Padilla.
Perhaps you should have a chat with a calendar.
Andrew Barss wrote:
> J. Clarke has a pretty peculiar picture of how science
> writing, reviewing, and publishing works.
>
> -- Andy Barss
Your posting is not the only one where he apparently chooses to
'misunderstand' what is otherwise plainly the intent of a writer. -I-
understood that you were referring to a double-blind review (and I don't
HAVE an engineering degree to dust off).
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>>
>> Does your newsreader support threading?
>>
> Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
> doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
>
I call 'malarky'.
"Read and delete" is not normal behavior. The first problem with it is
that it immediately kills -any- hope of useful threading. Among other
things, this leaves you vulnerable to folks like myself who, innocently
enough, figure that you either have a good memory or, failing that,
written records. To have a full participation on Usenet, you really need
one or the other. After all, how can you hold a grudge if you can't
remember who you are mad at and can't look it up, either?
Just for the record: I have written records. I deliberately cultivate a
short memory regarding most of the things people say. Poverty has
overtaken me and I can no longer afford to feed a grudge.
One nice thing about having the written records is that I am sometimes
able to make a useful contribution to a long-dead thread. That bumps it
up to the active pile again and the new information is presented along
with the older information for context and review. It's a good thing ...
but, according to what you have posted on this topic thus far, the
settings on your newsreader absolutely prevent you from contributing in
that manner. Apparently you are prevented from placing the new
information in context since the older, previously read, messages remain
read ... and forever lost to you.
So you get a data points that just sort of float by unconnected and out
of context? That is not what is meant by threading.
> It's also pretty much normal behavior, when following up an article, to quote
> enough of it that other people know what you're talking about.
>
I've already addressed that above.
I won't be held accountable for reading your mind. Either arrange to use
a better set-up newsreader or accept that you won't be able to follow
some of my postings. With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000715-0, 02/20/2007
Tested on: 2/21/2007 2:40:01 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Doug Miller wrote:
>>With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
>>reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
>>quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.
>
> Suit yourself. Most folks quote enough of the message that they're
> responding to that their readers don't need to go digging through previous
> messages to see what they meant. It's simple courtesy to avoid imposing this
> inconvenience on others.
I agree. I may or may not remember the original post when a new message comes
in - often many days after the original.
BTW Doug, you and I may disagree on many things but I heartily endorse your
sig line. Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
he holds them outside the country.
OTOH, it's been said that people get the government they deserve. I must have
been really bad in a previous incarnation :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Doug Miller wrote:
>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
>>he holds them outside the country.
>
> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals. In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
I'm saying.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> Including context to a response is really important if you want to
> make a point.
>
>
This is test response #1. See my earlier message to Larry for the context.
Bill
--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.
H. P. Lovecraft
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-1, 02/22/2007
Tested on: 2/23/2007 2:35:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> Including context to a response is really important if you want to
> make a point.
This is test response #2. See my earlier message to Larry for the context.
Bill
--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.
H. P. Lovecraft
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-1, 02/22/2007
Tested on: 2/23/2007 2:35:48 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Larry W wrote:
>
> Please explain how your news reader compensates when _your_ news server
> receives messages in a different order than _my_ server?
>
>
Larry, (etc) the timing is irrelevant. ALL servers and ALL newsreaders
that comply with published standards for newsgroup postings can
backtrack messages a considerable distance. Your own posting, to which I
am replying, carried the information necessary to backtrack 5 levels.
When you click 'reply to', the newsreader checks the Message ID of the
posting being responded to. It then includes it as part of the message
sent. Each message points backward to where it came from. This, not
timing, is what allows a message thread to be reconstructed.
In most newsreaders you can click something along the line of 'View /
Headers / All' in order to see what I am posting below. (Exact menu
headings are likely to vary as this is part of a litigious area of
programming known as "Look & Feel") It is telling that Robatoys' posting
does not even have the Reference header, while all posts below his do.
The reasoning behind this is that things can taken very different paths
around the Internet and a response can lag one actually submitted before
it by hours or even days (some years ago (~10) I had a posting take
three days to arrive in a newsgroup). Clearly, timing would not be a
good way to reconstruct a thread. So, like each packet of data on the
internet, news postings carry the necessary threading information with them.
The internet, essentially, never forgets. (
http://www.archive.org/index.php ). I shudder to think of some of the
old posts I have made that are still floating around out there just
waiting for someone to play connect the dots with them. I need to put
those 'six degrees of separation' between my old self and my new one.
Given that old Usenet postings never die (that is what Google bought a
few years ago), I take a dim view of a newsreader that cannot follow a
thread back just two steps.
Bear with me here as I am doing this from memory of reading done perhaps
8-10 years ago and I am writing at roughly 2:30 in the morning.
-----------
IIRC then, this would be the threading path for your posting to me:
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <<< my message
Your message had a message ID of:
<[email protected]>
and, by the way, your reference header (like mine) indicates that your
reader is aware of the 4 levels in the thread ahead of your posting (the
level you are at is #5 in that scheme of things)
Barnetts message, following on yours is:
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <<< my message
<[email protected]> <<<<<<<<<<<< your posting
Notice that Barnetts' message directly referenced yours by including it
in the header called, appropriately enough "References"?
Robatoys' original post has no references. All posts subsequent to his,
do. Pete C. was the first to reply and his References header contains
the information leading back exactly one level:
<[email protected]>
which, surprise, surprise belongs to Robatoys' message which had a
Message ID of
<[email protected]>
You can check this for yourself.
The first copy of Barnetts message below yours carried the Message ID of
<[email protected]>
while the second copy (at the same thread level) was assigned this
message ID
<[email protected]>
Although they contain identical text and hit the server only one minute
apart, a reply to one of Barnetts messages will not be connected to the
other because the Message ID numbers are different. In fact, I'm going
to post to each of them and you will be able to verify that the
Reference lines are different for each and that the difference is his
unique Message ID identifier.
Okay ... those messages are on the server now, I can send this one. It
is out of time sequence ... but it will appear above those other two
because it is tied to your message by that reference line.
I hope this helps to resolve the controversy, which, really, is just one
more Usenet 'tempest in a teapot'.
This explanation of these headers and what they are used for should help
resolve what is 'normal' behavior for a news reader. It is normal for a
newsreader to have access to these headers and to be able to display the
messages to which they refer.
--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.
H. P. Lovecraft
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-1, 02/22/2007
Tested on: 2/23/2007 3:26:36 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Doug Miller wrote:
> You're missing the point very badly. The point is that your newsreader is
> including that context -- and then *you* are snipping it before you post.
>
> Now -- to drive the point home -- let's see you reply to this message, WITHOUT
> doing anything else, just click 'reply to' like you said -- and restore the
> text that I snipped.
>
There is no need for that. If I so desire, I can review the prior posts
.. as you should also be able to do.
Bill
--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.
H. P. Lovecraft
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-3, 02/23/2007
Tested on: 2/24/2007 12:22:44 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
D Smith wrote:
> Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>>>>
>>>> Does your newsreader support threading?
>>>>
>>> Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
>>> doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
>>>
>> I call 'malarky'.
>
>> "Read and delete" is not normal behavior.
>
> He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me about
> them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed again (with
> effort, probably minimal).
>
Which he didn't bother to take.
> Either include more context, or accept that people will just ignore
> your posts. You're probably making an extra effort to delete more text,
> and then making others do more work to find out why you're bothering to
> post.
>
>
If he wishes, he is free to filter me completely. He is free to make
that minimal effort you mentioned above. He is free to sip his beer
through a straw.
The guy is an expert on global warming, nuclear power generation, peer
review, the Geneva Convention and I've lost track of what else ... but
can't recall what he said two days ago.
I gave a detailed technical reason why his whining is without merit and
now I am done with this thread.
Bill
--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.
H. P. Lovecraft
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-3, 02/23/2007
Tested on: 2/24/2007 12:37:27 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
[email protected] (Larry) wrote:
> Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will
> be introduced into this thread?
Too late, you just did it.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
>>>dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
>>>after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
>>>earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
>>>correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>
>>Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
>>the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
>>dynamic in nature.
>
>Actually, you *over*stated that by an order of magnitude.
OOPS! My mistake, not yours. Disregard -- I blew it. See below.
>
>Consider:
>
>Surface area of the planet is approximately 200 million square miles. That's
>5.6 quadrillion square feet, or about 800 quadrillion square inches.
>Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving a total
>atmospheric mass of approximately 12 quintillion pounds, or 6 quadrillion
>tons. Four tenths of one percent, approximately, of that is CO2; thus the
>total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 24 trillion tons.
Sorry -- it's actually four *hundredths* of one percent, and your figure of
one percent of total is correct.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:12:11 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>What is interesting is that according to those same ice cores, instead
>of peak and precipitate drop in temperature, there had been a peak
>and hold this time. And that hold goes back far more than the few
>hundred years that the advocates of the industrial-emission theory are
>claiming. So it seems likely that _something_ has changed that has
>nothing to do with human activity, or if the something is human
>activity it's not industrial CO2 emissions.
Exactly!!! One thing I can tell you for sure is, that these people
will press their agenda to the point that the only solution to the
problem of global warming as they see it, is a reduction in people.
Soilant Green, here we come.
>Whatever we're doing, if humans _are_ doing it we bloody well better
>keep it up until we figure out the consequences of _stopping_.
>
>That's the big problem I have with the "we must fix this
>******NOW******" argument--we don't have any reason other than a bunch
>of opinions to believe that we won't be jumping out of the frying pan
>into the fire.
>
>At some point, the world is going to warm, whether humans do it or
>not. The natural state over tens of millions of years has been warm
>enough that there were no ice caps. The only reason that humans think
>that the current state is "normal" is that we've never experienced in
>our few tens of thousands of years of existence anything _different_.
>If we see it as a bad thing then at some point we're going to have to
>interfere with natural processes in order to _stop_ it.
>
>The big question, that nobody seems to want to address, is "is what we
>are seeing the natural end of the ice ages".
These people think that just because they have a hundred years of
climate data that they have all of the answers, when in fact they have
less than a nanosecond of data for are planet and are completely
ignoring what has happened in the past and how resilient our planet
is.
Wed, Feb 14, 2007, 11:02am (EST-3) [email protected] (Robatoy) doth
chant:
Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."
Been there. Done that. Moved.
JOAT
When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:57:48 -0600, Chris Friesen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
>> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
>I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>
>The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
>Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
>general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
>winters.
>
>Chris
It must be nice to be able to promote, and get tax-payer supported funding
for, a theory such that no matter what happens, those occurrences are
proof that your theory is correct.
Really hot summers? Proof of global warming.
Really cold winters? Proof of the temperature extremes being caused by
global warming.
Really warm winter (as of up to Jan this year)? Obvious
Really rainy summer? Proof of the extremes caused by global warming.
Lots of hurricanes? Proof of global warming
Lower than average number of hurricanes (2006), especially after the dire
predictions of 2005? .... crickets
Unfortunately, for the rest of us, our theories have to be demonstrated
in a more binary fashion.
Man, whatta racket.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
>> being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
>> people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to.
>
> How?
Because its easier to get funding that way.
But first you need to define 'scientific orthodoxy' (one
> of your favorite terms) and explain how it is established.
We've been down this road before, you and I. You like to believe in
the pure priesthood of science wherein the only debate is that about
dispassionate acquisition of knowledge. But the history of science
is unfortunately rather clear that more emotional human issues frequently
cloud the environment. Yes, the scientific method itself - when followed -
minimizes bias. But it cannot operate when funding is denied to those
who oppose the currently regnant beliefs of the scientific establishment,
such that no research can even take place. The cause, severity, and
consequences of GW are hardly established indisputably, yet funding
remains primarily available to those expressing the anthropogenic argument.
>
> >The models
>> are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
>> a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
>> is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
>> of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
>> just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
>> thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.
>
> Would not a vigorous debate in serious scientific circles
> HELP to raise more funding? Who is going to fund
It might, but it's far from certain. Again, you assume
a certain purity within the priesthood that I do not think
is supported by the history of science. The methods of
science are dispassionate (more or less), the people using
and funding them are not.
> a program to study something that is already well-
> established?
Oh, I don't know. You would argue that evolutionary theory
is "well established" but it manages to continue to get
lots and lots of funding.
>
>>> And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
>>> cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
>>> Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
>> The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
>> oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.
>
> Who has the money to fund the politicians who budget the
> government research?
Let's see ... hmm, the biggest lobbying group in Washington is the AARP
so at least in the US, the biggest funding for politicians comes from
old people who want to burden the rest of society with the expenses they
themselves did not save for. Is that what you mean? How about the endless
parade of other special interests who want "exceptions" made into law for
their special "needs". About the only large lobbying group in the US that
does NOT want any exception is the NRA - the #2 lobbying organization. They
want the bill of rights of the US *left intact*. I suppose you were trying to
lead me to the big eeeeeeevil corps. as the source of political funding, but
they are just one of many voices.
More importantly, for the most part, funding is determined by professional bureaucrats
who survive political change like roaches survive nuclear fallout. Notwithstanding
the recent Bush administration pressure on the climate researchers, for the most part
politicians have actual little day-to-day say in what does or does not get funded.
For that we have DARPA, NASA, EPA, and all the rest of the government alphabet soup.
And *that's* where the scientific status quo gets preserved more than any other place.
>
>>> Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
>>> scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
>>> argument is completely invalid.
>> No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
>> has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there
>> remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
>> but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
>> how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.
>
> In the absence of publication, how did you establish
> the existence of significant debate among serious
> scientists?
>
>
By listening to dissenting scientific voices elsewhere. These are well documented.
Serious climatologists have spoken vigorously in opposition to today's overstated
certainty about causes, severity, and results of GW and have been shunned from
overtly political tomes like the IPCC through more serious peer-reviewed
journals. The absence of journal presence does not imply the absence of
dissent, merely the inability to get the dissent aired in an open way.
DAGS if you really don't believe there are serious opposing voices.
>> And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
>> far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
>> administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
>> bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
>> among he earth worshipers.
>>
>
> Gore has''t run for office since 2000 and plainly has
> no plans to ever run again. If he has ulterior motives for
You are seriously kidding yourself. He is drooling the shadows waiting for
Mrs. Bill and Barak Obama to eviscerate each other in the primaries and then
wants to ride in as a "healing candidate" to "save" the libs.
> what he is promoting, what are they?
Like all lifelong politicians, he is self-important a full of his own
myths. Deep down inside he certainly thinks he knows what's good for the
rest of us. So much so that he permits himself latitude that he would
never grant others. He's so very important that it's OK for him to
fly in private jets - a clearly inefficient method of carrying one or
two people - while hectoring the rest of us for buying SUVs. He and his
ilk are prostitutes, parasites, hypocrites, and scoundrels.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 14 Feb 2007 18:02:03 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
>> cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past
>> few years.
>
>That one year is warmer or cooler than the next is irrelevent; it's
>about the historical trend.
>See the graph at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>
>Mike
>
Several obvious questions:
1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like
urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?
2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or
simply statistical "noise"?
3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those
temperatures during the late 19'th century?
4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored
because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?
... and of course the most obvious issue, this is a small snapshop of 150
years. That is a relatively small snapshot in time. Small rises in
temperature such as this, neglecting the likely urban heat sink local
warming issues, are very likely due to solar cycles that have nothing to do
with human causes.
I know I certainly wouldn't trust these people to sell me a used car, let
alone radically alter my lifestyle, give up various liberties, or pay more
to the government in "global warming tax" taxes.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Feb 18, 1:15 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> The fuel cost of fusion in a terrestrial power plant should also be
> nil or close to it. So why do you want to push solar instead of
> continuing to work on fusion?
>
The capital cost is astronomical and considering that there are so
many unanswered questions in regards to operating costs (assuming we
can keep one lit) a ROI is so far into the future, that in comparison,
current proven fission technology will reign for a very long time.
For fusion to be a net producer, the scale of the undertaking is so
enormous that it boggles the mind. The energy required to produce the
parts, to contain the plasma, and the uncertainty of its service-
ability and maintainability make this nothing more than an experiment.
The fusion proponents are trying to lift a 500,000 pound sledgehammer
to kill a gnat.
>
> And by that time we should have fusion reactors online.
>
Keep dangling the carrots of 'free' energy and keep those research
grants coming folks.
We need to develop what we know. The billions allotted for
experimental research in fusion is terribly misplaced, IMHO. Fusion is
pie-in-the-sky. That does not mean that I don't believe we can make it
work... I do believe that the 'free' fuel won't enter into the
spreadsheet as a cost-savings for a long, long time... if ever. The
costs involved to re-face the interior of an abraded tokamak is
estimated to be a billion... and we don't know how long it takes for a
thermonuclear plasma to take the skin off the inside of the
toroid...could be a matter of a few minutes....we have no idea. The
sun-in-a-can...ya right.
Keep taxing the peasants so that the guys in the white coats can
promise the king ultimate control. (There may have been a little extra
cynicism in my cereal this morning.)
The real sun is here...free...now. Hanging outside my window. Every
day. The comparative pittance we need to make it usable for all of us,
is within reach. Let's spend a few bucks thinking about ways to store
energy as well.
...and how about those small nuclear powerpacks we use to run some
satellites? Can't we build one to power a subdivision? The size of a
trailer? How about smaller ones for each home? Or would that mean that
the 'power' is going to get away from the controlling robber-baron's
interests?
Stay tuned. Film at 11.
I hope you're enjoying the show, I'l be here all week, try the veal.
On Feb 18, 2:36 pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
[biggie snip]
I see from your post ( 7 minutes ahead of mine <G>) that you do see a
future in fusion. I do want to clarify, that I see a future there as
well. My stance is that we shouldn't stop developing alternative
energy sources with the thought in mind that the fusion reactor will
save us all in the end. I'm a proponent of developing what works, What
gives us known data, so we can predict costs and ROI. That, in today's
world, is already quite difficult. A 5 billion dollar fission reactor
ended up costing 14 billion. Still, at a steady 2500 MW with known
maintenance costs, there's a pay-back horizon somewhere before the
life-span of the unit.
Fusion looks like a black hole to me, financially speaking.
r
On Feb 18, 4:26 pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped for brevity, although very interesting indeed.]
>
> [ For anyone not in the know, tokamaks were a Russian development and
> produce energy by zapping a droplet of tritium oxide (water where the
> hydrogen nucleus contains two neutrons in addition to the usual
> proton) so hard that the atom shatters, liberating gazooba energy -
> that c-squared multiplier kicks pretty hard. ]
I have always enjoyed the 'spoonful' vs 'coal train' analogies. It's
particularly interesting when the spoonful contains water. How many MW
per gazooba?
>
> I do have one reservation: it makes me nervous to convert planetary
> mass to energy. Sol-3 isn't particularly short on water; but water
> mass converted to energy is gone _forever_ - and I suspect that
> humanity's hunger for free (or really cheap) energy might result in an
> incredibly accellerated reduction in one of our most important
> planetary resources. I wonder how many thousands (or tens of
> thousands) of years it might take before Earth bore more than a
> passing resemblance to Sol-4.
I think if we convert all the oceans directly to energy, we could give
the sun a run for its money..well..not quite, but global warming would
take on a whole new meaning. Maybe more like Sol 5.
I get a kick out of some of the sizes that different suns come in.
Ours is but a pipsqueek.
Betelgeuse doesn't quite fit in between our earth and our sun. Blows
my little mind.
>
> Fission is ok, but fuel looks like a long-term problem. I particularly
> liked a German design I saw a while back - in which fuel pellets were
> wrapped in a ceramic jacket which controlled spacing between pellets
> and, as the reactor heated up, the jackets expanded to increase pellet
> spacing to reduce reaction rate. From a nuclear physics standpoint, I
> don't know enough to pronounce the design "good" or "bad"; but I liked
> the simple elegance of the approach. :-)
That's pretty clever. I like the idea of fusion, not only because fuel
is plentyful, but the radiation products are very short-lived.
> The solar stuff I work on seems pretty tame by comparison; but it _is_
> something that can be managed at an individual level without major
> funding. Best of all, it works.
I have been snooping around a bit, as I am having a new roof put on
the house where I live.
I would like some minimal PV power as a back-up. I'm not really
interested in making the meter spin backwards.
The more I read, the more I discover that there is so much to learn.
That is what makes it fun.
....and now back to some cold fusion.
r
J. Clarke wrote:
> I just like to beat up blowhards.
Ahh ... all in a good cause, then. Carry on.
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000715-0, 02/20/2007
Tested on: 2/21/2007 12:40:19 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:58:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| Prometheus wrote:
||| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
||| <[email protected]> wrote:
|||
|||| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|||| altogether. The path from where we are to there appears to me to
|||| be bumpy and uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be
|||| that of preparing our offspring to make that journey and produce
|||| sound decisions en route. My biggest worry is that we're not
|||| meeting that challenge.
|||
||| I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the
||| sun is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some
||| things are free, while others are not.
||
|| Yes, the sun consumes fuel - let's get past that. It consumes it's
|| fuel and will continue to do so no matter what. It was doing so
|| before humans appeared on the scene and will probably still be
|| doing so long after we're gone.
||
|| The practical difference is that the fuel cost of solar radiation
|| is nil; and that the supply is (for practical purposes)
|| inexhaustable. The energy delivered is limited to roughly a
|| kilowatt per square meter over half of the planet's surface at a
|| time.
|
| The fuel cost of fusion in a terrestrial power plant should also be
| nil or close to it. So why do you want to push solar instead of
| continuing to work on fusion?
You're being a bit free with your assumptions. Get in contact with
Greenough at PPPL and ask him who the person was with no project
connection who pushed him hardest for progress _NOW_ (starting in '76)
on Princeton's tokamak. If he hadn't a really good sense of humor (and
been a very gentle kind of person) I'd probably be missing teeth.
I asked what it'd take to expidite commercialization and was told that
it'd take on the order of a billion and a half (1976) dollars; and
that PU couldn't find it. /I/ certainly didn't have it; so all I could
do was beg the guys to work faster and smarter with what they did
have. When the first toroid was built, they invited me to stop by and
have a look see. (To imagine the magnetic pinch bottle and the
annhilation of atoms produced in an object that size inspired real
awe.)
I never saw the finished reactor. I understand it was assembled and
run at Tom's River for ten years or so before being dismantled. When I
saw that announcement I called one of the engineers and asked him to
say "Hi" to the guys I'd known and tell them that they'd dazzled the
hell out of me. BTW, there's a guy who worked on the project after I
left the east coast who lurks here on the wreck and can certainly
provide better info than I.
Fuel for the tokamak (if I understand it's operation properly) is
tritium (as in heavy heavy water) - not something one can order up in
bulk from any existing source. If you can supply the tritium and the
construction money, I think the guys with the real-world experience
(not to mention myself!) would probably be pretty happy to help make
it happen...
|| We can expect that at some point, we'll have exhausted the
|| planetary supplies of petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium.
|
| And by that time we should have fusion reactors online.
Eh? They should be online _now_! We just have more "important" things
to spend the money on.
|| Long before
|| they're gone, their prices will increase to the level where
|| ordinary folks won't be able to afford to buy either the commodity
|| or the energy produced from it.
|
| And when that point is reached, then it will become economically
| viable to use some other source. But until that happens a crash
| program to go to some alternate energy source will _increase_ the
| cost to those consumers, not _decrease_ it.
Hmm. Other than the wild (but usually silent) enthusiasm for fusion to
which I just confessed, who's advocating a crash program to go to some
alternate energy source? Not I - nor has anyone else I've read here.
|| I'm _not_ an advocate of converting everything to solar for the
|| simple reason that it isn't the best source of energy for all
|| applications. All energy sources have their own unique set of
|| advantages and disadvantages; and I've found it interesting to
|| search for applications and problems that match up with the
|| particular advantages and disadvantages of low-to-moderate
|| temperature (100F-1000F) solar heating.
||
|| What I'm doing has nothing intentional to do with global
|| warming/cooling. It has to do with finding more cost-effective
|| ways of doing things already being done with other technologies. I
|| see economic and social benefit in significantly reducing heating
|| costs, in pumping liquids, and providing refrigeration with simple
|| (few or no moving parts) devices and using freely available energy.
|
| Well, all of this is nice if you can make reliable equipment to do
| those things with operating and maintenance costs and initial
| purchase price low enough that the average person can afford them.
| But even if the lifecycle cost of a solar house is less than a
| conventional one, if the up front purchase price is twice as high
| then many people just plain can't dig up that much money at one go.
| The fuel cost is not the only cost.
Well then - by your criteria all this is pretty nice indeed. You may
surprised to learn that the up-front construction cost /can/ be
considerably lower. Whether or not that translates into a lower
_purchase_ price is a different matter entirely.
The up-front purchase price for solar equipment is all over the place.
If you want to hammer /me/ on this one, you'd better look up panel
prices at my web site and do some comparisons with similar products
from elsewhere. This isn't a subject I feel I should be discussing in
a newsgroup (but I'm tempted.)
I'm not sure how too say this as gently as I'd like; but your comments
indicate that you have considerable catch-up reading to do.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Robatoy wrote:
| On Feb 18, 2:36 pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| [biggie snip]
|
| I see from your post ( 7 minutes ahead of mine <G>) that you do see
| a future in fusion. I do want to clarify, that I see a future there
| as well. My stance is that we shouldn't stop developing alternative
| energy sources with the thought in mind that the fusion reactor will
| save us all in the end. I'm a proponent of developing what works,
| What gives us known data, so we can predict costs and ROI. That, in
| today's world, is already quite difficult. A 5 billion dollar
| fission reactor ended up costing 14 billion. Still, at a steady
| 2500 MW with known maintenance costs, there's a pay-back horizon
| somewhere before the life-span of the unit.
| Fusion looks like a black hole to me, financially speaking.
Like you, I like things that /work/. By a fluke, I happened to be in
the Princeton area (working on Tiros-N at RCA's Astro Engineering Lab
in Hightstown) and gabbing on VHF during off-hours. One of the hams I
met on-air turned out to be a neighbor and he introduced me to a bunch
of other hams he worked with - all at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
and all likeable people with similar interests. I think they were
pleased that a systems geek could be so enthusiastic about what they
were doing. I'm not sure that some measure of my enthusiasm about
their project didn't stem from my resonance with the people (since I'm
nowhere near being a physicist); but the enthusiasm was - and is -
very real.
The end game, as I understood it, is to build a ring of tokamaks
capable of being fueled on ordinary water (not heavy heavy water or
even heavy water); and using power from reactor[n] to power the firing
of reactor[n+1]. From their comments, it seems do-able; but that,
because of the energy levels involved and the newness of the
technology, work needed to proceed in "baby steps". There was never
any question that it'd be enormously expensive; but they were certain
of both technology and payback.
[ For anyone not in the know, tokamaks were a Russian development and
produce energy by zapping a droplet of tritium oxide (water where the
hydrogen nucleus contains two neutrons in addition to the usual
proton) so hard that the atom shatters, liberating gazooba energy -
that c-squared multiplier kicks pretty hard. ]
I do have one reservation: it makes me nervous to convert planetary
mass to energy. Sol-3 isn't particularly short on water; but water
mass converted to energy is gone _forever_ - and I suspect that
humanity's hunger for free (or really cheap) energy might result in an
incredibly accellerated reduction in one of our most important
planetary resources. I wonder how many thousands (or tens of
thousands) of years it might take before Earth bore more than a
passing resemblance to Sol-4.
Fission is ok, but fuel looks like a long-term problem. I particularly
liked a German design I saw a while back - in which fuel pellets were
wrapped in a ceramic jacket which controlled spacing between pellets
and, as the reactor heated up, the jackets expanded to increase pellet
spacing to reduce reaction rate. From a nuclear physics standpoint, I
don't know enough to pronounce the design "good" or "bad"; but I liked
the simple elegance of the approach. :-)
The solar stuff I work on seems pretty tame by comparison; but it _is_
something that can be managed at an individual level without major
funding. Best of all, it works.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:42:09 -0500, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Andrew Barss wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke has a pretty peculiar picture of how science
>> writing, reviewing, and publishing works.
>>
>> -- Andy Barss
>Your posting is not the only one where he apparently chooses to
>'misunderstand' what is otherwise plainly the intent of a writer. -I-
>understood that you were referring to a double-blind review (and I don't
>HAVE an engineering degree to dust off).
I just like to beat up blowhards.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:58:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]
>
>FWIW, global warming won't make solar power a more viable option -
>except, possibly, for wind applications.
You know, if the sun was an energy source that was more under the
direct control of man, like coal or oil, we would probably seek to
legislate it out of existence due to its harmful side effects such as
skin cancer, drought, extreme storms, etc.
This could be a convenient argumentum ad absurdum for the coal, oil
and nuke flacks.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:58:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Prometheus wrote:
>| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
>| <[email protected]> wrote:
>|
>|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
>|| altogether. The path from where we are to there appears to me to
>|| be bumpy and uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that
>|| of preparing our offspring to make that journey and produce sound
>|| decisions en route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting
>|| that challenge.
>|
>| I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the sun
>| is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some things
>| are free, while others are not.
>
>Yes, the sun consumes fuel - let's get past that. It consumes it's
>fuel and will continue to do so no matter what. It was doing so before
>humans appeared on the scene and will probably still be doing so long
>after we're gone.
>
>The practical difference is that the fuel cost of solar radiation is
>nil; and that the supply is (for practical purposes) inexhaustable.
>The energy delivered is limited to roughly a kilowatt per square meter
>over half of the planet's surface at a time.
The fuel cost of fusion in a terrestrial power plant should also be
nil or close to it. So why do you want to push solar instead of
continuing to work on fusion?
>We can expect that at some point, we'll have exhausted the planetary
>supplies of petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium.
And by that time we should have fusion reactors online.
>Long before
>they're gone, their prices will increase to the level where ordinary
>folks won't be able to afford to buy either the commodity or the
>energy produced from it.
And when that point is reached, then it will become economically
viable to use some other source. But until that happens a crash
program to go to some alternate energy source will _increase_ the cost
to those consumers, not _decrease_ it.
>I'm _not_ an advocate of converting everything to solar for the simple
>reason that it isn't the best source of energy for all applications.
>All energy sources have their own unique set of advantages and
>disadvantages; and I've found it interesting to search for
>applications and problems that match up with the particular advantages
>and disadvantages of low-to-moderate temperature (100F-1000F) solar
>heating.
>
>What I'm doing has nothing intentional to do with global
>warming/cooling. It has to do with finding more cost-effective ways of
>doing things already being done with other technologies. I see
>economic and social benefit in significantly reducing heating costs,
>in pumping liquids, and providing refrigeration with simple (few or no
>moving parts) devices and using freely available energy.
Well, all of this is nice if you can make reliable equipment to do
those things with operating and maintenance costs and initial purchase
price low enough that the average person can afford them. But even if
the lifecycle cost of a solar house is less than a conventional one,
if the up front purchase price is twice as high then many people just
plain can't dig up that much money at one go. The fuel cost is not
the only cost.
>| When I say I'm not going to do anything to change my habits, I mean
>| just that. I don't think we're going to change what is happening at
>| this point, and it may not be in our best interests to do so in any
>| case. It's time to look at the possible results of climate change,
>| whatever the causes may be, and plan accordingly. Who knows, global
>| warming might be the best thing that has happened in ages- what if
>| it translates into longer growing seasons to feed us all, and opens
>| up the Antartic for settlement while making the winters less bitter
>| and solar power a more viable option? Or, it may be a really rough
>| road for us all. In either case, we need some ideas about just
>| what the hell we're all going to do about it when it comes rolling
>| along, instead of moping and pointing fingers.
>
>FWIW, global warming won't make solar power a more viable option -
>except, possibly, for wind applications.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:23:43 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
>| <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
>|| altogether.
>|
>| Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
>| hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
>| we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.
>
>Umm - ok. I was fairly sure that /someone/ was bound to muddy the
>water if I didn't provide anti-nitpick definitions. Let's limit the
>discussion to the planet on which we (well, most of us) find
>ourselves; and just stipulate that the planet is the recipient of a
>bounty of energy produced by a remote fusion reaction for which we
>need not provide the fuel.
Why stipulate that? Sounds like you're saying to put all our research
eggs into the solar basket and ignore every other possibility.
>|| The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
>|| uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing
>|| our offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en
>|| route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
>|
>| The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people
>| who are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem
>| to think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see
>| little difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away
>| and using fuel burned ten feet away.
>
>I've never actually encountered even a single person who demanded that
>we abandon fueled technologies in the sense I used the phrase. I can
>understand that you are concerned about our hydrogen budget; but I try
>to restrict my attention to those things that'll have greatest impact
>in the more immediate (say, within the next million years or so) time
>frame.
Huh?
>With the time frame so restricted, the difference between fuel supply
>10' away from you and that being consumed by our sun should be clear
>even to the most obtuse among us...
Perhaps you can explain it.
>||| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to
>||| get there, would it make sense to use this one up?
>||
>|| Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
>|| question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
>|| condition as we found it.
>|
>| Define "good condition". If you mean "exactly the same" you will
>| eventually end up fighting natural processes to keep it there.
>
>Yes - I can see that I really should have been more specific about the
>time frame.
But what is the time frame? What if right now we are seeing the
transition from cyclic glaciation to steady-state without glaciers?
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:21:17 -0700, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
>>that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
>>dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
>>years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
>>aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
>> or you might try prayer,
>> jo4hn
>
>
>
>CO2, atmospheric levels now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm).
>Paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300
>ppm there has been an ice age. Every time, without exception.
>
>The same records show that there have been a series of ice ages over
>the past 5 million years, naturally occurring every 100,000 years,
>with about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
>of interglacial climate.
>
>The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. I am more inclined to
>believe what has happened in the past without exception, than the
>incredibly unreliable speculation about what will happen into the
>future 100 to 1000 years from now. Are planet is cyclical, what goes
>around comes around.
>
>Does this mean we will be heading into an ice age anytime soon,
>certainly not. One thing I do know for sure is that the sky is not
>falling, Chicken Little.
What is interesting is that according to those same ice cores, instead
of peak and precipitate drop in temperature, there had been a peak
and hold this time. And that hold goes back far more than the few
hundred years that the advocates of the industrial-emission theory are
claiming. So it seems likely that _something_ has changed that has
nothing to do with human activity, or if the something is human
activity it's not industrial CO2 emissions.
Whatever we're doing, if humans _are_ doing it we bloody well better
keep it up until we figure out the consequences of _stopping_.
That's the big problem I have with the "we must fix this
******NOW******" argument--we don't have any reason other than a bunch
of opinions to believe that we won't be jumping out of the frying pan
into the fire.
At some point, the world is going to warm, whether humans do it or
not. The natural state over tens of millions of years has been warm
enough that there were no ice caps. The only reason that humans think
that the current state is "normal" is that we've never experienced in
our few tens of thousands of years of existence anything _different_.
If we see it as a bad thing then at some point we're going to have to
interfere with natural processes in order to _stop_ it.
The big question, that nobody seems to want to address, is "is what we
are seeing the natural end of the ice ages".
On Feb 14, 11:19 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> ... and the precision with which one can measure temperature by core
> samples is? One can measure the amount of snowfall, perhaps a certain
> amount of data regarding freeze/thaw cycles, but measuring mean average
> temperature to the degree being promoted as proof of global warming? There
> are also anomalies such as the "little ice age" during the middle ages, as
> well as a brief "global warming" period that followed that. The other real
> problem here is that nobody takes into account the tremendous heat
> sink/moderator that covers 7/8 of the Earth's surface.
>
Indeed, I quite agree that the emphasis should be on measuring
global ice and global humidity. Too few people understand the
concept of latent heat and so do not understand that the Earth
can warm or cool a great deal with very little temperature change.
--
FF
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:49:27 GMT, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Somebody wrote:
>
> > Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of,
>give or
> > take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the
>supposed
> > culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
> > statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
> > "historical", but what the hell.
>
>Only problem with the above is that it is not valid.
>
>Historical data is determined by core samples, not temperature records.
>
>Result is that historical trends being developed are perhaps more
>accurate than we would like to admit.
>
... and the precision with which one can measure temperature by core
samples is? One can measure the amount of snowfall, perhaps a certain
amount of data regarding freeze/thaw cycles, but measuring mean average
temperature to the degree being promoted as proof of global warming? There
are also anomalies such as the "little ice age" during the middle ages, as
well as a brief "global warming" period that followed that. The other real
problem here is that nobody takes into account the tremendous heat
sink/moderator that covers 7/8 of the Earth's surface.
>The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.
>
>As the old saying goes, "What comes around, goes around."
>
>Lew
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Leon wrote:
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
> >
> > OK, I'll ask, "Why not?"
>
> Al Gore's head would explode.
That would be a good thing... especially if caught on tape so we can
replay it over and over...
Steve wrote:
> Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including
> the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we
> forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart.
>
> These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago
> that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was
> coming soon.
>
> Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
> show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
> a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
WHoa, backup, and slowdown there Bubba. It is not "the scientists" who
are idiots, it's the people who take their incomplete work and make
political fodder out of it *pretending* it is science. Science in
the service of politics - left- or right- - is prostitution, nothing more
or less. If you respond to this prostitution of science rather than to
the actual known science, then you get nowhere but into another endless
debate of political ideology.
If I may, let me summarize that I think the current state of the actual science is:
1) There is some global warming taking place. It is slight, in keeping with
the 20,000 or so year trends since the last ice age, and far lower than
all the climatology models thus far were predicting.
2) We are at local (with the last 200 year) highs in injecting CO2 into the
carbon cycle of the planet. BUT ... they are not "all time" highs (that
happened millenia ago) AND no one is certain that a) CO2 actually causes noticeable
and uncontrolled warming or b) That global warming - however much it may be happening -
is necessarily a bad thing.
3) To the extent that global warming is actually happening, there not yet an unimpeachable
*causal* relationship between human action and warming. There is that suspicion, but it
is not yet demonstrated. No serious scientist on any side of the scientific debate
believes humans *cause* GW. The most aggressive claim is that humans are amplifying a
natural process and in so doing may change the quiescent state of things drastically - sort of the
straw that breaks the camel's back model. However, even if this eventually turns out
to be demonstrated as being so, it is far, far, far less clear that humans could actually
modify their behavior sufficiently to make a real difference. One of the reasons not to
rush off and go start randomly trying to "stop" global warming is that it may well be
better to use our limited resources to *adapt* to it's consequences. For instance,
over the past 20,000 years, the ocean levels have risen about 600 feet. This translates
to about 1 cm per year. Now, let's say that human action were to double that. It is
probably a lot more socially, economically, and politically practical to adapt to
a 2cm/yr rising coastline than trying to radically retool modern energy-dependent
economies all at once.
5) There is also considerably more debate about this particular topic within scientific
circles than the popular political discussion would have you believe. That's because
politicians like to use words like "consensus" - as if scientists vote on what the laws
of nature will become. But science proceeds by means of skepticism and *data* - which, to date,
are insufficient to come to any final conclusions about GW, who causes it, and whether anything
can be done about it.
In the end, it is in everyone's best interest to preserve and protect the "commons" - the things
we cannot divide up as private property that are common to us all. However, the political
spewing, exaggeration, and flatout lies about the nature and severity of the problem
are causing otherwise smart people to make really stupid judgments. This is not unusual.
We're terrified by the thought of someone breaking into our homes and killing us while
we sleep (which very rarely happens) but don't think twice about driving on highways that
kill 30,000 people a year in the US alone. The disaster prophets of the political left
and the deniers of the political right have one thing in common: They want to create
and artificial sense of emergency in the minds of the public and then none-too-gently
propose themselves as the solution. The *real* (smart) idiots are people like Gore who wants
to terrify the population into electing him and <insert your favorite rightwinger here> who
wants to terrify the population with spectre of economic meltdown if we even consider
a strategy of alternate fuels and lower emissions.
The fact is that the politicians are ignoring the *real* driver here: Energy independence
for the West would mean we could rapidly disentangle ourselves from the sewer that is
the oil-producing Middle East, Africa, and South America. That's because they don't have
the brains, will, or selling skills to get the public rallied behind them in a cross-partisan
way. The politicians will only act if it is good for "their side", and almost never when
it is just "good". The reason to hold people like Gore in complete contempt is that they
both lie about what is known, and play patently obvious political games while utterly failing
to address more pressing short-term threats.
Bah, humug, and blech upon both the earth-worshiping pantheists as well as the commerce-at-all-
costs worshiping idolators. We all - every one of us - ought to be thinking about what is
in our own long term durable self-interest. It is not in our interest to "save the planet"
if it means the highway death toll goes up 10x because we're all riding in tin boxes with
exploding batteries. Commerce is a good thing - essential to human freedom and happiness -
but it cannot be used as an excuse for justifying *everything*. Most importantly, we need
to stop looking to any politician for answers on these (and most all other) issues.
The fact is that Western democracies are good for defending personal liberty and very little
else. The "answer" to global warming - if it is needed at all - will come from a better
understanding of real science, not listening to Gore's Inconvenient Pack Of Exaggerations And Lies...
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
*trim*
>>Al Gore's head would explode.
>
> And the problem with that is... ?
>
Too gorey. I'd never make it past the censors.
Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
Steve wrote:
>> Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
>> opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
>> J Ren (China)
>> N Nicholls (Australia)
>> M Rusticucci (Argentina)
>> P Stott (UK)
>> U Lohmann (Switzerland)
>> R Stouffer (USA)
>> V Kattsov (Russia)
>> T Matsuno (Japan)
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>
> No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
> logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
> Brennan.
>
> We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
> regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
> their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
> by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
> continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
> creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
> shivering under.
Please acquaint yourself with the difference between weather and
climate. Global warming ain't about weather.
>
> If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
> contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
> is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
> weather fronts?
The Arctic is not a refrigerator-- it is an effect and not a cause of
climate. It is now mostly free of ice, as you admit, the result of
global warming. Which, BTW, is the subject of a meeting of 600
scientists at the present. You made the unsubstantiated claim that you
could provide the names of 100 scientists who believe that global
warming is cyclical for every one who believes that is is man-made.
You owe us 6,800 names.
I'll give you the name of one (most definitely) non-scientist who
believes that it is man-made: George W. Bush. Or is Charlton Heston
still your president?
Bob
todd wrote:
> "DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>>>
>> I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we
>> can dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every
>> year, year after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major
>> effect on the earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct
>> positive correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>> -Doug
>
> Here's another indisputable correlation. Of all the people convicted of
> murder in this county, over 99% of them ate bread at least once. With that
> kind of correlation, I think it's obvious what the government should do.
>
> todd
>
>
This may be the most ridiculous "argument" I've ever seen. Taken on the
face of it, anything can be caused by anything else. For example,
"hundreds of thousands of hunters enter Wisconsin every year and the
deer herd is increasing. Therefore, hunting cause population increase in
deer." Another: "all druggies drank milk when they were kids.
Therefore...."
There must be an evidentiary link between cause and effect. And there is
plenty of hard evidence for global warming. Even if it is caused
primarily by cyclical changes in the earth's atmosphere, the results can
be catastrophic. Do a little checking on the "Little Ice Age" of
1635-1715 (known to astronomers as the Maunder Minimum) when lakes in
England froze year-round.
Someone else "made the point" that we have only 100 years of data. True,
but we also have instruments that can weigh molecules, detect motion in
stars trillions of miles away, and measure pollution to within parts per
billion. Support for global warming is based on hard evidence and not
just aneccdotes or short-term historiography.
The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
millions of people and billions of dollars in property.
Bob
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Joe Bleau wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
>>>> you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>>>> the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>>>> melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>>>> Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>>>> luck to all,
>>>> jo4hn
>>>
>>> It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
>>> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>>>
>>> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
>>> with spotted owls.
>>>
>>> Joe
>> Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
>> that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
>> dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
>> years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
>> aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
>
> To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
> warming adherents,
Because they have evidence.
You imply that GW is some kind of liberal plot. Prove this.
Larry wrote:
> Well, we have gone from "30 years ago scientists were predicting another
> ice age" to "scientists who predict global warming will never change
> their minds."
Really? Who said that?
Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
one thing: hard evidence. The scientists who know about GW have
evidence, lots of it. But then, since when has evidence ever trumped
belief? Check your TV listings for the Coral Ridge Hour--you wouldn't
believe what they're saying.
Bob
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> You misspelled "for". :-)
That's exactly the way I intended to spell it. Those who do NOT
acknowledge GW have offered little here but sarcasm and kneejerk
reaction. The weight of evidence that it exists is overwhelming.
Bob
Swingman wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
>
>> Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
>> one thing: hard evidence.
>
> So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and
> causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence".
Nice terminology, but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world
is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the
cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no
dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence.
Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is
indisputable.
>
> It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take
> the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as
> scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not
> even rise to the level of an "hypothesis".
>
> One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
> as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
> "computer modeling".
And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an
extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just
that--an assumption.
>
> In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
> insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
> statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
> always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not
> least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying
> upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish.
Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush
to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who
support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal
advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be
trusted on any issue.
>
> Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based
> solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in
> reality. GIGO!
Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term
climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the
long-term evidence. As someone pointed out, ice cores reveal climate for
the past millions of years, and show a CO2 level that is unprecedented.
>
> Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better
> argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the
> point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side.
>
I'm hardly gullible, nor do I have my head in the sand as some people
seem to have. And you give not one single fact yourself.
Bob
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>> One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
>> as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
>> "computer modeling".
>>
>> In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
>> insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
>> statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
>> always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]
>
> Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
> 10%. (May not be valid in your state).
>
> Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
> strings attached?
> Follow the money.
> As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
> people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
> them."
> Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
> right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
> 'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
> outside and have the stink blown off ya...
>
> Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
> prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
> data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
> sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
> in bankrupting your company.
BS, pure and simple. Doesn't happen--or, if it sdoea, it's in exbtremely
isolated cases like the tobacco fiasco. The "scientists" who found for
the companies were mostly employees of the companies. The implication
that all scientists are for sale is ridiculous. And who, exactly, is
paying them to find in favor of global warming? The international
liberal conspiracy?
Bob
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [snipped for brevity]
>>> One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not
>>> quali
>> fy
>>> as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based
>>> upon "computer modeling".
>>>
>>> In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being
>>> refine
>> d;
>>> insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
>>> statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that
>>> has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]
>> Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
>> 10%. (May not be valid in your state).
>>
>> Who does fund the research in global warming?
>
> National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private
> foundations. Rarely private corporations.
>
>> Are there never any
>> strings attached?
>
> You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see
> another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the biases of
> the current group of grantors.
>
>> Follow the money.
>
> Always!
Another cynical assumption with little proof to back it up. Sure
scientists can be influenced--but are you suggesting that the thousands
around the world who know about global warming have all been paid off?
Or would take the money if offered in every case? That's ridiculous.
Bob
Leon wrote:
> "Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> It has been happening for years,ever since the end of the last ice age
>> when the glaciers reached as far south as NYC.
>>
>> Glen
>
> Farther south than that, Huge boulders in farmers fields in the mid-west
> are proof.
>
>
I live on glacial moraine in southern Wisconsin. Try digging more than a
few inches down and the rocks will dent your self esteem.
On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon.
They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. For example, the
age of dinosaurs, who needed at least a temperate lasted for millions of
years in what is now the U.S. No major climate shifts there.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
| On 15 Feb 2007 05:50:38 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| On Feb 15, 6:15 am, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
||| Joe Bleau wrote:
|||| On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
|||| <[email protected]> wrote:
||||| OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp
||||| wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or
||||| better weather but the overall change is an increase in temp
||||| with polar caps and glaciers melting. It's been happening for
||||| years now. Not gonna get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar
||||| bear. luck to all,
||||| jo4hn
|||
|||| It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of
|||| years before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
|||
|||| Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about
|||| wiping with spotted owls.
|||
|||| Joe
|||
||| Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love
||| 'em. Taste like chicken.
|||
||| Glen
||
|| Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them
|| though,
|| Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me.
|
| I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-)
Roasted on a spit, it tastes somewhat like alaskan curlew - stewed
with vegetables, it tastes just like chicken (and not at all like a
spotted owl)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 9:17 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to
>>> Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any
>> less
>>> a fact.
>>>
>> Is English your second language, Doug?
>>
> No -- but it often appears that it *is* yours...
This kind of personal attack is exactly why I dropped off this NG a
while back. Is it no longer possible to have a vigorous debate without
these ad hominem banalities?
Robatoy wrote:
| On Feb 16, 5:49 am, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
||
|| Roasted on a spit, it tastes somewhat like alaskan curlew - stewed
|| with vegetables, it tastes just like chicken (and not at all like a
|| spotted owl)
||
|| --
|
| alaskan curlew is more like platypus, imho.
|
| With a hint of mint-sauce, panda is nice eating too, especially the
| white meat.
<g> To borrow a line from Bob "Bobcat" Goldwaite (sp?):
I think there's more dark meat on a hamster...
Hmm - I wonder how a well-aged woolly mammoth steak tastes...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
George wrote:
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
>>
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>> > "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
>>> >
>>> >> Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here
>>> lacks
>>> >> one thing: hard evidence.
>>> >
>
> If the average temperature is rising, which it is over the period
> examined, then it's warming. What's so difficult to comprehend? Don't
> even have to debate over "what _is_ is," to figure this out.
>
> Cause? Could be coincidence, could be the carbon. It's the only thing
> most people will research, lest they fall afoul of the current
> religion. So far we only have two rising.
>
>
> Effect? When the models can predict the next day's weather, or even
> agree between NOAA and the European model, I'll regard the "predictions"
> as more than the hot air they predict.
>
> Now go out and take some carbon out of the cycle and make it into
> furniture. The tree you cut will make room for another to grow. Ooops,
> that's not PC either....
But it's nice.
Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
phenomenon.
1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our
history got it through his wooden head.
2. Why should it be one or the other, separated by our political
convictions? It may be both, or maybe there are undiscovered causes.
I'll supply four:
a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way
galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a
bit of the Sun's heat.
b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes
more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse.
c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to
the plane of the ecliptic.
d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago.
Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d)
Bob
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon.
>> They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
>
> Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
> Right. I got it.
Nope--the Ice ages were a comparatively recent phenomenon, geologically
speaking.
> Phooey. Dinosaurs didn't need "at least a temperate climate" any more than
> mammals and birds do -- because, like mammals and birds, they were
> warm-blooded. Read "The Dinosaur Heresies," by Robert Bakker, for an excellent
> exposition, by a PhD paleontologist, of the overwhelming evidence of this.
> You're on pretty shaky ground if you're inferring that from the longevity of
> the dinos.
Hell, I'm on shaky ground in my shop, too, so I'm used to it. You
oughtta see what I did to that last chair. I'll read the Bakker
book--he's The Man in paleontology.
I'll withdraw that argument, but not the rest of my discourse. GW
exists, and we are responsible for at least a part of it.
Bob
>
The smarter thing to do is round up every ground hog, slap them around
until they start talking, and get their prediction. That is about as
scientific as as the political morons looking for votes. And if
their 'consensus' is correct, vote them in to office. At least we'll
get intelligent government 50% of the time.
And just to show them who's boss, wear a morning suit, white gloves
and top hat.
Pete
>
>2. Why should it be one or the other, separated by our political
>convictions? It may be both, or maybe there are undiscovered causes.
>I'll supply four:
> a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way
>galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a
>bit of the Sun's heat.
> b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes
>more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse.
> c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to
>the plane of the ecliptic.
> d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago.
>
>Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d)
>Bob
As a sawdust producer, I'd like to agree on choice D, but the current
rational is to get a 'consensus'. You need more people on board with
this. And the question should read " Is choice D the answer?". And
the answer must surely be "yes".
Pete
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 16, 10:16 am, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way
>> galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a
>> bit of the Sun's heat.
>> b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes
>> more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse.
>> c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to
>> the plane of the ecliptic.
>> d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago.
>
>> Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d)
>
> Banalities?
>
No, thanks, I've just had some.
Leon wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
>> can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here
>> yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
> weather changes to be accurate.
> The average person can guess as accurately as the models.
>
>
There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic,
predictions more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking
climate here, not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.
CW wrote:
> .000005%? I'll go along with that.
>
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I'll withdraw that argument, but not the rest of my discourse. GW
>> exists, and we are responsible for at least a part of it.
>
>
We know where that number originated, and it's not in any scientific
journal.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-)
Um, more like bald eagle.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Charles Koester wrote:
>> On 2007-02-15, J Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>>>>> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>>>>> affirming or denying global warming?
>>>> =================
>>>>
>>>> Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from
>>>> ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only
>>>> recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop.
>>>> Just like the tobacco companies and smoking.
>>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>>> journal.
>>
>> They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
>> All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
>> have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
>> Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
>>
>> A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
>> randomly selected research papers on climate change
>> published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
>> Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
>>
>> Zip. nada.
>>
>> A quote:
>> Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
>> first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
>> accepting the consensus view; 25%
>> dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
>> no position on current anthropogenic climate
>> change. Remarkably, none of the papers
>> disagreed with the consensus position.
>>
>> Read it for yourself:
>>
>> <http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf>
>>
>>
>> My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.
>>
>> Charles Koester
(snippage of unsubstantiated rant.)
> I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
> merely practical
> when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When the
> subject
> is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
> cook up
> the model that makes your patron happy.
Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
some evidence.
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?
And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
argument is completely invalid.
Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if
we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.
> Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.
Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
issue. DAGS.
Bob
Mark & Juanita wrote:
The fact
> is, in the heat of a political election season, Al Gore made a statement
> wildly inflating his importance in the construction of an important element
> of national infrastructure.
Omigod! A politician made a wildly inflated statement?
Where's Pat Robertson? God talks directly to him.
Bob
Oh, yeah: didn't Pat R. run for president once?
Leon wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> But it's nice.
>>
>> Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
>> 1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
>> 2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
>> phenomenon.
>>
>> 1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history
>> got it through his wooden head.
>
>
> I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think
> the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your
> opinion?
>
>
It says that he's getting smarter.
Leon wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
>>>> can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on
>>>> here
>>>> yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being
>>>> used.
>>> Absolutely correct.
>>>
>>> The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
>>> weather changes to be accurate.
>>> The average person can guess as accurately as the models.
>>>
>>>
>> There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic, predictions
>> more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking climate here,
>> not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.
>
>
> Do you believe that weather and climate do not affect each other?
>
>
Yes, I do. Weather is transitory, climate is long-term.
Bill in Detroit wrote:
| We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
| facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
| opportunity to alter those conclusions.
An observation worthy of consideration. It seems to me that a wise
person might well consider the consequences of all courses of action
(as well as the special case of "do nothing").
In the absence of "hard" information, we do well to consider all the
scenarios we can imagine - with an eye toward avoiding the seriously
adverse outcomes. To reinforce Bill's point, I'll point out that
avoidance is not a strategy that can be applied retroactively.
| And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large
| enough to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that
| the US will be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing
| nations of China and India look to be harder hit than the US. The
| US has already gone through its coal stage, but those other
| countries are just now amping up to an industrialized society. The
| US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even move beyond petroleum
| fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to secure the supply
| of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums in
| obsoleting those fuels.
Whether we'll be hindered or not is immaterial to the making of the
decisions. If we find that we _need_ to travel from "here" to "there",
the fact that the trip might be uphill or downhill is a secondary
consideration.
Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies altogether.
The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing our
offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en route.
My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
| there, would it make sense to use this one up?
Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
condition as we found it.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:17:23 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>| On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
>| <[email protected]> wrote:
>|
>|| J. Clarke wrote:
>||| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
>||| <[email protected]> wrote:
>|||
>|||| J. Clarke wrote:
>||
>||||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
>||||| conventional house?
>||||
>|||| By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of
>|||| course.
>|||
>||| That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would
>||| result in a conventional house being less expensive too though.
>||
>|| True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design
>|| and materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home
>|| could hardly be called "conventional".
>||
>||| All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and
>||| thermal mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also
>||| has to have backup heat.
>||
>|| Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but
>|| beyond that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort.
>|| Thermal mass provides storage for replacement heat to compensate
>|| for losses. When the losses become sufficiently small, the need
>|| for thermal mass shrinks to near nil.
>|
>| No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal mass". The
>| plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor joists are
>| "thermal mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In a
>| relatively warm climate it might be possible to provide sufficient
>| thermal mass entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not
>| unless you have some active means of insulating or isolating the
>| collector at night and at that point you no longer have a passive
>| design.
>
>Ok. All of the furnishings in a house do constitute "thermal mass",
>but they're not normally considered part of the structure we call a
>"house" (at least not for the purposes of calculations).
Not just the furnishings. The structure itself is thermal mass.
>It's possible to build truly passive solar collectors that function as
>"thermal diodes". At one point I made an attempt to catagorize passive
>air-heating collectors and posted drawings on a web page at
>http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/SC_Types.html. The "Type 3" collector
>_passively_ locks up (without moving parts) and functions as an
>insulator at night.
An insulator no better than a triple-glazed window, which is OK for a
window but pretty poor in the greater scheme of things.
>| As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a
>| nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means
>| that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking
>| odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat
>| exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy
>| insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've
>| traded one set of construction costs for another.
>
>The house in the photo I posted to ABPW is insulated to R-40 in all
>walls, roof, and floor and had, according to the builder, a
>construction cost on the close order of $55K.
R-40 may be fine for a locale that only goes down to 20 degrees. I
suspect that it's not going to be very comfortable at 4 AM when it's
-30 out.
>Ventilation is indeed necessary, and the easiest and least expensive
>solution is to provide sufficient heating that some heat can be
>"thrown away" on a controlled basis. There is a temptation to label
>this "excess capacity", but there's nothing "excess" or "wasteful"
>about it. A heat exchanger is needed only if there's no thermal budget
>for the venting.
Which is nice in a warm climate with lots of insolation year round.
Move north and the days get progressively shorter and the nights
longer and "provide sufficient heating" becomes a problem.
>|||| I
>|||| have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've
>|||| been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a
>|||| contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional
>|||| methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and
>|||| is in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F.
>|||
>||| Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might
>||| be possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I
>||| doubt it would work here though, where single-degree temperatures
>||| for days at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined
>||| with significant snowfall are the norm.
>||
>|| You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block
>|| shop in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector
>|| panels.
>|
>| And was it cheaper to build that one than one from the same
>| materials with conventional heat?
>
>I'm not sure I understand what you're asking - but given that a major
>portion of the south-facing wall consisted of a pair of 6'x12' solar
>panels which would not have been present in the same structure
>intended for conventional heating - yes, the solar version of the
>building was somewhat less expensive to build and very much less
>expensive to operate.
So you're saying that you were able to get this shop uncomfortably hot
with two 6'x12' panels at -30? Are you sure it wasn't the tools
heating it? I'm sorry, but I've been in too many houses with far more
collector area than that that weren't warm at noon, let alone at 4 AM,
in a warmer climate than that.
>|| There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed
>|| was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and
>|| work in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls.
>|
>| That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how much did those
>| collectors cost? Note that if they were free or inexpensive due to
>| efficient scrounging on your part then you're not describing
>| something that someone building houses commercially can count on
>| doing.
>
>At 4am (an hour at which I can't recall ever having been in /any/
>workshop) in the winter the shop was anywhere from cool to chilly -
>but never cold enough to freeze water or coffee left out.
If it's not warm enough to take a crap at 4 AM without freezing my
butt off then it's not acceptable. I don't want my house "above
freezing", I want it _comfortable_.
>The panels
>were built with wood, aluminum, twinwall polycarbonate solar glazing,
>and a tube of gasket compound - all purchased at retail from the
>local (rural community) lumber yard and hardware store for (I think)
>about $500 total. The panels were built in place so as to be an
>integral part of the wall.
>
>I guess that if you wanted to use the workshop at 4am, you'd probably
>want to insulate the walls. I didn't.
Sounds like you may be able to heat a workshop during the day, but
apparently don't understand that keeping a house comfortable is a
different proposition.
>
>|| Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and
>|| construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well.
>|| Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of
>|| innovation.
>|
>| What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that there is some
>| kind of new insulation that is cheaper than fiberglass? If so why
>| is not every builder jumping on it?
>
>Excellent questions! [1] I only know some of the answers so would
>suggest asking in alt.solar.thermal and alt.architecture.* newsgroups
>where you can get expert answers. [2] Yes I am, but only in the
>context of a complete structure. [3] My WAG would be that many/most
>builders avoid the unfamiliar.
So you know of this mystery material but won't tell us what it is?
>BTW, if fiberglass is your performance baseline, then you would do
>well to investigate the characteristic behavior of that insulation at
>low temperatures. You may be in for a not-pleasant surprise. If I
>recall the discussion on alt.solar.thermal correctly, the R-factor
>begins dropping off significantly somewhere around 20F.
Fiberglass is not the "performance baseline", it is the "cost
effectiveness baseline". There are many more efficient forms of
insulation but they all cost more for the same effectiveness.
>||| Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in
>||| my neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left
>||| now.
>|||
>||| But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house.
>||
>|| Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it
>|| does about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to
>|| make that kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that
>|| the panels would actually be worth having.
>|
>| So with them paid for why would they not be "worth having"?
>
>According to your comment, only one set appears to have been judged by
>only one of your neighbors to be "worth having". At every other
>household they've been discarded. Do you draw a different conclusion?
I repeat my question. They were there. They were paid for. Removing
them involved some cost.
If they were conferring _any_ benefit whatsoever or were just taking
up space then one would not expect the owners to be willing to pay the
cost of removal. Thus one must conclude that having them not only was
not conferring benefit but was worse than not having them.
>Seems to me like a good question, but one which would be better
>directed to your neighbors. My guess is that the panels performed
>poorly or weren't well constructed. If you do ask your neighbors, I
>would be very interested in their answers.
Sorry, but none of my current neighbors were in those houses when the
panels were removed.
>||||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
>||||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
>||||| actually humorous.
>||||
>|||| Re-read for comprehension.
>|||
>||| Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you
>||| should write what you mean.
>||
>|| I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you
>|| presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule.
>|
>| So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be online _now_!
>| We just have more "important" things to spend the money on. "
>
>I'm of the opinion, based on comments made by actual participants,
>that if we could develop a whole collection of new technologies,
>tools, and methods in ten years to send people to the moon and bring
>them back, then we should be able to accomplish this project in a
>comparable short time frame.
Uh, there was no new physics involved in going to the moon. That was
all engineering.
Fusion isn't a matter of developing "a whole collection of new
technologies, tools, and methods", it's a matter of developing a
sufficient understanding of the physics involved to allow the
development technologies, tools, and methods, and that doesn't happen
on a crash basis.
Apollo worked because von Braun already knew how to go to the Moon, he
just needed to build the pieces to get there. People had been
building liquid fuel rockets that worked for 35 years when Kennedy
ordered Project Apollo and it still took almost ten more years of
development.
>The cost guesstimate, with which you seem really hung up, was given to
>me on an off-the-cuff basis and isn't something I feel obliged to
>defend. If you have a Perted schedule with a closely-coupled budget,
>I'd probably be willing to give it as much credence (perhaps more or
>perhaps less) as I did my original input.
What is a "Perted schedule"? Do you mean a PERT chart?
>| So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion in 1976 would
>| have done it, how much would have and spent when?
>
>Do you really expect me to defend someone else's 30-year old WAG?
You're the one arguing that fusion should have been accomplished 20
years ago and the reason that it wasn't was that the government didn't
want to cough up the money. Since you seem to think that you know
this, it would be helpful to know just how much money they didn't
cough up.
>Since you have been strongly inferring that you have superior
>knowledge on the matter, why don't you stop playing silly word games,
>establish your credentials as a holder of verifiable information, and
>inform the group? If you don't have anything of substance to offer,
>then let's get back to woodworking.
You should have thought of that before you went off on this tangent.
As far as being a "holder of verifiable information", now you're
playing the "cant attack the argument so I'll attack the arguer" game.
What I've said about the mechanisms of fusion anyone who has taken a
sophomore "modern physics" course should have learned. What I've said
about the state of the art 30 years ago was common knowledge to
anybody enrolled in a physics program at the time. What I've said
about the current state of the art comes from the ITER Web site
<http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_1.htm>.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:35:17 -0500, "Rick M"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Rob,
>
>I don't think you really want to squeeze that particular roll of Charmin
>right now. Really.
The calculation isn't difficult.
Energy released from fusion of 1 Kg of hydrogen = 676 times the per
capita annual energy consumption of the US.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html>
World population = approximately 6.5 billion
<http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html>
Kilograms of hydrogen required to provide 6.5 billion people energy
equivalent to the per capita consumption of the US = 6.5E9/676=9.62E6
kilograms.
Mass of world ocean = 1.4e21Kg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean>
(note--in my previous calculation I entered this incorrectely as
1.4E18)
Mass of hydrogen in world ocean = 1.4e21*2/18 = 1.56e20 Kg. (atomic
mass of hydrogen is 1, of water molecule is 18, there are two
hydrogens per water molecule)
Time required to consume all hydrogen in world ocean at current
population and current per capita rate = 1.56e20/9.62e6 = 1.62E13
years.
Time required at 100 times current US per capita rate and 10 times the
population = 1.62E13/1000=1.62E10=16.2 billion years. Note that this
is somewhere between 75% and 1.6 times the age of the universe
depending on which estimate you use.
Mass of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune=1898.6, 568.46, 86.832, and
102.43 E24 kg, respectively.
Percentage of hydrogen=89.8, 96.3, 82.5, and 80.0 percent respectively
<http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/planets_main.html> (these are
higher than I used previously--I used the wiki numbers then and the
wiki page has been corrupted since, I believe case.edu is probably
more reliable).
Total mass of hydrogen on outer planets =
1898.6e24*.898+568.46e24*.963+86.832*.825+102.43e24*.80=2.41E27
kilograms of hydrogen.
Time to deplete hydrogen in outer planets=2.41E27 / (9.62E6 * 1000) =
2.50E17 years.
Age of universe 20E9 years
<http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html>
2.50E17/20E9 = 12,500,000.
So we have that to deplete the hydrogen in Earth and the outer planets
at 10 times the current population and 100 times the current per
capita US consumption rate will take 12.5 million times the age of the
universe.
Note that the number may change somewhat depending on the particular
reaction--D-T is somewhat more energetic than H-H for example, and on
whose numbers you use for the composition of the outer planets and the
age of the universe, but the point remains, we're talking billions of
years to deplete the hydrogen in the oceans and unimaginably long time
periods to deplete the hydrogen in the outer planets, even at a much
higher consumption level than at present.
Also note that the sun is only supposed to last another 5.5 billion
years <http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/sun_astar.html>.
>
>GDR
>
>Rick
>
>
>"Robatoy" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > If the population of the earth was ten times ...
>> >
>> Please post the worksheet which allowed you to arrive at those
>> numbers.
>>
>> If quoted from another source, please cite.
>>
>> r
>>
>
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:12:48 -0700, Doug Miller wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
>>>> the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
>>>> dynamic in nature.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
>>> that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
>>> doesn't
>>> it?
>>
>> Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.
>
> And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra,
> exactly how?
>
>
Ummm, and lets not loose sight of the Vostock ice core data (the stuff used
to show CO2 levels over the past few 100k years).
The temperature changes _preceeded_ CO2 changes.
Robatoy wrote:
| On Feb 17, 12:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
|| On Feb 14, 1:02 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Up to my groin in snow.
||| Just a few drifts.
||| *poke, poke, poke*
||| "There's a car in here somewhere..."
||
|| http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm
||
|| GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S.
|| TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH
||
| ..and how will that help me find my car?
|
| I had NO idea that this would trigger such an avalanche of
| responses. But, as with every thread which explodes, a nugget pops
| out which wins the thread.
|
| This is the winner:
|
|| I see little
|| difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and
|| using fuel burned ten feet away.
|
| On the left, our sun, source of all life on earth, on the right a
| Kawaswaki weed-whacker.
| Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
| Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
|
| Little difference.... other than the fact that I can turn off the
| weed- whacker.
|
|
| *bangs head on desk*
Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)
Hope you find your car.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Feb 16, 11:05 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 17, 12:36 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> C'mon folks, we've beaten this topic to death. Nobody is changing anyone
> else's mind any more, if ever. Let's drop it.
>
Gee, just when I thought I was winning.
You're right about the multi-screen thread, Larry, and about people's
minds not being changed, but the discussion was generally mature and
thoughtful, and at the least it may lead to some serious rethinking.
Now back to the astronomy newsgroup where the resident troll wants us to
boycott the Bank of America.
Bob
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)
WHOA! YEAH! We'll call it DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME!
Get it?
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
*snip*
>
> You know, there may very well be global warming- I'm not a climate
> scientist, and I can't make the assertion that there is not.
Like most things, it's something we can't prove for sure until someone
comes up with a reliable way to test it. Perhaps the solution is to
teach two (a master and apprentice) people how to take proper weather
measurements and go back in time so we've got all the proper data we need
for several thousand years, not just the 100 or so we've got now. (Then,
this would upset the timeline and we'd skew from this 1985 into an
alternate 1985.)
*snip: Paragraph I'm not interested in commenting on besides to comment
that I'm not interested in commenting on the paragraph that I refused to
comment on except for this comment and lengthy sentence.)
> I've got a fuel-efficient car. It was to save money at the gas pump,
> and not to placate eco-nuts. But that's about the extent of what I'm
> willing to do before the Orient decides they're going to stop burning
> coal like it's going out of style and erecting cities the size of
> Detroit every week. I'm not willing to freeze to death in the dark so
> that I can wear a green t-shirt and hang out with hippies.
I'm all for "Goin' green" (no "greenage" here... sorry Dusty,) but I
don't want to give up anything for it. My primary light sources at home
happen to be flourescent. I'm getting more light at less wattage, it's a
winning situation.
I'm looking into buying a Prius now, the main selling points being gas
mileage and design (it looks like a very well designed car). The
environmental aspects just a minor selling point. It's kinda a "eh,
that's nice" rather than a "got to get into the Nexus ribbon" feeling.
*snip*
> So cross your fingers and hope for the best. That's what you can do
> about it, just like most of the things in the world.
Oh, and movie references. Be sure to reference movies.
Can you tell I haven't been to bed yet? It's 20 minutes to 7:00 where I
live...
Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> writes:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>
>Does your newsreader support threading?
1) there is no guarantee that the post you are responding to will
arrive on his news server before your post.
2) there is no guarantee that the post you are responding to will
EVER arrive on his news server.
In the case of 1), he will have to read your post, mark it as something
that he wants to look at again later when the context eventually arrives,
then read it again and look for the post in the thread containing the
context. Unless what you are saying is DAMN important (and is obviously so
WITHOUT knowing the context), this is Highly Unlikey (tm). It is much more
likely that you will simply be ignored.
In the case of 2), the likelihood of being ignored increases
dramatically.
If you don't care that people read what you post, then continue posting
without including any context. You'll save time by not posting at all,
though.
Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> writes:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>>>
>>> Does your newsreader support threading?
>>>
>> Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
>> doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
>>
>I call 'malarky'.
>"Read and delete" is not normal behavior.
He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me about
them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed again (with
effort, probably minimal).
> The first problem with it is
>that it immediately kills -any- hope of useful threading. Among other
>things, this leaves you vulnerable to folks like myself who, innocently
>enough, figure that you either have a good memory or, failing that,
>written records. To have a full participation on Usenet, you really need
>one or the other. After all, how can you hold a grudge if you can't
>remember who you are mad at and can't look it up, either?
[snip]
>> It's also pretty much normal behavior, when following up an article, to quote
>> enough of it that other people know what you're talking about.
>>
>I've already addressed that above.
>I won't be held accountable for reading your mind. Either arrange to use
>a better set-up newsreader or accept that you won't be able to follow
>some of my postings. With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
>reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
>quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.
Either include more context, or accept that people will just ignore
your posts. You're probably making an extra effort to delete more text,
and then making others do more work to find out why you're bothering to
post.
Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> writes:
>D Smith wrote:
>> Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does your newsreader support threading?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
>>>> doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
>>>>
>>> I call 'malarky'.
>>
>>> "Read and delete" is not normal behavior.
>>
>> He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me about
>> them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed again (with
>> effort, probably minimal).
>>
>Which he didn't bother to take.
So, you admit that your deliberate act of removing context makes for
more work for him (or anyone else reading the thread). And from your
flippant comment, it seems that you think he is lazy for not making that
extra effort.
Priceless.
>> Either include more context, or accept that people will just ignore
>> your posts. You're probably making an extra effort to delete more text,
>> and then making others do more work to find out why you're bothering to
>> post.
>>
>>
>If he wishes, he is free to filter me completely. He is free to make
>that minimal effort you mentioned above. He is free to sip his beer
>through a straw.
>The guy is an expert on global warming, nuclear power generation, peer
>review, the Geneva Convention and I've lost track of what else ... but
>can't recall what he said two days ago.
Or perhaps he remembers more of what he said two days ago than the
single post you are responding to. You're not the only person he's engaged
in discussion with.... and he's not the only one reading your responses.
>I gave a detailed technical reason why his whining is without merit and
>now I am done with this thread.
Your "detailed technical reason" ignores the plain and simple fact that
the original post may not yet be on a person's server, and may never get
there. Obviously, his own posts should be on his server, but you're not
engaged in a private conversation (if you think you are, you've picked the
wrong medium), and others reading the thread will just learn to ignore
you.
...which seems like a better and better idea all the time...
Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> writes:
>D Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>> He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me about
>> them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed again (with
>> effort, probably minimal).
>The human effort to refetch articles already read isn't large, but in this
>newsgroup, with the number of postings, fetching EVERY article, and
>applying the killfile filters does take time - several minutes.
In my newsreader, a few keystrokes to get all the article headers for
the current subject, or for a particular author. Yes, not much, but as you
point out, it does take time.
On the other hand, if *everyone* began posting with no included
context, forcing readers to refetch articles by thread to discover what is
being discussed, the forum would become so useless that nobody would read
it and the number of posting per day would drop significantly. That would
solve the problem, wouldn't it? ;-)
>There is no way I'm going to do it just because someone posts a
>one-liner with no context. I just ignore them.
Not even for the wisdom of "Bill in Detroit"?
[no need to answer that!]
[email protected] writes:
>On Feb 24, 12:22 am, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>> > You're missing the point very badly. The point is that your newsreader is
>> > including that context -- and then *you* are snipping it before you post.
>>
>> > Now -- to drive the point home -- let's see you reply to this message, WITHOUT
>> > doing anything else, just click 'reply to' like you said -- and restore the
>> > text that I snipped.
>>
>> There is no need for that. If I so desire, I can review the prior posts
>> .. as you should also be able to do.
>>
>He cannot if the previous article never made it to
>his server. You just do not understand how NNTP
>servers operate. UseNet is not a bulletin board.
>There is no guarantee that two people downloading
>from different servers will have access to the same
>articles, or even the same newsgroups.
If "Bill in Detroit" responded to a post from "Doug Miller", then
presumably Doug's original post will be on both Doug's server and Bill's
server, but anyone else reading the discussion has no guarantee...
(Although I *have* had some of my posts appear on Google, thus making
it to the outside world, even though I never saw them on my server... but
my ISP thinks the server and news feed is working fine...)
>AFAIK, there are no longer any UseNet servers
>that rely on mailed tapes to exchange articles with
>other servers but there is still propagation delay and
>we also have blacklists now.
Now you're dating yourself. :-)
>You seem to think that everyone has exactly
>the same resources as you do, or worse,
>that those who do not, are not deserving of
>even a modicum of courtesy.
...or he's assuming that if he can remember the context, then everyone
else can too. Which suggests that he's assuming that everyone else reading
the group is smarter than he is (i.e., he doesn't need to do anything
to help those of us that are dumber)...
...which may not be a bad assumption....
[email protected] writes:
>On Feb 16, 11:13 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon.
>> >>> They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
>>
>> >> Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
>> >> Right. I got it.
>>
>> >Nope--the Ice ages were a comparatively recent phenomenon, geologically
>> >speaking.
>>
>> The fact that they're a *recent* (geologically speaking) cyclical phenomenon
>> does not alter their cyclical nature.
>>
>Indeed.
>Nor does observation of past cycles imply a continuation of
>those same cycles.
Nor does observation of past cycles preclude the possibility of changes
caused by newly-introduced factors.
After all, if your bank balance goes through cycles - dependent on your
patterns of income deposits and expense withdrawals - that doesn't mean
that your balance won't be affected if I start skimming money out of it...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>>
>[Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>>
>>
>I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
>dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
>after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
>earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
>correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You know, there may very well be global warming- I'm not a climate
scientist, and I can't make the assertion that there is not.
*But* there is absolutely nothing at all that we are going to be able
to do about it. If every man, woman and child in the US, Canada and
Europe do everything that is being suggested to remedy the situation,
China will continue to have it's industrial revolution. And we are
not going to war to stop them- we depend on them too heavily, and they
hold far too much of our outstanding debt. Even if that were not the
case, there is no moral grounds for holding them back from doing what
our own country has already done and largely passed through.
I've got a fuel-efficient car. It was to save money at the gas pump,
and not to placate eco-nuts. But that's about the extent of what I'm
willing to do before the Orient decides they're going to stop burning
coal like it's going out of style and erecting cities the size of
Detroit every week. I'm not willing to freeze to death in the dark so
that I can wear a green t-shirt and hang out with hippies.
Whether the whole deal is true or not, the US is not the major culprit
in this- if you're talking about emmissions from the early 1900's,
then yes, mea culpa. But we've already cleaned up our acts, despite
the attempts to make everyone feel guilty about using lights at night
and having the audacity to drive a car to work every day.
So cross your fingers and hope for the best. That's what you can do
about it, just like most of the things in the world.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:06:01 -0600, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>>> Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
>>> opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
>>> J Ren (China)
>>> N Nicholls (Australia)
>>> M Rusticucci (Argentina)
>>> P Stott (UK)
>>> U Lohmann (Switzerland)
>>> R Stouffer (USA)
>>> V Kattsov (Russia)
>>> T Matsuno (Japan)
>>>
>>> -Doug
>>>
>>
>> No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
>> logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
>> Brennan.
>>
>> We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
>> regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
>> their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
>> by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
>> continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
>> creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
>> shivering under.
>
>Please acquaint yourself with the difference between weather and
>climate. Global warming ain't about weather.
>
>>
>> If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
>> contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
>> is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
>> weather fronts?
>
>The Arctic is not a refrigerator-- it is an effect and not a cause of
>climate. It is now mostly free of ice, as you admit, the result of
>global warming. Which, BTW, is the subject of a meeting of 600
>scientists at the present. You made the unsubstantiated claim that you
>could provide the names of 100 scientists who believe that global
>warming is cyclical for every one who believes that is is man-made.
>You owe us 6,800 names.
>
>I'll give you the name of one (most definitely) non-scientist who
>believes that it is man-made: George W. Bush. Or is Charlton Heston
>still your president?
>
>Bob
Flip flopping now?
.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Bleau <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Up to my groin in snow.
>> >Just a few drifts.
>> >*poke, poke, poke*
>> >"There's a car in here somewhere..."
>>
>> Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
>> you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
>> might help you out.
>
>Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.
Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
And Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:05:16 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or
>> exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the
>> initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already existed,
>> as you acknowledge above.
>
>It existed as a research tool for those funded by the government.
>It was NOT available for commercial use at the time.
At _what_ time? What specific legislation are you talking about?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>>With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
>>>reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
>>>quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.
>>
>> Suit yourself. Most folks quote enough of the message that they're
>> responding to that their readers don't need to go digging through previous
>> messages to see what they meant. It's simple courtesy to avoid imposing this
>> inconvenience on others.
>
>I agree. I may or may not remember the original post when a new message comes
>in - often many days after the original.
>
>BTW Doug, you and I may disagree on many things but I heartily endorse your
>sig line.
That sig line was prompted by the SCOTUS decision in Kelo vs. New London.
> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
>he holds them outside the country.
With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right. OTOH, they blew it
big-time IMO when they ruled that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Speech
Suppression law was constitutional. [What part of "Congress shall make no
law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" did they have a hard
time understanding, anyway??]
>OTOH, it's been said that people get the government they deserve. I must have
>been really bad in a previous incarnation :-).
You and me both. I suspect that neither one of us will ever be completely
happy with *any* President -- let alone the *same* one. <g>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Correct, however the period examined has been picked. I pick the period
>from March to August in the southern hemisphere. The result of those
>temperatures shows global cooling.
>Or take the period from the ice age until now. Global warming.
>You can make any thing look the way you want it to with the right time frame
>and figures.
BINGO. Give that man a cigar.
Mark Twain said that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and
statistics.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:26:32 -0700, "DouginUtah" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>> journal.
>===========
>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
>are not given credence in scientific journals.
>
>Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed :
>ExxonMobil global warming deniers
>into Google. The first item was:
>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
>
>It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say.
>
>"News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to
>undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to
>overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil."
>
You realize the irony in your statement above: "scientific consensus".
Science is not about consensus, it is about theory, hypothesis,
experimentation, and proof. To indicate that a theory requires consensus
is to admit that it is a nebulous theory without significant substantiating
facts to establish its veracity. That alone should make one suspicious of
those who are affirming a scientific "consensus" of the veracity of a
theory and further using that "consensus" as rationale for institution of
draconian measures that will degrade the quality of life for many in the
developed world. One also should look at the agenda of those proposing
those draconian measures: a) many of them gain additional control over
other peoples' lives and fortunes, b) many of those pushing this are
agenda-driven anti-capitalist, anti-progress who view our technological
society as something to be dismantled, not appreciated. What is ironic is
the fact that the findings and approaches proposed by these agenda-driven
activists are somehow viewed as more "pure" and valid than findings by
anyone who is funded by the companies these people seek to destroy or
subvert as indicated in your post below.
>An excerpt:
>"Mother Jones
Yeah, there's a source that has no agenda nor bias. Would you accept a
reference to a Rush Limbaugh publication?
> has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that
>either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global
>climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of
>"skeptic" scientists who continue to do so."
>
I've never understood why there is such a fear factor related to the fact
that a corporation is funding research in order to defend itself against
taxpayer-funded, agenda-driven research that seeks to undermine that
company's core source of income.
>However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But
>you were civil, so I have replied.
>
>(BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly.
>Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not
>civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.)
Don't know and don't care if I fall into one of those categories. The
fact is that this prevailing attitude that "scientific consensus" is
somehow equivalent to quantitative, substantiating, rigorous scientific
evidence is disturbing.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:45 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Bob Schmall wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> Charles Koester wrote:
>>>> On 2007-02-15, J Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>>>>>>> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>>>>>>> affirming or denying global warming?
>>>>>> =================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from
>>>>>> ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only
>>>>>> recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to
>>>>>> stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking.
>>>>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>>>>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>>>>> journal.
>>>>
>>>> They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
>>>> All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
>>>> have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
>>>> Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
>>>>
>>>> A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
>>>> randomly selected research papers on climate change
>>>> published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
>>>> Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
>>>>
>>>> Zip. nada.
>>>>
>>>> A quote:
>>>> Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
>>>> first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
>>>> accepting the consensus view; 25%
>>>> dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
>>>> no position on current anthropogenic climate
>>>> change. Remarkably, none of the papers
>>>> disagreed with the consensus position.
>>>>
>>>> Read it for yourself:
>>>>
>>>> <http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Charles Koester
>>
>> (snippage of unsubstantiated rant.)
>>
>>> I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
>>> merely practical
>>> when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
>>> the subject
>>> is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
>>> cook up
>>> the model that makes your patron happy.
>>
>> Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
>> in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
>> some evidence.
>> And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
>> disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?
>
>No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
>being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
>people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
>are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
>a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
>is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
>of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
>just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
>thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.
>
>> And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
>> cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
>> Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
>
>The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
>oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.
>
>> Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
>> scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
>> argument is completely invalid.
>
>No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
>has the most papers published. It is about *data*.
No, it's not about _data_, it's about figuring out how the world
around us works. One needs data to do that, but data alone doesn't
tell us much. It's not until you have a falsifiable model that you
can test against that data that you are doing science. Until that
time you are merely cataloguing.
The trouble with the notion that human activity causes global warming
is that the model is hideously complex and the amount of data
available for the purpose of testing it is exceedingly small. And
it's difficult to get more data by research since to conduct a
half-assed test one needs data spanning 10,000 or more years and to
conduct a thorough one one needs data that covers the entire period
from from the beginning of a series of glaciation cycles to the
beginning of the next period of glaciation cycles, and to collect
_that_ data will take _millions_ of years, and we don't have any way
to obtain such data globally in detail except to wait for it. At
least not unless there is some breakthrough method of determining the
data from the geological record.
> The fact that there
>remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
>but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
>how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.
A problem with this discussion is that the global warming advocates
are asserting that no contrarian results are being published, however
is that indeed the case or are they lying about that? I don't have
the time or means to conduct a comprehensive literature survey of
climatology, so don't expect me to answer that question.
>> Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if
>> we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.
>>
>>> Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.
>>
>> Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
>> science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
>> Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
>> issue. DAGS.
>>
>> Bob
>
>And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
>far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
>administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
>bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
>among he earth worshipers.
Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here
after all.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> You're missing the point very badly. The point is that your newsreader is
>> including that context -- and then *you* are snipping it before you post.
>>
>> Now -- to drive the point home -- let's see you reply to this message,
> WITHOUT
>> doing anything else, just click 'reply to' like you said -- and restore the
>> text that I snipped.
>>
>
>There is no need for that. If I so desire, I can review the prior posts
>... as you should also be able to do.
Of course I can. And perhaps you think that what you have to say is so
valuable, that I should be willing and eager to inconvenience myself just so I
can find out what you're talking about.
I disagree.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>>
> [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>>
>>
> I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we
> can dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every
> year, year after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major
> effect on the earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct
> positive correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the
> atmosphere.
>
> -Doug
Here's another indisputable correlation. Of all the people convicted of
murder in this county, over 99% of them ate bread at least once. With that
kind of correlation, I think it's obvious what the government should do.
todd
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:35:13 GMT, John Santos
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> "Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
>> >> to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying
>> >> create and saying invent?
>> >
>> > As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating
>> > the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway.
>>
>> Which isn't even close to being on point. Eisenhower was in office from
>> 1953-1961. The Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed in 1956. So, Eisenhower
>> can rightly claim the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System.
>> In contrast, Gore was not yet in office when the Internet was first created.
>> Perhaps he could rightly say that he took the initiative to expand the
>> Internet, but that doesn't sound nearly as good saying you created it, so
>> being a politician, he said the latter. In the end, I don't really care.
>> The way he said it left him wide open for jokes to be made. You can't deny
>> that it sounds funny, can you?
>>
>> todd
>
>Highways existed long before Eisenhower was elected president. It
>is exactly on point.
>
... and as far as I know, Eisenhower never made a statement that said,
"While president, I took the initiative in creating highway systems". The
interstate highway system was a considerable advancement over the existing
highway systems in place -- compare Route 66 with Interstate 10 -- a
completely different travel model. Ike came back from Germany tremendously
impressed with the Autobahn and the ability to move military materiel
rapidly.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Al Gore statement. The fact
is, in the heat of a political election season, Al Gore made a statement
wildly inflating his importance in the construction of an important element
of national infrastructure. Even apologists for Gore ought to be able to
see that his claim was wildly inflated and he did it solely for the purpose
of gaining standing in the eyes of potential voters. The fact that he got
called on it should surprise no one. Just as his claims to have
"discovered" Love Canal, or to have been the model for the main character
of a novel that became a major motion picture were designed to serve the
same purpose.
>Eisenhower proposed legislation to build a new highway system.
>
>Gore sponsored a bill to enable public and commercial use of what
>had been to that point solely a military, government and academic
>network.
>
>Neither one of them swung a shovel or crimped a connector or designed
>an overpass or wrote an RFC.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
>that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
>dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
>years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
>aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
> or you might try prayer,
> jo4hn
CO2, atmospheric levels now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm).
Paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300
ppm there has been an ice age. Every time, without exception.
The same records show that there have been a series of ice ages over
the past 5 million years, naturally occurring every 100,000 years,
with about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
of interglacial climate.
The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. I am more inclined to
believe what has happened in the past without exception, than the
incredibly unreliable speculation about what will happen into the
future 100 to 1000 years from now. Are planet is cyclical, what goes
around comes around.
Does this mean we will be heading into an ice age anytime soon,
certainly not. One thing I do know for sure is that the sky is not
falling, Chicken Little.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>
> > OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
> > to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create
> > and saying invent?
>
> I assume this is an attempt at humor.
>
> Lew
No, it's a request for an actual reasoned explanation of the semantic
difference between saying AlGore claimed he "took the initiative in
creating the internet" and saying AlGore claimed he "invented the
internet." Just how is saying "created" different from saying
"invented" in that context?
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:23 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>>No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
>>exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.
>>
>>--
>
> If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting
> to it?
>
> So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement?
>
>
Global warming exissts, and is caused by all the hot air Al Gore spews out.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.
>
But, but, but .... OK, if I have to to get along. But the equally touted
"Look out! the Ice Age is coming" back in the 70's has got me sorta cynical
about "lies, damn lies and statistics", if you know what I mean, Vern?
> I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
Hell will freeze over first ... well, maybe just one, with a little "o",
just to keep the gullible gullible.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
>>>are not given credence in scientific journals.
>>
>> If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
>> biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
>> rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
>> wrong.
>
>I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions.
>They also love to be first with groundbreaking research.
>
>Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be
>proven, then it's not science.
So what are you asserting here?
By the way, "facts can't be proven" and "facts haven't been proven"
are two different things. It is not necessary to prove facts in order
to publish in a peer reviewed journal. All that is necessary is to
provide a means by which one's viewpoint can be tested.
As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they
do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it
except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never
before been tested.
As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they
are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at
issue is the policies of journals.
Perhaps there is simply _no_ scientist who disagrees with the notion
of global warming or with the notion that it has a human cause.
Considering that there are scientists who disagree with such well
established models as General Relativity, and that they have little
difficulty getting published, if there are in fact no published papers
critical of the global warming hypothesis, which is far less well
established and based on atmospheric modelling, an area of physics
which is still evolving rapidly, this is _highly_ suspicious.
Either the global warming advocates are lying about there being no
published contrarian view or there is systematic bias in the journals.
To assert that no credible scientist can present an argument against t
is simply not believable.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
>
> OK, I'll ask, "Why not?"
Al Gore's head would explode.
On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Up to my groin in snow.
>Just a few drifts.
>*poke, poke, poke*
>"There's a car in here somewhere..."
Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
might help you out.
On Feb 16, 6:36 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> At least give the guy credit for inventing the algorithm. I mean, how
> do you think it got its name?
>
Brilliant! Consider it stolen.
Tom Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:53:30 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
[etc]
Remember that All Gore is divided into three parts...
twitch,
Zo4rba
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:53:30 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:17:53 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>>>>>>Rove spin.
>>>>>
>>>>>Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
>>>>>all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
>>
>>>>>that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
>>>>>elected to Congress.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are smarter than that, Douglas:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>>
>>>I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to
>>>Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less
>>
>>>a fact.
>>
>>
>>1958 - ARPA formed in response to Sputnik launch. (note: it was not
>>called darpa at this point.)
>>
>>1967 - ARPANET design discussions held.
>>
>>1969 - ARPANET commisioned by DoD for research into networking.
>>
>>1970 - First publication of Host-Host protocol by ARPANET.
>>
>>1973 - First international connection to ARPANET (University College
>>Of London).
>
>Three years before AlGore's election...
That was a crappy response and you know it.
At least give the guy credit for inventing the algorithm. I mean, how
do you think it got its name?
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:53:30 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:17:53 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Robatoy"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>>>>>>>Rove spin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of
> himself
>>>>>>all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the
> fact
>>>
>>>>>>that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was
> ever
>>>>>>elected to Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are smarter than that, Douglas:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>>>
>>>>I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected
> to
>>>>Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any
> less
>>>
>>>>a fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>1958 - ARPA formed in response to Sputnik launch. (note: it was not
>>>called darpa at this point.)
>>>
>>>1967 - ARPANET design discussions held.
>>>
>>>1969 - ARPANET commisioned by DoD for research into networking.
>>>
>>>1970 - First publication of Host-Host protocol by ARPANET.
>>>
>>>1973 - First international connection to ARPANET (University College
>>>Of London).
>>
>>Three years before AlGore's election...
>
>
>That was a crappy response and you know it.
No, Tom, just pointing out the facts -- the internet existed before AlGore was
elected to Congress, and he was lying when he said he "took the initiative in
creating it". Just like he was lying when he claimed to have spent his youth
working on the family farm. Just like he was lying when he claimed that his
mother sang him to sleep using "Look for the Union Label" as a lullaby -- a
song that wasn't written until he was in his twenties.
And just like he's lying now about globabl warming.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:32:14 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Larry) wrote:
>Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>affirming or denying global warming?
I don't know many scientists, so it's a wild-assed guess.
But could it have something to do with a scientist studying something
like global warming depends on government funds for grants to pursue
their research, and somebody has a politically motivated say on who
gets that money and who does not? Even without overt pressure, I
could imagine some unconcious skewing in the data to help ensure next
year's grants.
They're not making or developing a product, so that money has to come
from somewhere. I can't imagine that many industries are footing the
bill for people who stand up and yell that they are the root of all
that is evil in the world.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is
>> warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be
>> recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.
>
>The peer reviewers do not get paid.
Are you saying that they are all independently wealthy or that they
are all subsistence farmers? They get paid by _somebody_ or else htey
don't eat. And if the grant money is in research that tends to
support global warming then that's what they do.
>Some critics take great joy in
>criticizing papers with unsubstantiated claims.
The job of a peer reviewer is not to criticize, it's to determine
whether the paper is (a) reporting something of sufficient interest to
be worth publishing and (b) not so poorly done as to be worthless.
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>> Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
>>> the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
>>> dynamic in nature.
>>>
>>
>> If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
>> that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
>> doesn't
>> it?
>
>Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.
And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra,
exactly how?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 15, 7:55 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>> >> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>
>> >That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>> >Rove spin.
>>
>> Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
>> all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
>> that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
>> elected to Congress.
>>
>That's the spin Rove gave it. You bought into it. He's good, eh?
No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
>>dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
>>after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
>>earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
>>correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
>Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
>the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
>dynamic in nature.
Actually, you *over*stated that by an order of magnitude.
Consider:
Surface area of the planet is approximately 200 million square miles. That's
5.6 quadrillion square feet, or about 800 quadrillion square inches.
Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving a total
atmospheric mass of approximately 12 quintillion pounds, or 6 quadrillion
tons. Four tenths of one percent, approximately, of that is CO2; thus the
total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 24 trillion tons.
20 GT is less than one *tenth* of one percent of total atmospheric CO2.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>> (what they usually mean is western
>> civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
>> industrial nations apparently has no effect).
>
>Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.
That's an inference, drawn from the fact that the Kyoto Protocol exempts China
and other developing industrial nations from the restrictions that it imposes
on Western industrial democracies.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Feb 23, 2:38 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Feb 22, 3:15 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > wrote:
> >> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
> >> >> >>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as
> > long
> >> > as
> >> >> >>>he holds them outside the country.
>
> >> >> >> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
> >> >> >> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>
> >> >> >I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.
>
> >> >> There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
> >> >> individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies"
> > or
> >> >> "saboteurs".
>
> >> >And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
> >> >guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
> >> >to determine their status.
>
> >> Cite, please.
>
> >1949 Geneva Protocols. Please do us the courtesy
> >of READING beyond the titles before claiming
> >they are irrelevant.
>
> I have done so, but as I noted the last time we discussed this, I question
> whether you have.
>
>
>
> >Persons who are place hors de combat by captivity,
> >are protected.
>
> That simply isn't true. Armed individuals in civilian clothing on a
> battlefield are not protected persons.
Please stop arguing from irrelevancy. Armed indviduals on the
battlefield are NOT hors de combat.
NO armed person on a battlefield is a protected person
in the context of the 1949 Protocols.--LEAST OF ALL
uniformed soldiers of a regularly constituted armed
forces.
>
> >That doesn't mean they cannot be
> >tried and executed for acts of perfidy. It does mean
> >that the execution must be preceded by trail.
>
> >Tangentially, note that members of the regularly
> >constituted armed forces of a signatory nation are
> >always protected persons, regardless of how they
> >dress.
>
> Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
> uniform or insignia.
Noe I'm sure you have not.
Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping
in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument,
he would be subject to summary execution.
> [remainder snipped]
First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statments,
then you refuse to discuss further. I though better of you.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>NO armed person on a battlefield is a protected person
>in the context of the 1949 Protocols.--LEAST OF ALL
>uniformed soldiers of a regularly constituted armed
>forces.
That's kinda the point, Fred....
[...]
>Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping
>in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument,
>he would be subject to summary execution.
Since when is a barracks a battlefield?
>
>> [remainder snipped]
>
>First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statments,
>then you refuse to discuss further. I though better of you.
>
And then, after that, you have the nerve to accuse *me* of presenting bogus
arguments.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
I, too, was going to stay out of this discussion.
However...
I did nothing and I survived the "coming" Ice Age of
the seventies. I didn't even buy an extra sweater.
I did nothing and I survived the "coming" population
explosion and mass starvations of the eighties. My
bathroom scale says I didn't miss any meals.
I did nothing and I survived the "cumming" in the White
House in the nineties.
I have tried to keep an open mind on the "coming"
global warming of the new millennium. When the
proposed and infamous Kyoto treaty did not produce any
reduction in "air contamination" yet proposed
penalizing producing countries and rewarding
non-producing countries, I suspected another chicken
little plot to penalize the very successful countries.
I didn't sign up for a coming ice age.
I didn't sign up for famine and too many people.
I didn't sign up for extramarital sex in the White
House.
I won't sign up for global warming. (But it would be
okay if we signed a Toyota agreement, they are great
vehicles!)
But wait, I have just learned there is a killer
asteroid coming directly at the earth and it will
destroy us all in 2010. I hope I can get all my
woodworking projects done by then.
John Flatley
Jacksonville, Florida
--
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
| Steve wrote:
|
| > Show me a scientist who says that there is global
warming and I'll
| > show you a hundred more who say that there are only
global cycles and
| > a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
|
| I was going to stay out of this off-topic argument,
but the above is pure BS.
| Where were your hundreds of dissenters at the recent
global warming
| conference? I suspect you've got the ratios
reversed.
|
| --
| It's turtles, all the way down
In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry W wrote:
>>
>> Please explain how your news reader compensates when _your_ news server
>> receives messages in a different order than _my_ server?
>>
>>
>Larry, (etc) the timing is irrelevant. ALL servers and ALL newsreaders
>that comply with published standards for newsgroup postings can
>backtrack messages a considerable distance. Your own posting, to which I
>am replying, carried the information necessary to backtrack 5 levels.
>
>When you click 'reply to', the newsreader checks the Message ID of the
>posting being responded to. It then includes it as part of the message
>sent. Each message points backward to where it came from. This, not
>timing, is what allows a message thread to be reconstructed.
You're missing the point very badly. The point is that your newsreader is
including that context -- and then *you* are snipping it before you post.
Now -- to drive the point home -- let's see you reply to this message, WITHOUT
doing anything else, just click 'reply to' like you said -- and restore the
text that I snipped.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Gore never said that.
>
>Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
>needed to change to words a bit.
Not quite -- he said "I took the initiative in creating the internet."
Which *also* wasn't true.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Lee K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
>>> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>>
>> I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>>
>> The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
>> Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
>> general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
>> winters.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If
> it's cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's because
> of global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's because of global
> warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes, it's because of global
> warming.
I recently heard that more and stronger hurricanes are a direct result of
cleaner air. Less filtration of the sun's heat over the ocean.
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
>
>
> You are smarter than that, Douglas:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Correct, Al Gore claimed to take the initiative in creating the internet
while in congress.
Thank goodness he got the ball rolling.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> >>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
>> >>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long
> as
>> >>>he holds them outside the country.
>>
>> >> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
>> >> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>>
>> >I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.
>>
>> There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
>> individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
>> "saboteurs".
>
>And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
>guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
>to determine their status.
Cite, please.
>
>>
>> > In the first
>> >case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
>> >Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
>> >criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
>>
>> And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's
> been
>> the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.
>
>Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
>since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
>execution of accused spies has been prohibitted internationally
>since at least the Hague Conventions early int eh 20th century.
Cite, please.
>
>ISTR that I have pointed this out to you before, even
>citing the relevant documents.
And ISTR that you were unable to provide *relevant* citations when challenged
to do so.
Try again.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
> lantern going for a while.
> But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
> 4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.
Actually, reminds me of a lead singer or two I've known.
When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead
singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay.
... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the
drummer better beaver shots in the front row!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
> DouginUtah wrote:
> > "Swingman" wrote in message >
> > [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
> >>
> > I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we
can
> > dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year,
year
> > after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on
the
> > earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
> > correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> >
> > -Doug
> >
> >
> Then you need to take a statistics class. There is a profound difference
> between correlation and cause. <snip of excellent "statistical" diatribe>
Gotta love the echo in here! ;)
Well said, Tim ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
>>science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
>>Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
>>issue. DAGS.
>
> Scientific American hasn't been a credible publication for a long time.
> Pretty
> much ever since John Rennie took over as editor, their selection of what
> to
> publish has been obviously driven far more by a leftist political agenda
> than
> by any scientific considerations.
>
My subscription lapsed and was never renewed for that reason. Another
magazine you don't want to subscribe to is Smithsonian. Good, but they sell
their list to every leftist cause out there.
"DouginUtah" wrote in message
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> >
> [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
> >
> >
> I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we
can
Well, I don't understand the lack of "thought processes" of those who can't
grasp the scientific difference between opinion, hypothesis, and theory ...
particulary those who continually engage in a demonstrable and unscientific
confusion of correlation and causation.
> dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year,
year
> after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
> earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
> correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Otherwise known as "Statistics of small numbers" ... while you're add it,
add up the volcanoes and buffalo farts throughout history and see where they
lead you.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Up to my groin in snow.
>Just a few drifts.
>*poke, poke, poke*
>"There's a car in here somewhere..."
>
I hear you, man -- my son and I just finished shoveling eleven inches of
global warming out of our driveway. Right up next to the garage, the global
warming was drifted up to mid-thigh. Overnight lows the next coupla nights are
predicted below zero, and that's Fahrenheit. I'm sure to the folks in
Minnesota, that seems kinda balmy... but it's pretty dang cold for
Indianapolis. For most of the last week or two, our daily highs have been
colder than the normal *low* for this time of year.
I think I've had about all the global warming I can take.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> Nobody said that. (Nice red herring, though.) The point is that Gore claimed
>> to have, while a member of Congress, taken "the initiative in creating"
>> something that already existed *before* he was in Congress.
>
>
>The Internet as a research network existed. Only colleges and research
>organizations could afford to be directly connected.
>Essentially you had to have a DARPA contract to get connected.
>
>It wasn't until funding for the Information Superhighway did the
>Internet explode into commercial and home use.
Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or
exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the
initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already existed,
as you acknowledge above.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will
> be introduced into this thread?
> --
> Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
> --Benjamin Franklin
>
> Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
No need. We already have the liberals' new version of the Nazi
reference...Karl Rove.
todd
"Lee K" wrote in message
> Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If
it's
> cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's because of
> global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's because of global
> warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes, it's because of global
> warming.
Oh oh, now you've done it! ... the induced brain farts from that will
surely increase the greenhouse gasses.
I can feel it getting hot in here already.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
Charles Koester <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-02-15, J Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>>>> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>>>> affirming or denying global warming?
>>>=================
>>>
>>>Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from
>>>ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only
>>>recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop.
>>>Just like the tobacco companies and smoking.
>>
>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>> journal.
>
> They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
> All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
> have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
> Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
>
> A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
> randomly selected research papers on climate change
> published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
> Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
>
> Zip. nada.
That ought to make one suspicious.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Lew
> Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.
>
> It's *not* a closed system. We get an enormous input of energy from
> the sun. A closed system by definition is one that has no interchange
> of matter or energy with its environment.
>
And we radiate a lot.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
> >> to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying
> >> create and saying invent?
> >
> > As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating
> > the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway.
>
> Which isn't even close to being on point. Eisenhower was in office from
> 1953-1961. The Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed in 1956. So, Eisenhower
> can rightly claim the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System.
> In contrast, Gore was not yet in office when the Internet was first created.
> Perhaps he could rightly say that he took the initiative to expand the
> Internet, but that doesn't sound nearly as good saying you created it, so
> being a politician, he said the latter. In the end, I don't really care.
> The way he said it left him wide open for jokes to be made. You can't deny
> that it sounds funny, can you?
>
> todd
Highways existed long before Eisenhower was elected president. It
is exactly on point.
Eisenhower proposed legislation to build a new highway system.
Gore sponsored a bill to enable public and commercial use of what
had been to that point solely a military, government and academic
network.
Neither one of them swung a shovel or crimped a connector or designed
an overpass or wrote an RFC.
--
John
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
>>>science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
>>>Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
>>>issue. DAGS.
>>
>> Scientific American hasn't been a credible publication for a long time. Pretty
>> much ever since John Rennie took over as editor, their selection of what to
>> publish has been obviously driven far more by a leftist political agenda than
>> by any scientific considerations.
>>
>My subscription lapsed and was never renewed for that reason.
Same here exactly. I returned their renewal notice to them, accompanied by a
note explaining that as long as Rennie was editor, I would not be renewing.
> Another
>magazine you don't want to subscribe to is Smithsonian. Good, but they sell
>their list to every leftist cause out there.
Yep -- noticed the same thing there too. My subscription to Smithsonian lasted
only a single year, for precisely that reason.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon.
>They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
Right. I got it.
>For example, the
>age of dinosaurs, who needed at least a temperate lasted for millions of
>years in what is now the U.S.
Phooey. Dinosaurs didn't need "at least a temperate climate" any more than
mammals and birds do -- because, like mammals and birds, they were
warm-blooded. Read "The Dinosaur Heresies," by Robert Bakker, for an excellent
exposition, by a PhD paleontologist, of the overwhelming evidence of this.
>No major climate shifts there.
You're on pretty shaky ground if you're inferring that from the longevity of
the dinos.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Bill in Detroit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>D Smith wrote:
>> Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring
>>>>>> to...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does your newsreader support threading?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read,
>>>> and doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
>>>>
>>> I call 'malarky'.
>>
>>> "Read and delete" is not normal behavior.
>>
>> He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me
>> about them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed
>> again (with effort, probably minimal).
>>
>
> Which he didn't bother to take.
>
>
>> Either include more context, or accept that people will just ignore
>> your posts. You're probably making an extra effort to delete more text,
>> and then making others do more work to find out why you're bothering to
>> post.
>>
>>
>
> If he wishes, he is free to filter me completely. He is free to make that
> minimal effort you mentioned above. He is free to sip his beer through a
> straw.
>
> The guy is an expert on global warming, nuclear power generation, peer
> review, the Geneva Convention and I've lost track of what else ... but
> can't recall what he said two days ago.
>
> I gave a detailed technical reason why his whining is without merit and
> now I am done with this thread.
>
> Bill
The irony of this post is hilarious. You reply to a post and actually
provide enough context for the rest of us to know what you're talking about
in order to reinforce that you shouldn't have to provide context for your
posts. Practically everyone disagreed with you, but don't worry...you're
right and everyone else is wrong.
Tell you what. In the future, provide no context at all. We'll all just
have to figure out what the hell you're replying to on our own. No need to
trouble yourself.
todd
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Up to my groin in snow.
> Just a few drifts.
> *poke, poke, poke*
> "There's a car in here somewhere..."
If I built a shop SWMBO could get the garage back.
http://www.markjerde.com/Photos/2007-Feb-IceStorm/slides/040-Car.html
-- Mark
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, "Leon" wrote:
> > The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
> > cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the
past
> > few years.
> That one year is warmer or cooler than the next is irrelevent; it's
> about the historical trend.
Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of, give or
take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the supposed
culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
"historical", but what the hell.
BTW, wanna buy my Rolex? ... it's real too, I promise.
> See the graph at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Wikipedia!!??? ... damn I wish you hadn't invoked the JUDGE of JUDGES!! ...
my gawd, it must be right, I mean WIKIPEDIA, where any one can logon edit
the data?? Jeeaaz, we _are_ sunk, what with all the cow farts, and now
WIKIPEDIA as evidence, indeed we're doomed.
But really now, just between us ... doesn't it kinda make you wonder how
those millions upon millions upon millions of buffalo, and teeming herds of
deer and elk, eating those prairie grasses for eons, held 'em in for so
long?
ITMT, I think I'll go have a steak ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>>>
>>> Does your newsreader support threading?
>>>
>> Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
>> doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
>>
>I call 'malarky'.
>
>"Read and delete" is not normal behavior. The first problem with it is
>that it immediately kills -any- hope of useful threading.
Nonsense. "Read and mark 'read' " is absolutely normal behavior. "Read and
continue to display" is not.
> Among other
>things, this leaves you vulnerable to folks like myself who, innocently
>enough, figure that you either have a good memory or, failing that,
>written records.
Or are simply to lazy to quote the context they're responding to.
[snip nonsense]
>
>> It's also pretty much normal behavior, when following up an article, to quote
>> enough of it that other people know what you're talking about.
>>
>I've already addressed that above.
No, not really.
>
>I won't be held accountable for reading your mind.
I'm not asking to you read my mind. You, on the other hand, by failing to
quote enough context to make it plain what you're replying to, *are* asking
*me* to read *yours*.
>Either arrange to use a better set-up newsreader or accept that you won't be
>able to follow some of my postings.
My newsreader is set up just fine, thank you very much. It's *your* use of
*your* newsreader that's broken.
>With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
>reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
>quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.
Suit yourself. Most folks quote enough of the message that they're responding
to that their readers don't need to go digging through previous messages to
see what they meant. It's simple courtesy to avoid imposing this inconvenience
on others.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] wrote:
<SNIP>
> You grew up in a country where the government had and used
> the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it
> deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries,
> hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now
No I didn't. I grew up in Germany, Canada, and the US, none of
whom did any of this in my lifetime.
> have the gall to argue that our government should do the same,
> though only to those persons whom *you* would choose.
>
> And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin?
Nice but irrelevant tapdance. You are "defending" a nonexistent
precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right
to make claims against it. No matter how much misdirection, half
truth, or sleight-of-hand you pull off, you cannot avoid this.
People not party to our social contract have no claim against its
protections. People in combat as uniformed combatants have some
limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who
engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may
serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only
if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph
dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Feb 23, 10:32 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Uh, summarily executing people they believe to be enemy combatants is
> what soldiers _do_. It's called "war".
Uh, there is no need then for the concept of 'a prisoner of war' by
your logic.
Goodness, man, you really stuck your foot in it this time.
.
.
Unbelievable ignorance.
.
.
*shaking my head in total disbelief*
r----> who sometimes wonders why he even bothers.
On Feb 23, 10:32 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:11:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >: Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
> >: uniform or insignia.
>
> >So, with respect to Fred's Gedanken experiment, you would answer
> >that no, there is no reason to arrest the soldier who summarily
> >executed someone he asserts to have been an enemy combatant? This
> >person wasn't wearing a uniform or insignia, so isn't protected under
> >your assumptions.
>
> Uh, summarily executing people they believe to be enemy combatants is
> what soldiers _do_. It's called "war".
As you know, killing in battle is not execution.
Mr Miller and I disagree on the morality and legality
of killing prisoners in cold blood after they have been
taken alive--though he also tries to evade that issue
by disingenuously referring to combat.
--
FF
On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 10:32 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:11:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> : Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
> >>> : uniform or insignia.
> >>> So, with respect to Fred's Gedanken experiment, you would answer
> >>> that no, there is no reason to arrest the soldier who summarily
> >>> executed someone he asserts to have been an enemy combatant? This
> >>> person wasn't wearing a uniform or insignia, so isn't protected under
> >>> your assumptions.
> >> Uh, summarily executing people they believe to be enemy combatants is
> >> what soldiers _do_. It's called "war".
>
> > As you know, killing in battle is not execution.
>
> > Mr Miller and I disagree on the morality and legality
> > of killing prisoners in cold blood after they have been
> > taken alive--though he also tries to evade that issue
> > by disingenuously referring to combat.
>
> And you, with even greater disingenuity conflate the legal conditions of
> combat and those of a civil society.
I stand for respect for the rule of law. I make no apologies for
refusing to discuss killing on the battlefield when the topic
in the summary execution of suspected spies and saboteurs.
It is Mr Miller who refuses to discuss summary execution and
instead obfuscates with references to the field of battle.
> Why don't you quit dancing around
> and come right out and admit it: So long as they are captured combatants - any
> kind, with any target, using any method, with- or without- just cause -
> you want to treat it (legally) as a civil/criminal matter, not as a
> matter of war.
You write about war as if there were no law in war.
I have always argued for the rule of law, including the laws of
armed conflict. Not just here, but all of my life. On the matters
before us now, I have always argued that the laws of armed
conflict, in particular, the doctrine of command responsibility
should be applied to Al Queda , Hezbollah and any other armed
paramilitary organization.
You, OTOH, continually argue against the application of ANY
law.
I don't have to 'admit' it. I am damn proud to defend the
principles of Liberalism on which this Nation was founded
especially against fifth columnists such as yourself.
No decent, moral, civilized person would deny the protection
of the law to another human being. To do so would be an
endorsement of the methods of our enemies even if we
lack the stomach to execute them with the same barbarity.
With apologies to Robert Bolt:
Whereas a wise man, upon finding the devil himself in his power,
should find it prudent, for his own safety's sake, to extend to the
devil the benefit of the law, a moral man will do the same, knowing
full well that were their fortunes reversed, the devil would not--and
for exactly that reason.
> And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal
> to Geneva accords we've never signed.
Cite, please.
> It's why you do the intellectual
> tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to say the things you
> want them to even when their plain meaning is obviously different.
Cite please.
>
> I don't so much take offense that we disagree. I think you're wrong in
> principle, spirit, and interpretation of international law. But you're
> entitled to your views however much I don't see it that way. What I find
> dishonest is your unwillingness to come out and admit that you - like so
> many of the "The West Is Always Wrong" crowd - want to apply law and
> principle intended for participants of a civil society to people who are
> not only not party to the covenants of that society, but worse still,
> who actively *attack* those societies.
Of course. That you deny the absolute moral necessity, and
practical imperative of applying the rule of law ESPECIALLY
to those who attack civilized society is beyond disgusting.
Your arguments are an affront to morality as they are nothing
more than age-old doctrine of the lynch mob--the guilty don't
deserve trial.
Further, you insult my Nation when you declare that our laws,
values and principles, to say nothing of our means, are so defective
as to render us incapable of defense without abandonment of those
same laws, values and principles that make this Nation worthy
of defense.
You grew up in a country where the government had and used
the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it
deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries,
hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now
have the gall to argue that our government should do the same,
though only to those persons whom *you* would choose.
And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin?
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal
to Geneva accords we've never signed.
I requested:
"Cite Please"
And I am still waiting.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> also wrote:
It's why you do the intellectual
tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to say the things you
want them to even when their plain meaning is obviously different.
Again I requested:
Cite please.
And still I wait. But I won't hold my breath.
On Feb 26, 12:00 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > You grew up in a country where the government had and used
> > the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it
> > deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries,
> > hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now
>
> No I didn't. I grew up in Germany, Canada, and the US, none of
> whom did any of this in my lifetime.
>
> > have the gall to argue that our government should do the same,
> > though only to those persons whom *you* would choose.
>
> > And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin?
>
> Nice but irrelevant tapdance. You are "defending" a nonexistent
> precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right
> to make claims against it.
>
> No matter how much misdirection, half
> truth, or sleight-of-hand you pull off, you cannot avoid this.
> People not party to our social contract have no claim against its
> protections. People in combat as uniformed combatants have some
> limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who
> engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may
> serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only
> if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph
> dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious...
As usual, you presume your conclusions and present
no citations, no references, just snipping followed by
false accusations, name-calling, and circular arguments.
Absent a hearing before a competent court or tribunal,
how should one of the High Contracting Powers determine
if a captive has "engaged in combat otherwise"?
Was that East or West Germany?
You had previously indicated (ISTR this was in private
email) a distrust of the Soviets, referring to your name
as Ukrainian, by way of explanation.
You have also referred to yourself as having lived in an
oppressive society. I inferred from those two items that
you had lived in the Ukraine under the Soviets, perhaps
as you intended.
You falsely claim that I defend "a nonexistent
precept: That people not party to a contract have
the moral right to make claims against it. "
That is a damn lie.
I declare that no decent, moral, civilized person would
deny the protection of the law to another human being.
I argue further that to do so would be an endorsement
of the methods of our enemies even if we lack the
stomach to execute them with the same barbarity.
I have always argued for the rule of law, including the laws of
armed conflict. Not just now, but all of my life. On the matters
before us now, I have always argued that the laws of armed
conflict, in particular, the doctrine of command responsibility
should be applied to Al Queda , Hezbollah and any other armed
paramilitary organization.
You, OTOH, consistently argue against the application
of ANY law.
I reject your absurd _contract law_ analogy.
Calling defense of the rule of law ";defending' a nonexistent
precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral
right to make claims against it." is an affront to morality and
an insult to a Nation established on the principles of
Constitutional government and the rule of law.
It is nothing more than age-old doctrine of the lynch mob--the
guilty don't deserve trial.
--
FF
On Feb 26, 12:00 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > You grew up in a country where the government had and used
> > the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it
> > deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries,
> > hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now
>
> No I didn't. I grew up in Germany, Canada, and the US, none of
> whom did any of this in my lifetime.
>
> > have the gall to argue that our government should do the same,
> > though only to those persons whom *you* would choose.
>
> > And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin?
>
> Nice but irrelevant tapdance. You are "defending" a nonexistent
> precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right
> to make claims against it. No matter how much misdirection, half
> truth, or sleight-of-hand you pull off, you cannot avoid this.
> People not party to our social contract have no claim against its
> protections. People in combat as uniformed combatants have some
> limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who
> engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may
> serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only
> if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph
> dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious...
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Feb 26, 12:00 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> People in combat as uniformed combatants have some
> limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who
> engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may
> serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only
> if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph
> dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious...
>
Perhaps you or Mr Miller would care to cite where the
Protocols say that a head of state can declare all prisoners
taken in a theater to be persons who have engaged in
combat while not in uniform.
Remember, that is what GW Bush did, when he declared
that the protections of the GCs would not be extended
to any of the prisoners taken in the Afghanistan theater.
Is that not a collective punishment, which is strictly
prohibited?
Perhaps also one of you will tell us the battlefield on
which Hamdi was taken prisoner and describe the arms
he was bearing at that time.
I doubt it.
--
FF
John Flatley wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> | And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you
> appeal
> | to Geneva accords we've never signed.
> |
> | I requested:
> |
> | "Cite Please"
> |
> | And I am still waiting.
> |
> | Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> also wrote:
> |
> | It's why you do the intellectual
> | tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to
> say the things you
> | want them to even when their plain meaning is
> obviously different.
> |
> | Again I requested:
> |
> | Cite please.
> |
> | And still I wait. But I won't hold my breath.
> |
>
> Demanding a citation is a great conversational
> stumbling block. Mostly used when one cannot lucidly
> and logically counter a point successfully.
> (Conventional wisdom can be wrong, sometimes not.)
>
> I have no cite, no book, chapter and verse. I have a
> belief system. It works for me. I follow the law. I
> drive the speed limit. I file an honest tax return
> with the IRS. I say "Yes, Sir" and "Yes Ma'am."
>
> If someone would break into my house and threaten me or
> my family, I would do whatever was necessary to protect
> myself and my loved ones. I would permanently
> eliminate the threat by whatever means I could find.
>
> Laws, Geneva conventions, the Marquis of Queensbury
> rules and treaties are intended to establish a
> framework of conduct for civilized people.
> Homicidal/suicide bombers are not civilized people.
> Folks who insist they will destroy us, are not
> civilized people. People who publicly behead prisoners
> are not civilized prople. Civilized people to not fly
> plane loads of civilian non-combatants into buildings.
>
> War is a horrible and tragic event. All efforts must
> be used to prevent war. However, once we are in a war,
> we better have the stomach to win. In the end, there
> is no second place. No runner-up trophy. No gold
> stars for "playing by the rules." What ever it takes!
>
> My opinion, I could be wrong! (but I doubt it.)
>
> John Flatley
>
>
>
You're not
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:32 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:11:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> : Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
>>> : uniform or insignia.
>>> So, with respect to Fred's Gedanken experiment, you would answer
>>> that no, there is no reason to arrest the soldier who summarily
>>> executed someone he asserts to have been an enemy combatant? This
>>> person wasn't wearing a uniform or insignia, so isn't protected under
>>> your assumptions.
>> Uh, summarily executing people they believe to be enemy combatants is
>> what soldiers _do_. It's called "war".
>
> As you know, killing in battle is not execution.
>
> Mr Miller and I disagree on the morality and legality
> of killing prisoners in cold blood after they have been
> taken alive--though he also tries to evade that issue
> by disingenuously referring to combat.
>
And you, with even greater disingenuity conflate the legal conditions of
combat and those of a civil society. Why don't you quit dancing around
and come right out and admit it: So long as they are captured combatants - any
kind, with any target, using any method, with- or without- just cause -
you want to treat it (legally) as a civil/criminal matter, not as a
matter of war. And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal
to Geneva accords we've never signed. It's why you do the intellectual
tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to say the things you
want them to even when their plain meaning is obviously different.
I don't so much take offense that we disagree. I think you're wrong in
principle, spirit, and interpretation of international law. But you're
entitled to your views however much I don't see it that way. What I find
dishonest is your unwillingness to come out and admit that you - like so
many of the "The West Is Always Wrong" crowd - want to apply law and
principle intended for participants of a civil society to people who are
not only not party to the covenants of that society, but worse still,
who actively *attack* those societies.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:11:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>: Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
>: uniform or insignia.
>
>So, with respect to Fred's Gedanken experiment, you would answer
>that no, there is no reason to arrest the soldier who summarily
>executed someone he asserts to have been an enemy combatant? This
>person wasn't wearing a uniform or insignia, so isn't protected under
>your assumptions.
Uh, summarily executing people they believe to be enemy combatants is
what soldiers _do_. It's called "war".
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal
> to Geneva accords we've never signed.
>
> I requested:
>
> "Cite Please"
>
> And I am still waiting.
>
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> also wrote:
>
> It's why you do the intellectual
> tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to say the things you
> want them to even when their plain meaning is obviously different.
>
> Again I requested:
>
> Cite please.
>
> And still I wait. But I won't hold my breath.
Oh, a casual reading of your past postings should do it, but I shant
bother. You're playing a little rhetorical game here to (as always)
misdirect attention from the frailty of your argument. You have
in the past argued strenuously that the GCs protect non-uniformed
combatants. When refuted multiple times by several people on the topic,
you have to resort to the "other" GC. So, then you had to be informed
that the US never signed those. Then you retreat to "well, civilized
people would NEVER do such and so.." and your descent into nonsense
begins.
>
>
> On Feb 26, 12:00 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> You grew up in a country where the government had and used
>>> the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it
>>> deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries,
>>> hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now
>> No I didn't. I grew up in Germany, Canada, and the US, none of
>> whom did any of this in my lifetime.
>>
>>> have the gall to argue that our government should do the same,
>>> though only to those persons whom *you* would choose.
>>> And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin?
>> Nice but irrelevant tapdance. You are "defending" a nonexistent
>> precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right
>> to make claims against it.
>>
>> No matter how much misdirection, half
>> truth, or sleight-of-hand you pull off, you cannot avoid this.
>> People not party to our social contract have no claim against its
>> protections. People in combat as uniformed combatants have some
>> limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who
>> engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may
>> serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only
>> if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph
>> dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious...
>
> As usual, you presume your conclusions and present
> no citations, no references, just snipping followed by
> false accusations, name-calling, and circular arguments.
>
> Absent a hearing before a competent court or tribunal,
> how should one of the High Contracting Powers determine
> if a captive has "engaged in combat otherwise"?
The same way we determine *anyone* is a combatant - they
engage in, um .... combat. Your premises keep you from rational
conclusions. War and civil/criminal law are different environments
The same burdens and cautions that exist in latter are much relaxed
or even absent in the former because ... you don't have time for
a lot of legal fine points when the bullets are flying at you.
>
> Was that East or West Germany?
>
> You had previously indicated (ISTR this was in private
> email) a distrust of the Soviets, referring to your name
> as Ukrainian, by way of explanation.
Correct.
>
> You have also referred to yourself as having lived in an
> oppressive society. I inferred from those two items that
> you had lived in the Ukraine under the Soviets, perhaps
> as you intended.
No, I said I had a family history that was well acquainted with
both Soviet and pre-Soviet Eastern Europe. I was not more specific.
>
> You falsely claim that I defend "a nonexistent
> precept: That people not party to a contract have
> the moral right to make claims against it. "
>
> That is a damn lie.
>
> I declare that no decent, moral, civilized person would
> deny the protection of the law to another human being.
Deconstruction: "I am the arbiter of what constitutes
moral, civil, or decent human action. Anyone who disagrees
with my views cannot possibly support these precepts." The
problem, Sparky, is that some of us - me in particular - happen
think your ideas are *immoral*. When you extend the privileges
of civil and criminal law to the battlefield - especially as regards
to people who target civilians intentionally by hiding themselves
among them - you are enabling evil, which is an innately immoral
position.
Incidentally, "the protection of law" as a notion presumes an implicit
set of agreements known as, um ... "law". Protection under these
covenants cannot be demanded when an individual is not party to them.
As a US citizen living within US borders, the fine people of Poland
cannot, for example, insist that I obey *their* laws. Why? Because
I am not party to their national covenants while I am in the US. OTOH,
if they agree to permit me to enter their nation, I implicitly accept
the terms of their legal covenants by entering the country and can
make corresponding claims against those covenants while I am there.
Hoever, if I enter Poland illegally with the intent of making war and don't
wear a uniform, *they owe me nothing under their legal system*. At
most, they owe me whatever they've agreed to under international
law that might apply in such cases.
>
> I argue further that to do so would be an endorsement
> of the methods of our enemies even if we lack the
> stomach to execute them with the same barbarity.
I'm sure you would. And you would be (and are) wrong in so
saying. There is a world of difference between someone
targeting innocent non-participants and someone stopping
them from doing so. Your inability to see this distinction
is but one indication of the muddled morality that derives from
your bad premises. Had I walked into the room where the people
were savagely butchering Daniel Pearl, I would have had no
moral problem putting them to death immediately without further
discussion. You, OTOH, no doubt would have wanted to read them
their (non-existent) international version of Miranda rights.
>
> I have always argued for the rule of law, including the laws of
> armed conflict. Not just now, but all of my life. On the matte
But in my observation here and elsewhere, your vigorous defense
is not of the "law" as usually understood, but of some tortured
version of it that is more aligned with your ideology.
> before us now, I have always argued that the laws of armed
> conflict, in particular, the doctrine of command responsibility
> should be applied to Al Queda , Hezbollah and any other armed
> paramilitary organization.
Yes, I know. Over and over again, you say the same thing without
a foundation in law, philosophy, or even common sense.
>
> You, OTOH, consistently argue against the application
> of ANY law.
No so. Criminal and civil law applies to people who are
participants in our social contract. THe GCs and similar
laws are applicable to those parties they specify to the
extent that any nation has agreed to honor them. I just consistently
argue that there is an inherent moral or legal reason to extend
any of the above to non-uniformed combatants who target civilians.
>
> I reject your absurd _contract law_ analogy.
That's because you apparently don't understand any law. *All* law is
at least implicitly a matter of covenants - at least it is in free
societies. Even criminal law depends on social contracts as well
articulated by people like John Locke. The idea that "contracts"
are only relevant to commercial matters misses the idea of covenants
as the more general building blocks of all laws. The entire basis
of the Declaration Of Independence, for instance, is a justification
rooted in the argument that King George failed to fulfill his
*obligations* to the colonies. Those "obligations" derive
implicitly from the presence of agreed-to or expected convenantal
relationships.
>
> Calling defense of the rule of law ";defending' a nonexistent
> precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral
> right to make claims against it." is an affront to morality and
> an insult to a Nation established on the principles of
> Constitutional government and the rule of law.
No. It's an affront to ideologues like yourself who want to
subtly redefine well established notions of "law", rewrite
Constitutional intent and history, and generally made the world
tilt to suit your premises. But it won't wash - not for anyone
whose studied even a minor amount of either topic. What is immoral
is the drooly reinterpretation of history and law that effectively
defangs our ability to crush the (very few) people who resort
to terror tactics on- and off- the battlefield. It is immoral
because it undermines our ability to thwart evil.
>
> It is nothing more than age-old doctrine of the lynch mob--the
> guilty don't deserve trial.
>
Yawn.
> --
>
> FF
>
>
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:00 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>> People in combat as uniformed combatants have some
>> limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who
>> engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may
>> serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only
>> if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph
>> dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious...
>>
>
> Perhaps you or Mr Miller would care to cite where the
> Protocols say that a head of state can declare all prisoners
> taken in a theater to be persons who have engaged in
> combat while not in uniform.
>
> Remember, that is what GW Bush did, when he declared
> that the protections of the GCs would not be extended
> to any of the prisoners taken in the Afghanistan theater.
>
> Is that not a collective punishment, which is strictly
> prohibited?
>
> Perhaps also one of you will tell us the battlefield on
> which Hamdi was taken prisoner and describe the arms
> he was bearing at that time.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
I dunno, I was not in the theater of battle. But a no time and by no media outlet
did I see any of the combatants wearing an identifiable uniform. (Likely you believe
they were stripped out of their sharply pressed fatigues by the stooges of that eeeeeeeevil
George Bush and place in civilian clothing so he could oppress them. That would
make as much sense as most of the other things you've written.) The point is, if they
were uniformed NO ONE managed to record trhat fact. This leads me to guess - and it is just
that - that they probably were NOT uniformed and thus not protected by the GCs - at least
the ones to which the US is a signatory. See how simple it is when you let logic precede
ideological foaming?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
| And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you
appeal
| to Geneva accords we've never signed.
|
| I requested:
|
| "Cite Please"
|
| And I am still waiting.
|
| Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> also wrote:
|
| It's why you do the intellectual
| tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to
say the things you
| want them to even when their plain meaning is
obviously different.
|
| Again I requested:
|
| Cite please.
|
| And still I wait. But I won't hold my breath.
|
Demanding a citation is a great conversational
stumbling block. Mostly used when one cannot lucidly
and logically counter a point successfully.
(Conventional wisdom can be wrong, sometimes not.)
I have no cite, no book, chapter and verse. I have a
belief system. It works for me. I follow the law. I
drive the speed limit. I file an honest tax return
with the IRS. I say "Yes, Sir" and "Yes Ma'am."
If someone would break into my house and threaten me or
my family, I would do whatever was necessary to protect
myself and my loved ones. I would permanently
eliminate the threat by whatever means I could find.
Laws, Geneva conventions, the Marquis of Queensbury
rules and treaties are intended to establish a
framework of conduct for civilized people.
Homicidal/suicide bombers are not civilized people.
Folks who insist they will destroy us, are not
civilized people. People who publicly behead prisoners
are not civilized prople. Civilized people to not fly
plane loads of civilian non-combatants into buildings.
War is a horrible and tragic event. All efforts must
be used to prevent war. However, once we are in a war,
we better have the stomach to win. In the end, there
is no second place. No runner-up trophy. No gold
stars for "playing by the rules." What ever it takes!
My opinion, I could be wrong! (but I doubt it.)
John Flatley
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
> water.
> I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
> lantern going for a while.
Hell I can do that!
Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [snipped for brevity]
>>>> One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not
>>>> quali
>>> fy
>>>> as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is
>>>> based upon "computer modeling".
>>>>
>>>> In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being
>>>> refine
>>> d;
>>>> insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to
>>>> suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a
>>>> phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage,
>>>> [snip]
>>> Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
>>> 10%. (May not be valid in your state).
>>>
>>> Who does fund the research in global warming?
>>
>> National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private
>> foundations. Rarely private corporations.
>>
>>> Are there never any
>>> strings attached?
>>
>> You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see
>> another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the
>> biases of the current group of grantors.
>>
>>> Follow the money.
>>
>> Always!
>
> Another cynical assumption with little proof to back it up.
Three years academic research.
> Sure
> scientists can be influenced--but are you suggesting that the
> thousands around the world who know about global warming have all been
> paid off? Or would take the money if offered in every case? That's
> ridiculous.
Nobody gets 'paid off'. The Process ensures that the available funds will
be spent on the research du jour. It also ensures that more and more
people will jump on the wagon, because they can get grants and keep their
jobs.
>
> Bob
>
"Robatoy" wrote in message
>>Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
10%. (May not be valid in your state).
Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
strings attached?
Follow the money.
As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
them."
Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
outside and have the stink blown off ya...
Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
in bankrupting your company.<<
A man (properly cynical) after my own heart!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
[email protected] wrote:
> I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
OK, I'll ask, "Why not?"
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>
>That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>Rove spin.
Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
elected to Congress.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
>>
>> OK, I'll ask, "Why not?"
>
>
> Al Gore's head would explode.
Then he'd be All Gore.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> According to the Drudge Report, a House Hearing on Global Warming was
> cancelled due to the ice storm.
Poor Al ... if he had the courage of his convictions he's probably got rid
of all his coats by now.
Naaahhh!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
>> it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
>> millions of people and billions of dollars in property.
>>
>
>But will it warm us tomorrow?
So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed
to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything
right and has been known to do some things for political expediency --
this appears to be one of them.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
>>>it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
>>>millions of people and billions of dollars in property.
>>>
>>
>>But will it warm us tomorrow?
>
>
> So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed
> to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything
> right and has been known to do some things for political expediency --
> this appears to be one of them.
>
Who are you and what have you done with the real Mark?
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
>>> it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
>>> millions of people and billions of dollars in property.
>>>
>> But will it warm us tomorrow?
>
> So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed
> to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything
> right and has been known to do some things for political expediency --
> this appears to be one of them.
>
Shrub sucking up to the left.
Right.
No doubt he was softening them up to give him $225 billion more for that
sinkhole of a war.
"DouginUtah" wrote in message
> Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
> (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
> ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
> tobacco companies and smoking.
Hypocritical horseshit!
To stop what? Manufacturing hydrocarbon based products so you could do
things like brush your teeth and drive to work this morning? Were you
comfortable in your cozy house last night up there in Utah with the heat on?
_If_ there is a culprit, don't blame anyone but the guy you see in the
mirror.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
>science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
>Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
>issue. DAGS.
Scientific American hasn't been a credible publication for a long time. Pretty
much ever since John Rennie took over as editor, their selection of what to
publish has been obviously driven far more by a leftist political agenda than
by any scientific considerations.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "for". :-)
>one thing: hard evidence. The scientists who know about GW have
>evidence, lots of it. But then, since when has evidence ever trumped
>belief? Check your TV listings for the Coral Ridge Hour--you wouldn't
>believe what they're saying.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gore never said that.
Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
needed to change to words a bit.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon wrote:
>> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> But it's nice.
>>>
>>> Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
>>> 1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
>>> 2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
>>> phenomenon.
>>>
>>> 1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history
>>> got it through his wooden head.
>>
>>
>> I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think
>> the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your
>> opinion?
>>
>>
>It says that he's getting smarter.
Wasn't it you, a few posts back, who was decrying the ad hominem comments?
.. and now you're making them.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> >
>
> If the average temperature is rising, which it is over the period
> examined, then it's warming. What's so difficult to comprehend? Don't
> even have to debate over "what _is_ is," to figure this out.
Correct, however the period examined has been picked. I pick the period
from March to August in the southern hemisphere. The result of those
temperatures shows global cooling.
Or take the period from the ice age until now. Global warming.
You can make any thing look the way you want it to with the right time frame
and figures.
>
> Effect? When the models can predict the next day's weather, or even agree
> between NOAA and the European model, I'll regard the "predictions" as more
> than the hot air they predict.
Models predictions are just that, predictions. My guess is usually closer
to what happens than what the predictions are.
Models called for a winter that was going to be warmer and wetter than
normal in SE Texas. When it started cooling off in August I said that it
would probably be colder this winter, one month before the September
prediction. Today we broke a 56 year "low" record. We have had a much
colder winter than in the last 10 years. It has also been wetter, a guess
that happened to be right by the models.
Hurricane number and intensity models for 2006 were slightly lower than the
actual occurrences in 2005 but higher than the 2005 models. The predictions
were changed 2 or 3 times after we were well into the season and had only
fulfilled about 15% of the predictions.
The weather bureau is basically clueless more than a few days out.
in 1345945 20070216 120516 Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or
>> exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the
>> initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already existed,
>> as you acknowledge above.
>
>It existed as a research tool for those funded by the government.
>It was NOT available for commercial use at the time.
True - that only happened in the early 90s. Who was responsible for
the change?
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ...
> Somebody wrote:
>
> > Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of,
> give or
> > take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the
> supposed
> > culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
> > statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
> > "historical", but what the hell.
>
> Only problem with the above is that it is not valid.
>
> Historical data is determined by core samples, not temperature records.
>
> Result is that historical trends being developed are perhaps more
> accurate than we would like to admit.
>
> The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.
>
> As the old saying goes, "What comes around, goes around."
Huh??
Better watch those epoxy fumes, Lew. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
[Restoring the context that you oh-so-conveniently removed]
..Bruce Barnett wrote
>Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be
>proven, then it's not science.
>
>> And by that definition, global warming is not science.
>>
>
>No. The facts CAN be proven ... it's the conclusions that are still at
>issue.
Sorry, but you're wrong there. The central tenet of GW is that human
industrial activity is causing the planet to get warmer -- and that's not
capable of being proven or disproven; not within a human lifetime, at any
rate.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
>> to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying
>> create and saying invent?
>
> As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating
> the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway.
Which isn't even close to being on point. Eisenhower was in office from
1953-1961. The Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed in 1956. So, Eisenhower
can rightly claim the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System.
In contrast, Gore was not yet in office when the Internet was first created.
Perhaps he could rightly say that he took the initiative to expand the
Internet, but that doesn't sound nearly as good saying you created it, so
being a politician, he said the latter. In the end, I don't really care.
The way he said it left him wide open for jokes to be made. You can't deny
that it sounds funny, can you?
todd
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:l3SAh.5880$ov2.4737@trndny06...
>>
>>
>
> In that sense, it is a lot like El Nino. Which got blamed for everything
> from a shortage of tobacco to psoriasis.
El NIno translated, We're going to wait and see what the weather is going to
be like, then blame it on El Nino.
La Nina has the same basic translation.
I like to think, Its colder or hotter this year.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>I've also found a lot of information indicating net losses of ice
>in the Arctic, and a net loss in the world's glaciers, but
>information
>on the former is not easily converted to net mass so I'm still not
>clear on the recent net change, if any, in the global ice inventory.
It's worth noting that, whatever the effects of loss of ice in the north polar
cap may be, rising sea level is *not* among them: the north polar cap is
floating, and melting all of it won't affect sea level.
The south polar cap is an entirely different story. Some Antarctic ice is
floating; some of it is on land, above sea level; and some of it is on land
*below* sea level -- that is, it's in the ocean and resting on the ocean
floor. Melting of ice in this last category will cause sea level to *drop*.
Whether sea levels will rise or fall in response to melting polar ice caps
depends on the relative proportion of submarine Antarctic ice to land-based
ice in Antartica and Greenland.
I've not been able to find data indicating what that proportion is.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
> affirming or denying global warming?
>
>
> --
> Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
> --Benjamin Franklin
>
> Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
How about a job? How about continued funding? Anyone who disputes global
warming is labeled a crackpot, so there's a huge disincentive to question
the conclusions at this point.
todd
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
>> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>
> The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
> Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
> general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
> winters.
>
> Chris
The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past
few years.
On Feb 18, 9:24 am, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:46:16 -0600, Prometheus
>
> ...
>
>
> The big issue with "global warming" is the Kyoto Accord, in which
> everyone but the US is saying in effect "the US must clean up its act
> but the rest of us don't have to". If the US signed it then they
> wouldn't have anything to whine about, at least not until they started
> freezing to death in the dark. But who in his right mind would agree
> to such a thing?
People who have more confidence in American Industry.
--
FF
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:53:19 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here
>after all.
Nothing, unless you begin to believe that unaltered nature is more
important and valuable than human life or society- which is what that
particular slander stems from.
I believe in keeping my area clean as I can, and trying to be kind to
the other living things around me- but I'll be damned if I would
consider knocking down my own house to plant trees for the birds to
live in, or any other such nonsense. I support the parks and forest
and water conservation- but I also support new power plants and
parking lots. Everything has it's place- and that includes us. The
damn frogs just are not more important to me than my own family and
neighbors, and that's the way it should be.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:18:09 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding.
>>>Reference:
>>>
>>>http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnewsletters.cfm?detype=document&mlf_id=39&incsub=newsletter&pgType=NEW&excCol=archive
>>>
>>>Here's the research the EPA initiated:
>>>
>>>http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalresearchprojects.cfm?detype=project&excCol=archive
>>>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-epa.htm
>>>
>>>Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research.
>>>They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie.
>>>They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero.
>>
>> Now let's see, you've admitted that the EPA newsletter is not a
>> peer-reviewed journal and yet you're on about how they haven't
>> published results of research and are using the lack of that
>> newsletter, which is not the proper venue for reporting the results of
>> research, as evidence that they are not reporting such results.
>
>Why should a LISTING and INDEX of the published publications require a peer review?
>That's like saying a table of contents requires a peer review.
So you're saying that the newsletter didn't contain any results? Just
a list of them? Well, then how does its existence or nonexistence
have any relevance at all? That's like saying that if someone stole
the card catalog at the library its absence would be evidence that the
library contains no books.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:31:34 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>
>>>Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News.
>>>
>>>And since then?
>>
>> Is that a peer reviewed journal? I'm sorry, but personally I don't
>> give a damn of the government decided to quit spending money on an
>> agency newsletter.
>>
>
>Their newsletter is not a peer reviewed journal. It is an account to
>the US people on how they spent our $20 million.
>
>Apparently the EPA can waste $20 million a year and you are perfectly
>happy about that. I am not.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how deciding not to waste money
publishing a newsletter constitutes "wasting $20 million a year".
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:30:50 -0500, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> And by that definition, global warming is not science.
>>
>
>No. The facts CAN be proven ... it's the conclusions that are still at
>issue.
>
>We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
>facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
>opportunity to alter those conclusions.
>
>And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough
>to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will
>be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and
>India look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through
>its coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
>industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps
>even move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars
>to secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar
>sums in obsoleting those fuels.
The US "obsoleted those fuels" in the '50s. But the same crowd that
is jumping up and down and screeching Something Must Be Done About
Global Warming now jumped up and down and screeched Something Must Be
Done About Nuclear Power and between picketing, sabotage, lawsuits,
and lobbying managed to make it so expensive to start up a new nuclear
plant that the utilities finally gave up on them and went back to oil.
The big problem with fixing the problem in the US is that the econuts
don't want any of the solutions that can actually _work_, they want
some new miracle or else they want to do away with all technology.
>Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
>there, would it make sense to use this one up?
>
>Then why push the envelope on what this planet can recover from?
The trouble is that we don't know what the envelope is or what
constitutes pushing it or, if "global warming" is in fact the result
of human activity what the consequences of _stopping_ that activity
will be.
_Something_ is keeping the glaciers from coming south again. Can you
prove that it's _not_ the emissions that you want to stop? Can you
prove that it's not part of a completely natural ending of the ice
ages and the beginning of a return to the normal, non-glaciated state
of the planet?
And why is ending glaciation a bad thing anyway? It is not _normal_
for this planet to have significant glaciation. What is your
objection to a return to the normal state of the planet? That there
might be some costs involved in dealing with it? Well guess what, we
deal with it eventually or else we deliberately take action to prevent
a natural event, and that also has economic cost--how much _will_ it
cost to build a refrigerator big enough to keep Antarctica frozen when
the natural conditions that have been keeping it that way end, anyway?
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:03:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they
>> do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it
>> except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never
>> before been tested.
>
>Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals.
Yes, there have, but most of them were not "popular misconceptions".
>And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions.
Such as?
>I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models.
Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field?
>> As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they
>> are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at
>> issue is the policies of journals.
>
>And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly
>regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by
>thousands of other articles.
And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper.
In any case, global warming is the new coolness. Generally papers
that report on the status quo are not "groundbreaking".
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:46:16 -0600, Prometheus
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:45 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Bob Schmall wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> Charles Koester wrote:
>>>>> On 2007-02-15, J Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
>>>> merely practical
>>>> when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
>>>> the subject
>>>> is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
>>>> cook up
>>>> the model that makes your patron happy.
>>>
>>> Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
>>> in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
>>> some evidence.
>>> And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
>>> disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?
>>
>>No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
>>being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
>>people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
>>are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
>>a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
>>is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
>>of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
>>just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
>>thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.
>>
>>> And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
>>> cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
>>> Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
>>
>>The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
>>oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.
>
>Don't forget that there are plenty of ways in which corporate entities
>can benefit from global warming legislation if they play their cards
>right. If they put money in the right pockets, and a "carbon
>surcharge" is added to every gallon of gasoline, an oil company would
>stand to make a lot of money- maybe not as a direct 1-1 payment for
>every gallon of gasoline sold, but certainly in the form of grants
>intended to help them research ways to "clean up" their acts.
>
>Dividing the government and global corporate structures into two
>distinct and opposing groups is a fool's task. Who do you think
>ponyied up the cash to get the politicians elected in the first place?
>
>Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware of the contridiction
>between this and a previous post. I had a moment of foolishness when
>thinking about business, and considered that some of those companies
>may be being attacked by this- no doubt some are, but I don't imagine
>you have to scratch very deep to find a whole lot of connections to
>corporate lobbies.
>
>Rest assured, it is and will continue to be "business as usual". The
>big boys beat their drums to confuse things, they make out, and the
>rest of us get screwed while we continue to pay their bills.
The big issue with "global warming" is the Kyoto Accord, in which
everyone but the US is saying in effect "the US must clean up its act
but the rest of us don't have to". If the US signed it then they
wouldn't have anything to whine about, at least not until they started
freezing to death in the dark. But who in his right mind would agree
to such a thing?
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:03:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they
>>> do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it
>>> except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never
>>> before been tested.
>>
>>Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals.
>
> Yes, there have, but most of them were not "popular misconceptions".
Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking.
>>And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions.
>
> Such as?
The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson
On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993)
>
>>I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models.
>
> Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field?
The use of the Poisson distribution for estimating the delays between packets in a network.
>>> As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they
>>> are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at
>>> issue is the policies of journals.
>>
>>And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly
>>regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by
>>thousands of other articles.
>
> And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper.
No. It's those that reference the paper.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>>
>> One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not
>> quali
> fy
>> as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based
>> upon "computer modeling".
>>
>> In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being
>> refine
> d;
>> insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
>> statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that
>> has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]
>
> Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
> 10%. (May not be valid in your state).
>
> Who does fund the research in global warming?
National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private
foundations. Rarely private corporations.
> Are there never any
> strings attached?
You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see
another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the biases of
the current group of grantors.
> Follow the money.
Always!
"Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It has been happening for years,ever since the end of the last ice age
> when the glaciers reached as far south as NYC.
>
> Glen
Farther south than that, Huge boulders in farmers fields in the mid-west
are proof.
jo4hn wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> Up to my groin in snow.
>> Just a few drifts.
>> *poke, poke, poke*
>> "There's a car in here somewhere..."
>>
> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
> you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
> the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
> melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
> Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
> luck to all,
> jo4hn
It has been happening for years,ever since the end of the last ice age
when the glaciers reached as far south as NYC.
Glen
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term
>climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the
>long-term evidence.
How many wrong predictions does it take, before a theory should be considered
wrong?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Bill in Detroit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough to
> have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will be
> unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and India
> look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through its
> coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
> industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even
> move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to
> secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums
> in obsoleting those fuels.
>
Hey Bill, care to speculate on the fate of any politician who said he was
going to take your car away?
Neat thing is that manufacturers and power generating companies will gladly
use or provide power generated from whatever source we want. Ought to be
easy for an intelligent individual like yourself to chose one. Care to do
so?
In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> When asked
>> to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
>> Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
>> Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
>>
>>
>> "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
>> initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
>> forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
>> to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
>> improvements in our educational system."
>>
> > Gore never used the word "invent," and the
>> words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.
>>
>>
>OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
>to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create
>and saying invent?
Doesn't matter -- it's still a lie, either way: the internet already existed,
long before Gore ever got to Congress.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
>>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
>>>he holds them outside the country.
>>
>> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
>> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>
>I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.
There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
"saboteurs".
> In the first
>case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
>Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
>criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's been
the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.
>
>But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
>combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
>I'm saying.
That's a little over the top (and I think you know that, really). There is NO
assumption that "anyone" can be declared an enemy combatant, except on your
part. If you want to ensure that you're not regarded as an enemy combatant,
then don't behave like one; i.e., don't carry arms on a battlefield involving
U.S. military personnel while wearing civilian clothing, don't carry bombs in
the trunk of your car or in your shoes, etc.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
>:>aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
>
>: To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all
>: global
>: warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
>: conclusions contrary to their faith.
>
> You don't know a whole lot about refereed journals, from the sound of
> it. The referees are well-trained, mainstream, reputable scientists.
> Many hundreds of them. Do you think the editors of all the major
> science journals in the world are members of a secret society
> that has an agenda to promote the illusion of global warming? And
> that they somehow have been able to identify the minority of
> scientists whole agree with them, and have excluded all other
> scientists from the editorial review process?
Well yes, they have. The leaders in any field are well known through the
AAAS and NSF. Most of them do stints at NSF and can hand out grants to
like minded folks.
>
>
> : demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but
> : opposite
>: PhD."
>
> And that contradicts your point above.
>
> -- Andy Barss
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Of course the latent heat of evaporation and the high heat capacity
> of water overwhelms that. Small global changes in humidity or ocean
> temperature absorb or emit huge amounts of heat. That is a real good
> thing as it provides us with stability. It also make it devilishly
> difficult to tell if the Earth is warming or cooling and at what rate,
> without very long observation, unless the rate is dangerously large.
>
I suspect it also oretty much drowns out the effect of minute changes in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
>> the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
>> dynamic in nature.
>>
>
> If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
> that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
> doesn't
> it?
Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including
the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we
forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart.
These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago
that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was
coming soon.
Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
The fossil records speak very clearly. Areas 10,000 years ago were
once deserts, now they are lush and other areas where giant lakes and
forests are now arid.
Global cycles yes, man made global warming, a big fat NO.
Steve
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:57:48 -0600, Chris Friesen
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
>Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
>general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
>winters.
>
>Chris
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Leon wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>But it's nice.
>>>>
>>>>Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
>>>>1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
>>>>2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
>>>>phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>>1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history
>>>>got it through his wooden head.
>>>
>>>
>>>I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think
>>>the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your
>>>opinion?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It says that he's getting smarter.
>
>
> Wasn't it you, a few posts back, who was decrying the ad hominem comments?
> .. and now you're making them.
>
Saying the dumbest president is getting smarter isn't ad hominem.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But it's nice.
>
> Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
> 1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
> 2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
> phenomenon.
>
> 1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history
> got it through his wooden head.
I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think
the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your
opinion?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
>you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
> luck to all,
> jo4hn
It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.
Joe
On Feb 22, 3:15 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> >>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
> >> >>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long
> > as
> >> >>>he holds them outside the country.
>
> >> >> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
> >> >> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>
> >> >I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.
>
> >> There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
> >> individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
> >> "saboteurs".
>
> >And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
> >guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
> >to determine their status.
>
> Cite, please.
1949 Geneva Protocols. Please do us the courtesy
of READING beyond the titles before claiming
they are irrelevant.
Persons who are place hors de combat by captivity,
are protected. That doesn't mean they cannot be
tried and executed for acts of perfidy. It does mean
that the execution must be preceded by trail.
Tangentially, note that members of the regularly
constituted armed forces of a signatory nation are
always protected persons, regardless of how they
dress.
>
> >> > In the first
> >> >case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
> >> >Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
> >> >criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
>
> >> And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's
> > been
> >> the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.
>
> >Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
> >since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
> >execution of accused spies has been prohibited internationally
> >since at least the Hague Conventions early in the 20th century.
>
> Cite, please.
Sure. But first let us do a Gedanken. Let us suppose
we are completely amoral but insist for entirely practical
purposes, that summary execution of civilian non
combatants is a crime. Now, lets see how that
works if we include your supposition that summary
execution of persons engaged in hostile acts in
civilian clothing may legally be summarily executed.
Suppose now we have a soldier wallking down one
side of the street and an MP walking on the other
side. As the MP watches, the soldier walks up to
an unarmed person in civilian clothing and shoots
him to death. The MP asks the soldier why he did
that, the soldier replies that the victim was a sabotuer.
Should the MP make an arrest or not? Does it
make a difference if the soldier tells the MP that
he saw the victim plant a bomb the previous day?
As a purely practical mater, would it not be better
to capture and try the accused saboteur?
Nor for some citations:
ARTICLES OF WAR
AN ACT FOR ESTABLISHING RULES AND
ARTICLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES
(April 10, 1806)
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted,
That in time of war, all persons not
citizens of, or owing allegiance to,
the United States of America, who
shall be found lurking as spies in or
about the fortification or encampments
of the armies of the United States, or
any of them, shall suffer death, according
to the law and usage of nations, by sentence o
f a general courts-martial.
"By sentence of a general court martial" implies
(at least to me) that trial prior to execution was
obligatory, particularly when compared with an
earlier Article or Warthat actually does authorize
summary execution:
Articles of War, (of the Continental Congress)
June 30, 1775...
Art. XXV. Whatsoever officer or soldier
shall shamefully abandon any post
committed to his charge, or shall speak
words inducing others to do the like,
in time of an engagement, shall suffer
death immediately.
I *already* cited the Hague conventions above, I do
so again:
Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV);
October 18, 1907
...
Art. 30.
A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial.
> ...
> >ISTR that I have pointed this out to you before, even
> >citing the relevant documents.
>
> And ISTR that you were unable to provide
> *relevant* citations when challenged to do so.
>
No you denied (without citation) the relevancy of
the 1949 Geneva Protocols, using a circular
argument that went something like this: the due
process requirements of the Conventions do
not apply to spies or saboteurs, therefor they
may be executed without holding a hearing to
determine whether they are spies or saboteurs.
"The legal status of the detainiees, and their
entitlement to prisoner-of-war (POW) status,
if disputed, must be determined by a competent
tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention." ...
-- Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
January 16, 2002
Keep in mind that the USSC recently agreed with
me that military commissions established by
Executive Order are not competent.
Now, what do YOU have to cite?
--
FF
On Feb 22, 3:15 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> >>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
> >> >>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long
> > as
> >> >>>he holds them outside the country.
>
> >> >> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
> >> >> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>
> >> >I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.
>
> >> There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
> >> individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
> >> "saboteurs".
>
> >And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
> >guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
> >to determine their status.
>
> Cite, please.
>
>
>
> >> > In the first
> >> >case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
> >> >Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
> >> >criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.
>
> >> And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's
> > been
> >> the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.
>
> >Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
> >since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
> >execution of accused spies has been prohibitted internationally
> >since at least the Hague Conventions early int eh 20th century.
>
> Cite, please.
>
>
>
> >ISTR that I have pointed this out to you before, even
> >citing the relevant documents.
>
> And ISTR that you were unable to provide *relevant* citations when challenged
> to do so.
>
> Try again.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
: Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
: uniform or insignia.
So, with respect to Fred's Gedanken experiment, you would answer
that no, there is no reason to arrest the soldier who summarily
executed someone he asserts to have been an enemy combatant? This
person wasn't wearing a uniform or insignia, so isn't protected under
your assumptions.
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 22, 3:15 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> wrote:
>> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
>> >> >>>(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as
> long
>> > as
>> >> >>>he holds them outside the country.
>>
>> >> >> With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
>> >> >> battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.
>>
>> >> >I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.
>>
>> >> There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
>> >> individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies"
> or
>> >> "saboteurs".
>>
>> >And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
>> >guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
>> >to determine their status.
>>
>> Cite, please.
>
>1949 Geneva Protocols. Please do us the courtesy
>of READING beyond the titles before claiming
>they are irrelevant.
I have done so, but as I noted the last time we discussed this, I question
whether you have.
>
>Persons who are place hors de combat by captivity,
>are protected.
That simply isn't true. Armed individuals in civilian clothing on a
battlefield are not protected persons.
>That doesn't mean they cannot be
>tried and executed for acts of perfidy. It does mean
>that the execution must be preceded by trail.
>
>Tangentially, note that members of the regularly
>constituted armed forces of a signatory nation are
>always protected persons, regardless of how they
>dress.
Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
uniform or insignia.
[remainder snipped]
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Bill in Detroit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>
> Does your newsreader support threading?
>
> --
> Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
> rascal less in the world.
> Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
> http://nmwoodworks.com
I'll wager that Doug's does, and so does mine. It also has a feature where
it hides posts I have already read. The whole point of quoting the previous
post(s) you're replying to is to reference at least as much to make clear
how your comments fit in context. Just like you did above.
todd
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:32:09 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>
>> And despite all this censorship, not one paper opposing global warming
>> got published? Do tell.
>
>
>Yeah - amazing isn't it? Even with a $20 million budget, they were
>unable to find any scientists willing to LIE for them.
See how you yourself are attempting to enforce political correctness?
>Did you check out the link:
>
>http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/epa-websites/
>
>This points to several grants the EPA funded:
>
>http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalresearchprojects.cfm?detype=project&excCol=archive
>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-epa.htm
>
>Where are the results of these grants?
Dunno. You're the expert on climate, where are they?
>Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News.
>
>And since then?
Is that a peer reviewed journal? I'm sorry, but personally I don't
give a damn of the government decided to quit spending money on an
agency newsletter.
>Go to
>
>http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnewsletters.cfm?detype=document&mlf_id=39&incsub=newsletter&pgType=NEW&excCol=archive
>
>and check it out yourself.
>
>The last annual report was 2002. They didn't even publish any
>papers DISPROVING global warming. Ask yourself why.
Why should I care what an agency newletter contains?
Sorry, but you're singling out a a particular publication that is not
as far as I know a generally recognized peer-reviewed scientific
journal and from that making a sweeping generalization.
Swingman wrote:
> Huh??
>
> Better watch those epoxy fumes, Lew. ;)
>
Think about it.
The world is a finite place.
There is a finite amount of resource, water, soil, air, etc.
Every action has a reaction.
If man continues to screw up the world, he has nobody but himself to
blame.
BTW, laminating epoxy contains no VOCs.
Sent an AQMD inspector muttering under his breath out of the boat yard
because he lost an opportunity to fine me.
The expression on his face said it all when he saw the epoxy drum.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 15, 9:17 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to
>> Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any
> less
>> a fact.
>>
>Is English your second language, Doug?
>
No -- but it often appears that it *is* yours...
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:12:59 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>NuWaveDave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-)
>>
>> Um, more like bald eagle.
>>
>>--
>>NuWave Dave in Houston
>>
>>
>
>About 6 years ago a great blue heron landed in my backyard,
>inside Baltimore city limits, and grabbed the largest goldfish (about
>7" long) from our 6 ft diameter pond. As I was running towards the
>heron, it dropped the fish, who amazingly survived for several more
>years after being returned to the pond
>
>It was really quite a sight. My daughter, who followed me outside,
>was 3 or 4 at the time, and the heron was taller than she was.
>Its wingspan was big enough that it was not able to fly away
>immediately when I approached it; because of trees, bushes, and
>a swing set close to the pond, it had to run to a more open area before
>it could take off. I was within 15 or so feet of it got away.
You're lucky it got away before you got close. A cornered heron will
fight and that beak is a remarkably effective weapon. Don't approach
a heron unless you're _sure_ you know what you're about.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:26:32 -0700, "DouginUtah"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>> journal.
>===========
>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
>are not given credence in scientific journals.
If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
wrong.
>Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed :
>ExxonMobil global warming deniers
>into Google. The first item was:
>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
>
>It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say.
Uh huh.
>"News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to
>undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to
>overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil."
What do "policy groups" have to do with science?
>An excerpt:
>"Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that
>either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global
>climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of
>"skeptic" scientists who continue to do so."
So they admit that there are "skeptic" scientists.
>However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But
>you were civil, so I have replied.
>
>(BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly.
>Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not
>civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.)
>
>-Doug
>
J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| J. Clarke wrote:
||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
||| conventional house?
||
|| By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of
|| course.
|
| That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would
| result in a conventional house being less expensive too though.
True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design and
materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home could
hardly be called "conventional".
| All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and thermal
| mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also has to
| have backup heat.
Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but beyond
that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort. Thermal mass
provides storage for replacement heat to compensate for losses. When
the losses become sufficiently small, the need for thermal mass
shrinks to near nil.
|| I
|| have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've
|| been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a
|| contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional
|| methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and is
|| in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F.
|
| Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might be
| possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I doubt it
| would work here though, where single-degree temperatures for days
| at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined with
| significant snowfall are the norm.
You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block shop
in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector panels.
There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed
was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and work
in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls.
| Around here effective passive solar design means a
| house-within-a-house design.
|
|| The lowest indoor temperature
|| this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar
|| panels to raise that somewhat.
|
| I can understand that. But there's another cost increase.
I guess that'd depend on what you're using as a base. My understanding
is that an R-40 house like that in the photo can be built for about
$55K in the Tuscon area. I have no way of knowing whether that'd be an
increase or decrease of conventional house cost in your area. FWIW,
it'd be a very respectable cost decrease in the Des Moines area (and
I'd expect there to be remarkably few homes with that kind of thermal
efficiency here.)
|| For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this
|| question in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to
|| having such a home built, I can foreward your contact info to the
|| contractor.
|
| It was a rhetorical question. If I was going to build such a house
| I'd dust off my engineering degree and dig out my solar engineering
| texts.
Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and
construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well.
Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of
innovation.
| Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the
| more I learned about it the less attractive it became.
|
||| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar
||| equipment", it uses design.
||
|| It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat
|| aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper"
|| homes, there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their
|| heating costs in a way they find satisfying.
|
| Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in my
| neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left now.
|
| But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house.
Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it does
about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to make that
kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that the panels
would actually be worth having.
||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
||| actually humorous.
||
|| Re-read for comprehension.
|
| Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you
| should write what you mean.
I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you
presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule. I don't know
any more about the cost (or physics) now than I did then, but am
somewhat more aware of how a '76 dollar has inflated.
I wrote exactly what I meant and gave you the benefit of the doubt by
assuming miscomprehension rather than misrepresentation.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"todd" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
>>> scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.
>>
>> Is it my turn to sigh for effect? Please look up the word "popular" in the
>> dictionary. You'll see that it does not apply to a number of scientists.
>> If you meant something else, I suggest you use words that say what you mean.
>> I suggest you substitute "widely-held scientific beliefs" for "popular
>> misconceptions". Apparently, you believe these are synonymous, but they
>> aren't.
>
>While if unqualified, popular means the masses, but in many cases
>"popular" is qualified by mentioning the group in question.
Then you should have so qualified it if you were going to use it.
>If one is popular in High School, that doesn't mean that
>the entire world thinks that person is popular.
>
>If I said a cartoon was popular among pre-schoolers, that
>doesn't mean the entire world watches.
>
>If I was at a conference, and said a partitular topic was popular,
>it would be clear that I was referring to those attending the conference.
>
>I acept your criticism, but in this case I thought in was clear that
>when I said "popular" and talking about research papers, it was
>implied to be "among scientists."
Clear as mud.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>| Uh, the Princeton Large Torus was an experiment. "Expediting
>| commercialization" was not feasible 30 years ago and if someone
>| knowledgeable gave you a number for it he was very likely trying to
>| get you to go away--there was not enough known then to produce a
>| commercial reactor and most of the scientists and engineers working
>| on the project _knew_ that not enough was known.
>
>There were even a few (intellectually conceited) folk who knew it
>couldn't be done at all.
>
>| Currently the largest working fusion device other than weapons is
>| JET I believe, which has achieved theoretical breakeven. The next
>| step, for which something like 2.5 billion dollars has been
>| committed, is ITER, which should produce fusion energy at the level
>| of 10 times breakeven in the 2010-2015 time frame. Once it is
>| running and if it works as designed, then the next step would be to
>| use that fusion energy to generate electric power resulting in a
>| self-sustaining system--that would be in the 2030 time frame.
>| After that a commercial prototype would be developed in maybe the
>| 2045 timeframe.
>
>Interesting.
>
>| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
>| conventional house?
>
>By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of course.
That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would
result in a conventional house being less expensive too though.
All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and thermal
mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also has to have
backup heat.
> I
>have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've been
>asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a contractor who
>wanted a test case for some non-conventional methods and materials.
>The house shown has no heating plant and is in an area where winter
>night time temperatures drop to 20F.
Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might be
possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I doubt it
would work here though, where single-degree temperatures for days at a
time and occasional excursions below zero combined with significant
snowfall are the norm.
And that leaves aside the difficulty of finding a site with a good
unblocked southern exposure--where I am now I'd have to cut down
several other people's trees, which I don't think they'd like very
much.
Around here effective passive solar design means a
house-within-a-house design.
> The lowest indoor temperature
>this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar
>panels to raise that somewhat.
I can understand that. But there's another cost increase.
>For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this question
>in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to having such a
>home built, I can foreward your contact info to the contractor.
It was a rhetorical question. If I was going to build such a house
I'd dust off my engineering degree and dig out my solar engineering
texts.
Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the more
I learned about it the less attractive it became.
>| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar
>| equipment", it uses design.
>
>It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat
>aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper" homes,
>there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their heating costs
>in a way they find satisfying.
Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in my
neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left now.
But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house.
>| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
>| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
>| actually humorous.
>
>Re-read for comprehension.
Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you should
write what you mean.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the more
> I learned about it the less attractive it became.
>
>>| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar
>>| equipment", it uses design.
>>
In your rush to the ridiculous, you've bypassed the simple. Have your
drapes respond to the sun by closing to prevent heat loss on cloudy, opening
to build heat on sunlit cold days. Reverse for cooling. Instant recovery
of costs, and the gift just keeps on giving.
Just lining your curtains with reflective, insulating material will make a
huge difference.
Somebody wrote:
> Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of,
give or
> take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the
supposed
> culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
> statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
> "historical", but what the hell.
Only problem with the above is that it is not valid.
Historical data is determined by core samples, not temperature records.
Result is that historical trends being developed are perhaps more
accurate than we would like to admit.
The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.
As the old saying goes, "What comes around, goes around."
Lew
DouginUtah wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>>
> I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
> dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
> after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
> earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
> correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> -Doug
>
>
Then you need to take a statistics class. There is a profound difference
between correlation and cause. The street lights reliably are correlated
to come on when the sun sets. But the sun does not set BECAUSE the street lights
come on. In scientific research, correlation is relatively easy to establish
and can even hint at causal relationships. But actually demonstrating causality
is MUCH harder.
That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. The macro trend
for warming has been positive since the last ice age - well before industrial
CO2 production amplified the rate of injection into the carbon cycle. Is it
worth studying? Sure. But it's also worth noting that the geophysical history
of the planet suggest far HIGHER CO2 maximums in geologic history than we see today -
and correspondingly good environmental health at the same time.
THIS IS AN OPINION NOT FACT: My guess is that the reason the models are so wildly wrong
today is twofold:
1) Climate modeling is more-or-less a "complex system" mathematically. Such systems
show wildly changing outputs with very small changes in input - the so-called
Lorentz Butterfly Effect. The number of precision of variables you have to consider
and, more importantly, their degree of precision, is far outside our present understanding
of climate. Our guesses are thus too coarse to be of much use.
2) We do not have enough long-term reliable planetary climate data to build upon.
Climate fluctuates over geologic time, not 50 years. For models to make any real
sense, we need way, way, way more data than what we have today. Worrying about GW
because there was few degree fluctuation in the last couple of decades is like worrying
about urinating in the ocean - it's a real, but insignificant, factor.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> Yes, I do. Weather is transitory, climate is long-term.
Then I would reason the "man" has not been around long enough to affect the
climate.
>Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
>opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
>J Ren (China)
>N Nicholls (Australia)
>M Rusticucci (Argentina)
>P Stott (UK)
>U Lohmann (Switzerland)
>R Stouffer (USA)
>V Kattsov (Russia)
>T Matsuno (Japan)
>
>-Doug
>
No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
Brennan.
We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
shivering under.
If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
weather fronts?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'd like you to show some support for either statement.
>
> Here are some photos showing a buttload of ice lost from Antarctica
> in 2002:
>
> http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/mar/antarctica/
>
> If there has been a gain since, it is doubtful that it has made up f
> or what was lost.
>
> --
>
> FF
Ok, you provided that support with your link. The peninsula that you
mention has been retreating for 50 years long before our so called global
warming became the new world problem. OTOH as I said and is backed up by
the link you provided the interior is cooling and the glaciers are
thickening.
Larsen B is one of five ice shelves -- large floating extensions of ice
sheets covering the continent -- that's been on retreat. While Antarctica's
interior seems to be cooling and its glaciers thickening, studies show the
Antarctic Peninsula has been warming over the past 50 years.
Joe Bleau wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
>> you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>> the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>> melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>> Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>> luck to all,
>> jo4hn
>
> It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>
> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
> with spotted owls.
>
> Joe
Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em.
Taste like chicken.
Glen
Charles Koester wrote:
> On 2007-02-15, J Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>>>> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>>>> affirming or denying global warming?
>>> =================
>>>
>>> Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
>>> (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
>>> ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
>>> tobacco companies and smoking.
>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>> journal.
>
> They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
> All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
> have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
> Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
>
> A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
> randomly selected research papers on climate change
> published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
> Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
>
> Zip. nada.
>
> A quote:
> Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
> first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
> accepting the consensus view; 25%
> dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
> no position on current anthropogenic climate
> change. Remarkably, none of the papers
> disagreed with the consensus position.
>
> Read it for yourself:
>
> <http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf>
>
> My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.
>
> Charles Koester
This is a subtle version of the "agreement" argument - if enough scientists agree, it
must be true. The fact that there is, in fact, vigorous debate within the science
community about just what the facts are and what they mean, but there is little peer-reviewed
publication of that debate demonstrates how overtly political the funding process has
become, not that science has reached a conclusion of any sort.
There are two sources of funding: Government and Private Industry. Both are inherently
corruptable, though government has far larger sins in this regard that even the most
eeeeeevil corporations. Moreover, science has always had a pecking order and status
quo, not withstanding the lofty claims of its apologists that say otherwise. Until
we find a more neutral way to fund, review, and evaluate proposals for work, we are stuck
with this system.
For the moment, the practical reality is that it is much easier to get
"scare" funding from the government especially. It plays into the political
gasbags' need to become important beyond any merit they possess by appearing
to "save" us. Scientists are not stupid (by definition - at least for the most
part). They will gravitate to the work that pays their bills. Since GW involves
very complex mathematics whose output varies wildly with very small adjustments
to inputs, you can always legitimately cook up a model that predicts whatever you
want - after all, no one actually knows what all the input variables need to be
and to what degree of precision they need to be measured. If "tweaking" the
numbers one way or the other gets you government (or eeeeeeeevil corporate)
funding, why not. Your guess is as good as the next guy's.
I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are merely practical
when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When the subject
is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can cook up
the model that makes your patron happy.
Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
> The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
> it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
> millions of people and billions of dollars in property.
>
But will it warm us tomorrow?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: If this is global warming...
>
[Snip of Steve's opinions]
>
Steve,
Maybe these references will help you get up to speed on global warming.
http://peakoildesign.com/blog/peakengineer/global_warming_myths_and_lies
See #5.
Also:
"Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming
predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age
and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column
and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate
scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton's State of
Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too. But its not an
argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles
under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in *newsgroups*
though.
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press.
There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g.
Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible
for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various
papers that mention the subject, then try
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/."
> Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
> show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
> a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
J Ren (China)
N Nicholls (Australia)
M Rusticucci (Argentina)
P Stott (UK)
U Lohmann (Switzerland)
R Stouffer (USA)
V Kattsov (Russia)
T Matsuno (Japan)
-Doug
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>
[Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>
>
I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
-Doug
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
:>aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
: To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
: warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
: conclusions contrary to their faith.
You don't know a whole lot about refereed journals, from the sound of it.
The referees are well-trained, mainstream, reputable scientists.
Many hundreds of them. Do you think the editors of all the major
science journals in the world are members of a secret society
that has an agenda to promote the illusion of global warming? And that they
somehow have been able to identify the minority of scientists whole agree with them,
and have excluded all other scientists from the editorial review process?
: demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but opposite
: PhD."
And that contradicts your point above.
-- Andy Barss
Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
affirming or denying global warming?
--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
Well, we have gone from "30 years ago scientists were predicting another
ice age" to "scientists who predict global warming will never change
their minds."
--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
> affirming or denying global warming?
=================
Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
tobacco companies and smoking.
-Doug
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
> journal.
===========
I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
are not given credence in scientific journals.
Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed :
ExxonMobil global warming deniers
into Google. The first item was:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say.
"News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to
undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to
overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil."
An excerpt:
"Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that
either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global
climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of
"skeptic" scientists who continue to do so."
However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But
you were civil, so I have replied.
(BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly.
Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not
civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.)
-Doug
In article <[email protected]>,
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>> affirming or denying global warming?
<...snipped...>
>
>How about a job? How about continued funding? Anyone who disputes global
>warming is labeled a crackpot, so there's a huge disincentive to question
>the conclusions at this point.
>
>todd
>
>
Funding has been available on both sides though recently even some oil
companies have made statements that agree with the proponents
of the human-caused theories. I'm sure there are and have been scientists
like those in other professions who are in it for the $$ and will change
their tune to please the payer. Personally I believe that they are
a small minority. There are lots of scientists who advocate increased
use of nuclear power, and _that_ is hardly a popular political opinion.
are
--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>This discussion has divided into two (2) camps.
>
>1) Those whose head is stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>
>2) Those whose head is not stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>
>The reader is left to make the appropriate choice as it applies to them.
>
>Lew
That's good, Lew! It's obvious that _every_ reader of ths ng is in
category 2!
--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:41:49 +0000 (UTC),
>[email protected] (Larry) wrote:
>
>>Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will
>>be introduced into this thread?
>
>Too late, you just did it.
well, at least I didn't pick sides.. :)
--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
In article <[email protected]>,
NuWaveDave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-)
>
> Um, more like bald eagle.
>
>--
>NuWave Dave in Houston
>
>
About 6 years ago a great blue heron landed in my backyard,
inside Baltimore city limits, and grabbed the largest goldfish (about
7" long) from our 6 ft diameter pond. As I was running towards the
heron, it dropped the fish, who amazingly survived for several more
years after being returned to the pond
It was really quite a sight. My daughter, who followed me outside,
was 3 or 4 at the time, and the heron was taller than she was.
Its wingspan was big enough that it was not able to fly away
immediately when I approached it; because of trees, bushes, and
a swing set close to the pond, it had to run to a more open area before
it could take off. I was within 15 or so feet of it got away.
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
: J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
:> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
:> <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
:>>
:>>>>No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
:>>>>Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.
:>>>
:>>> And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
:>>> viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?
:>>
:>>First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government.
:>
:> Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the
:> money.
: Not for the reviews I have been involved with. I do it on my own
: time.
I'm not aware of any reputable journal, in any field, ever,
that pays its reviewers.
J. Clarke has a pretty peculiar picture of how science
writing, reviewing, and publishing works.
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>.................... With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
>reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
>quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.
>
>Bill
>
Please explain how your news reader compensates when _your_ news server
receives messages in a different order than _my_ server?
--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>> affirming or denying global warming?
>=================
>
>Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
>(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
>ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
>tobacco companies and smoking.
Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
journal.
J. Clarke wrote:
| Uh, the Princeton Large Torus was an experiment. "Expediting
| commercialization" was not feasible 30 years ago and if someone
| knowledgeable gave you a number for it he was very likely trying to
| get you to go away--there was not enough known then to produce a
| commercial reactor and most of the scientists and engineers working
| on the project _knew_ that not enough was known.
There were even a few (intellectually conceited) folk who knew it
couldn't be done at all.
| Currently the largest working fusion device other than weapons is
| JET I believe, which has achieved theoretical breakeven. The next
| step, for which something like 2.5 billion dollars has been
| committed, is ITER, which should produce fusion energy at the level
| of 10 times breakeven in the 2010-2015 time frame. Once it is
| running and if it works as designed, then the next step would be to
| use that fusion energy to generate electric power resulting in a
| self-sustaining system--that would be in the 2030 time frame.
| After that a commercial prototype would be developed in maybe the
| 2045 timeframe.
Interesting.
| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
| conventional house?
By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of course. I
have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've been
asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a contractor who
wanted a test case for some non-conventional methods and materials.
The house shown has no heating plant and is in an area where winter
night time temperatures drop to 20F. The lowest indoor temperature
this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar
panels to raise that somewhat.
For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this question
in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to having such a
home built, I can foreward your contact info to the contractor.
| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar
| equipment", it uses design.
It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat
aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper" homes,
there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their heating costs
in a way they find satisfying.
| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
| actually humorous.
Re-read for comprehension.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:36:33 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:58:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
>| <[email protected]> wrote:
>|
>|| Prometheus wrote:
>||| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
>||| <[email protected]> wrote:
>|||
>|||| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
>|||| altogether. The path from where we are to there appears to me to
>|||| be bumpy and uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be
>|||| that of preparing our offspring to make that journey and produce
>|||| sound decisions en route. My biggest worry is that we're not
>|||| meeting that challenge.
>|||
>||| I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the
>||| sun is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some
>||| things are free, while others are not.
>||
>|| Yes, the sun consumes fuel - let's get past that. It consumes it's
>|| fuel and will continue to do so no matter what. It was doing so
>|| before humans appeared on the scene and will probably still be
>|| doing so long after we're gone.
>||
>|| The practical difference is that the fuel cost of solar radiation
>|| is nil; and that the supply is (for practical purposes)
>|| inexhaustable. The energy delivered is limited to roughly a
>|| kilowatt per square meter over half of the planet's surface at a
>|| time.
>|
>| The fuel cost of fusion in a terrestrial power plant should also be
>| nil or close to it. So why do you want to push solar instead of
>| continuing to work on fusion?
>
>You're being a bit free with your assumptions. Get in contact with
>Greenough at PPPL and ask him who the person was with no project
>connection who pushed him hardest for progress _NOW_ (starting in '76)
>on Princeton's tokamak. If he hadn't a really good sense of humor (and
>been a very gentle kind of person) I'd probably be missing teeth.
>
>I asked what it'd take to expidite commercialization and was told that
>it'd take on the order of a billion and a half (1976) dollars; and
>that PU couldn't find it. /I/ certainly didn't have it; so all I could
>do was beg the guys to work faster and smarter with what they did
>have. When the first toroid was built, they invited me to stop by and
>have a look see. (To imagine the magnetic pinch bottle and the
>annhilation of atoms produced in an object that size inspired real
>awe.)
>
>I never saw the finished reactor. I understand it was assembled and
>run at Tom's River for ten years or so before being dismantled. When I
>saw that announcement I called one of the engineers and asked him to
>say "Hi" to the guys I'd known and tell them that they'd dazzled the
>hell out of me. BTW, there's a guy who worked on the project after I
>left the east coast who lurks here on the wreck and can certainly
>provide better info than I.
>
>Fuel for the tokamak (if I understand it's operation properly) is
>tritium (as in heavy heavy water) - not something one can order up in
>bulk from any existing source. If you can supply the tritium and the
>construction money, I think the guys with the real-world experience
>(not to mention myself!) would probably be pretty happy to help make
>it happen...
Uh, the Princeton Large Torus was an experiment. "Expediting
commercialization" was not feasible 30 years ago and if someone
knowledgeable gave you a number for it he was very likely trying to
get you to go away--there was not enough known then to produce a
commercial reactor and most of the scientists and engineers working on
the project _knew_ that not enough was known.
Currently the largest working fusion device other than weapons is JET
I believe, which has achieved theoretical breakeven. The next step,
for which something like 2.5 billion dollars has been committed, is
ITER, which should produce fusion energy at the level of 10 times
breakeven in the 2010-2015 time frame. Once it is running and if it
works as designed, then the next step would be to use that fusion
energy to generate electric power resulting in a self-sustaining
system--that would be in the 2030 time frame. After that a commercial
prototype would be developed in maybe the 2045 timeframe.
Attempting commercialization in 1976 could have swallowed the entire
US GDP with no result.
As for burning tritium, the D-T cycle is the easiest, so that's what
the development designs are working on. Once there are reactors
actually running in commercial service development to the point of
burning ordinary hydrogen should be possible.
The thing is, we don't need a new energy source now, today. Fission
will carry us for several hundred years, at which point commercial
fusion should be commonplace if the econuts don't find some way to
kill them.
>|| We can expect that at some point, we'll have exhausted the
>|| planetary supplies of petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium.
>|
>| And by that time we should have fusion reactors online.
>
>Eh? They should be online _now_! We just have more "important" things
>to spend the money on.
All the money in the world would not have them online now. Too much
research that depends on the results of other research that needs to
be done yet.
>|| Long before
>|| they're gone, their prices will increase to the level where
>|| ordinary folks won't be able to afford to buy either the commodity
>|| or the energy produced from it.
>|
>| And when that point is reached, then it will become economically
>| viable to use some other source. But until that happens a crash
>| program to go to some alternate energy source will _increase_ the
>| cost to those consumers, not _decrease_ it.
>
>Hmm. Other than the wild (but usually silent) enthusiasm for fusion to
>which I just confessed, who's advocating a crash program to go to some
>alternate energy source? Not I - nor has anyone else I've read here.
Then what, exactly, _are_ you on about?
>|| I'm _not_ an advocate of converting everything to solar for the
>|| simple reason that it isn't the best source of energy for all
>|| applications. All energy sources have their own unique set of
>|| advantages and disadvantages; and I've found it interesting to
>|| search for applications and problems that match up with the
>|| particular advantages and disadvantages of low-to-moderate
>|| temperature (100F-1000F) solar heating.
>||
>|| What I'm doing has nothing intentional to do with global
>|| warming/cooling. It has to do with finding more cost-effective
>|| ways of doing things already being done with other technologies. I
>|| see economic and social benefit in significantly reducing heating
>|| costs, in pumping liquids, and providing refrigeration with simple
>|| (few or no moving parts) devices and using freely available energy.
>|
>| Well, all of this is nice if you can make reliable equipment to do
>| those things with operating and maintenance costs and initial
>| purchase price low enough that the average person can afford them.
>| But even if the lifecycle cost of a solar house is less than a
>| conventional one, if the up front purchase price is twice as high
>| then many people just plain can't dig up that much money at one go.
>| The fuel cost is not the only cost.
>
>Well then - by your criteria all this is pretty nice indeed. You may
>surprised to learn that the up-front construction cost /can/ be
>considerably lower. Whether or not that translates into a lower
>_purchase_ price is a different matter entirely.
Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
conventional house?
>The up-front purchase price for solar equipment is all over the place.
>If you want to hammer /me/ on this one, you'd better look up panel
>prices at my web site and do some comparisons with similar products
>from elsewhere. This isn't a subject I feel I should be discussing in
>a newsgroup (but I'm tempted.)
"Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar
equipment", it uses design.
>I'm not sure how too say this as gently as I'd like; but your comments
>indicate that you have considerable catch-up reading to do.
Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
actually humorous.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:51:02 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"todd" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of "popular
>> misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken notion
>> held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets dispelled
>> by an obscure scientific paper from 1988.
>
>Sigh. I think you need to re-read the thread. Let me quote AGAIN:
>
>OP>>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And
>OP>>the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals.
>
>Jim> If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
>Jim> biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
>Jim> rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
>Jim> wrong.
>
>Me>I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions.
>Me>They also love to be first with groundbreaking research.
>
>Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
>scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.
It may be clear to you, but to most of the rest of us "a minority
opinion in scientific journals" is not a "popular misconception".
Perhaps you should write what you mean instead of expecting the rest
of us to read your mind?
>Heaven knows that the public has thousands of popular misconceptions,
>and scientists really don't consider taking a position that differs
>from the common misconceptions on alien abduction, reincarnation,
>ghosts, ESP, flat earth, etc. to be "groundbreaking." Do you really
>consider a "UFO's don't exist" paper to be groundbreaking? Hardly.
No, I would consider that to be "debunking popular misconceptions".
>It is, however, groundbreaking to provide strong evidence that
>assumptions the majority of scientists hold is wrong. And as I said -
>scientists LOVE to be able to do this. But the science has to hold up.
>Otherwise you end up with Cold Fusion.
Be that as it may, the fact that the majority of scientists believe
something doesn't make it a "popular misconception" and proving them
wrong does not constitute "debunking". I think that most physicists
would look at you like you were nuts if you described Einstein's
initial paper on General Relativity as "debunking popular
misconceptions".
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
> Skepticism is the *basis* of science. A hypothesis is not even fit for
> consideration if it is not, in principle, falsifiable. It is laughable
> that the very people clinging to their version of "science" as mainstream
> or consensus, demand that we rid ourselves of skepticism - the very
foundation
> of the scientific method.
>
> One more time: It does not matter how many scientists agree about any
topic
> we could pick. Their agreement is irrelevant until/unless they can
produce
> data, calculation, and/or experimental data to debate. Their opinions are
no
> more important than my cat's. That's *why* we have developed the
scientific
> method in the past few centuries: To - as best we can - eliminate human
bias.
The state of education in this country has never more apparent than when the
supposedly "educated" simply can not grasp, or, very likely have never even
been exposed to, the above.
The stated goal of our HISD schools here in Houston is to "... produce a
student who is educated to the extent that he/she can gain employment in a
corporate environment".
That the proponents of that endeavor are starting to reap the benefits of a
society educated thusly is painfully apparent from the number of folks here
who are willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes by pseudo-science
and statistics.
Robbing them of the ability to think for themselves has got to be one of the
most insidious crimes ever foisted upon the people of this country.
This thread is, if nothing else, chilling to the bone ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
>>> can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on
>>> here
>>> yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being
>>> used.
>>
>> Absolutely correct.
>>
>> The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
>> weather changes to be accurate.
>> The average person can guess as accurately as the models.
>>
>>
> There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic, predictions
> more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking climate here,
> not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.
Do you believe that weather and climate do not affect each other?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have not seen Gore's movie, but many people that have, liked it.
Most like sicience Fiction.
>
> Were there ANY hurricanesin 2006? That is so weird... what, there 5
> big mofo's in 2005?
>
Yes , I think 3 or 4 times less than 2005 and that many times less than
predicted.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:36:16 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>> journal.
>
>I think a more correct statement was that at least $20 million was
>spent by the EPA to create confusion and distortion of the scientific facts.
>
>This was sone by censorship, or by refusing to publish the reports
>they paid for.
>
>See
>
>http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/epa-websites/
>
>Here's another report on censorship.
>
>http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/01/30/PM200701305.html
>
>
>"A survey of 279 federal scientists found nearly half were pressured
>to drop references to global warming in their research. Study author
>Francesco Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the panel
>today that the changes amount to censorship"
>
>http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2467733&page=1
>
>"Commerce Department officials may have tried to stop a government
>scientist from speaking to reporters because of his views on global
>warming, a California congressman says."
>
>http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061
>
>"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
>Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
>federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
>interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
>reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
>500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
>publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
>released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
>climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
>interference with their work over the past five years. "
>
>"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
>former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
>House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
And despite all this censorship, not one paper opposing global warming
got published? Do tell.
DouginUtah wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>> journal.
> ===========
> I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
> are not given credence in scientific journals.
>
> Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed :
> ExxonMobil global warming deniers
> into Google. The first item was:
> http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
>
> It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say.
>
> "News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to
> undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to
> overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil."
"Consensus" has no place in science. Data and repeatability of calculation/
experiment are all that matter. If you believe in consensus, you do
not understand the method of science.
>
> An excerpt:
> "Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that
> either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global
> climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of
> "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so."
Ditto "mainstream scientific findings" - where is the inarguable data and
experimental result?
>
> However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But
> you were civil, so I have replied.
Skepticism is the *basis* of science. A hypothesis is not even fit for
consideration if it is not, in principle, falsifiable. It is laughable
that the very people clinging to their version of "science" as mainstream
or consensus, demand that we rid ourselves of skepticism - the very foundation
of the scientific method.
One more time: It does not matter how many scientists agree about any topic
we could pick. Their agreement is irrelevant until/unless they can produce
data, calculation, and/or experimental data to debate. Their opinions are no
more important than my cat's. That's *why* we have developed the scientific
method in the past few centuries: To - as best we can - eliminate human bias.
But the earth worshipers especially want to throw all that away because they
have a religious view of the environment and they want to jam their theology
down everyone's throat worse than any Snake-Handling Fundamentalist preacher
ever will...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 14, 10:12 pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Snopes=another Gore apologist. Event the Democrats (dipshits) realized
>> that
>> Gore had not only stuck his foot in his mouth but swallowed the whole
>> leg.
>> They spent a lot of time doing damage control. If you had watched the
>> interview, Gore's intent was clear.
>
> Nonsense. The Dems attempt at damage control was a direct result from
> the piranha-like feeding frenzy of the biased media. What Gore said
> was stupid, because he left himself wide open to misinterpretation.
> Nobody in their right mind believes that Gore tried to lay claim on
> inventing the internet. Gore paid for his awkward word choices but
> some people feel the need to take a piss on a corps.... imaginary or
> real.
>
> In The Netherlands there is a saying which translates as follows: "He
> who wants to beat a dog, can always find a stick."
> You label Snopes as Gore apologists. Why? Because it helps you make
> your case?
> How typical. How Rovian. How arbitrary.
I think we're going to have to develop a corollary to Godwin's Law that
applies to Karl Rove references.
todd
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:23:58 -0600, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>> "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
>>
>>> Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
>>> one thing: hard evidence.
>>
>> So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and
>> causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence".
>
>Nice terminology, but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world
>is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the
>cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no
>dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence.
>Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is
>indisputable.
>
>>
>> It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take
>> the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as
>> scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not
>> even rise to the level of an "hypothesis".
>>
>> One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
>> as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
>> "computer modeling".
>
>And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an
>extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just
>that--an assumption.
>
As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here
yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used. I
know how hard it is to validate results comparing a simulation with a test
when I have significant control over many (but not all) of the variables
going into that test. To be able to predict specifics of a test event with
certainty is a fool's errand. To come close statistically is possible, and
we work to narrow the uncertainty of those statistics, but that requires a
strong knowledge of the variables and interdependencies of those variables
in the tests. Now, compound the complexity by taking the fact that one has
absolutely no control over the variables going into weather tests and
further, the fact that we may not even *know* the dependencies or
interdependencies of many of the variables being simulated means that the
models may not even have all of the contributors to climate prediction
incorporated. What that gets you is a huge uncertainty region -- a model
that is predicting warming or cooling at a rate of tenths of a degree over
periods of years is nothing more than simulation noise in that instance.
In order for a skeptic like myself to believe that these people have
their models right, they are going to have to establish a track record.
Since they insist that this isn't about predicting weather, but climate,
that is going to take some time. I'm patient, I'll wait. Especially
before supporting implementation of draconian, economy-shaking legislation
based upon models with,thus far, no established credibility.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:06:01 -0600, Bob Schmall <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Please acquaint yourself with the difference between weather and
>climate. Global warming ain't about weather.
And I guess abdominal pain isn't associated with appendicitis, yeah
right Skippy.
>The Arctic is not a refrigerator-- it is an effect and not a cause of
>climate. It is now mostly free of ice, as you admit, the result of
>global warming.
Quite frankly, I never wrote that the arctic is mostly free of ice.
Quite the contrary, on his Web site, Bob Felix cites facts ignored or
lied about by the global warming alarmists. He shows that despite
their claims that the worlds glaciers are melting, fully 75 percent
are actually growing.
In response to claims that oceans levels are rising and threatening to
drown New York City, he shows they are actually falling.
And once again, yes Skippy, the arctic is a refrigerator.
>I'll give you the name of one (most definitely) non-scientist who
>believes that it is man-made: George W. Bush. Or is Charlton Heston
>still your president?
Don't know what you're babbling about there Skippy.
Robatoy wrote:
>
> I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
> water.
> I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
> lantern going for a while.
Maybe so, but a buffalo burger is totally tasteless, IMHO.
> But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
> 4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.
Even living in SoCal, I'm no authority on Tex/Mex or even authentic
Mexican food, but TacoBell, give me a break.
Lew
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:38:02 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>jo4hn wrote:
>> Joe Bleau wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp
>>>> wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better
>>>> weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps
>>>> and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna
>>>> get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>>>> luck to all,
>>>> jo4hn
>>>
>>>
>>> It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
>>> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>>>
>>> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
>>> with spotted owls.
>>>
>>> Joe
>> Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
>> that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
>> dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
>
>Not so. It is the highest it has been *in a long time*, not "ever".
I'm curious--do you have a source for that information? The analysis
that I've seen of ice cores suggest that it is indeed the highest it
has been during the period of time covered by the ice cores. My
research in this area however has been quite limited and I may well be
looking in all the wrong places.
>> years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
>> aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
>> or you might try prayer,
>> jo4hn
>
>Now all you have to do is:
>
>a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date).
>
>At this point you will earn a Ph.D.
>
>b) Demonstrate that human action is causal for the increased CO2 levels (not done to date).
>
>At this point you will get tenure.
>
>c) Demonstrate that global warming's effects are severe and harm the environment
> (entirely speculative to date).
>
>At this point you will get unlimited funding.
>
>d) Demonstrate that mankind can actually substantially do something about
> it by changing behavior (wild speculation to date).
>
>At this point you might be electable to public office.
>
>Gore and the Earth Worshiping Pantheists wanna skip a-c and go right to d.
On 15 Feb 2007 05:50:38 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 15, 6:15 am, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Joe Bleau wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
>> >> you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>> >> the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>> >> melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>> >> Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>> >> luck to all,
>> >> jo4hn
>>
>> > It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
>> > before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>>
>> > Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
>> > with spotted owls.
>>
>> > Joe
>>
>> Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em.
>> Taste like chicken.
>>
>> Glen
>
>Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them
>though,
>Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me.
I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:51:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>The fact that there is, in fact, vigorous debate within the science
>>community about just what the facts are and what they mean, but there
>>is little peer-reviewed publication of that debate demonstrates how
>>overtly political the funding process has become, not that science
>>has reached a conclusion of any sort.
>
>Cite your references, please?
>
>As I mentioned, the EPA spent $20 million to investigate this debate,
>and is aggresively funding research into this issue.
>
>Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding.
>Reference:
>
>http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnewsletters.cfm?detype=document&mlf_id=39&incsub=newsletter&pgType=NEW&excCol=archive
>
>Here's the research the EPA initiated:
>
>http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalresearchprojects.cfm?detype=project&excCol=archive
>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-epa.htm
>
>Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research.
>They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie.
>They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero.
Now let's see, you've admitted that the EPA newsletter is not a
peer-reviewed journal and yet you're on about how they haven't
published results of research and are using the lack of that
newsletter, which is not the proper venue for reporting the results of
research, as evidence that they are not reporting such results.
This is called "circular reasoning" and is a logical fallacy.
One would expect research results to be reported in peer-reviewed
journals, not government newsletters.
>Also consider that the scientists *TRIED* to publish the reports,
>
>"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
>Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
>federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
>interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
>reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
>500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
>publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
>released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
>climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
>interference with their work over the past five years. "
>
>"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
>former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
>House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
All of that sounds very dire however how do you know that the results
in question supported global warming and were not related to, say,
mercury in vaccines, or o-rings in solid rocket boosters?
>> Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.
>
>Is it science, or is it the government?
If you work for the government then you do what your boss says. Same
in industry. That is the nature of the employer/employee
relationship.
>Perhaps the EPA wanted to find some scientists that would publish
>documents that proved global warming was a myth, but was unable to
>find any scientists that would prostitiute themselves by lying.
Did your buddy Grifo mention the EPA specifically as one of those
"multiple agencies" or do you have another source or are you just
jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence that you have
presented?
By the way, you're starting to sound like a broken record. It used to
be that if you repeated something often enough people would believe
it. Now they wonder what line of bullshit you're trying to sell them.
You might want to consider revising your tactics.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>
>Does your newsreader support threading?
>
Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
It's also pretty much normal behavior, when following up an article, to quote
enough of it that other people know what you're talking about.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Feb 25, 10:14 pm, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> > On Feb 25, 12:03 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> > > Look -- the last time this came up,
> > > several of us showed pretty conclusively
> > > that you have misread, misinterpreted,
> > > and ignored parts of the GCs to suit
> > > your own preconceived notions.
>
> > Cite, please. All that I recall is your
> > circular argument, for which you cited
> > no authority, that an unlawful combatant
> > is not entitled to a hearing to determine
> > if he is an unlawful combatant.
>
> Like I said -- rehash it with yourself if it makes you happy. You still
> haven't figured out that terrorists are *not* entitled to protection
> under the Geneva Conventions, and, until you do, I see no point in
> continuing to discuss the issue with you.
On Feb 25, 10:14 pm, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> > On Feb 25, 12:03 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> > > Look -- the last time this came up,
> > > several of us showed pretty conclusively
> > > that you have misread, misinterpreted,
> > > and ignored parts of the GCs to suit
> > > your own preconceived notions.
>
> > Cite, please. All that I recall is your
> > circular argument, for which you cited
> > no authority, that an unlawful combatant
> > is not entitled to a hearing to determine
> > if he is an unlawful combatant.
>
> Like I said -- rehash it with yourself if it makes you happy. You still
> haven't figured out that terrorists are *not* entitled to protection
> under the Geneva Conventions, and, until you do, I see no point in
> continuing to discuss the issue with you.
There's an interesting tactic. You change the subject
then you refuse to discuss it.
Let's return to the topic YOU introduced into this discussion,
the disposition of captured spies and saboteurs, under the
laws of armed conflict:
As you will recall you introduced it thus:
In http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/cc2e99e7854bbeb2?dmode=source&hl=en
You wrote:
There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war,
armed
individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called
"spies" or
"saboteurs".
....
And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed.
That's been
the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.
YOUR choice of words "spies and saboteurs."
I asked you for a citation, and you refused to provide one.
AFAICT, you still do.
Regardless, in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/3ef694e5e62338d0?dmode=source&hl=en
I wrote:
And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
to determine their status.
You requested a citation and I made a general reference to
the Geneva Conventions. At some point I also quoted the
UNHCHR, whose expertise in the matter I assume you
consider to be inferior to your own Are you, by any chance,
an Electrical Engineer?
I'll be more specific now:
1949 Fourth Protocol
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who,
at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves,
in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the
conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals....
Art. 5 ...
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is
detained as a spy or saboteur, ...
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with
humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights
of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention.
And as I recall your argument is that the Fourth protocol only
protects civilians, therefore the Fourth protocol provisions
for spies and saboteurs are not applicable to spies and
saboteurs.
Also in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/3ef694e5e62338d0?dmode=source&hl=en
I wrote:
Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
execution of accused spies has been prohibited internationally
since at least the Hague Conventions early in the 20th century.
So I provided them, and repeat them here:
ARTICLES OF WAR
AN ACT FOR ESTABLISHING RULES AND
ARTICLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES
(April 10, 1806)
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted,
That in time of war, all persons not
citizens of, or owing allegiance to,
the United States of America, who
shall be found lurking as spies in or
about the fortification or encampments
of the armies of the United States, or
any of them, shall suffer death, according
to the law and usage of nations, by sentence
o a general courts-martial.
"By sentence of a general court martial" implies
(at least to me) that trial prior to execution was
obligatory, particularly when compared with an
earlier Article or War that actually does authorize
summary execution on the battlefield:
Articles of War, (of the Continental Congress)
June 30, 1775...
Art. XXV. Whatsoever officer or soldier
shall shamefully abandon any post
committed to his charge, or shall speak
words inducing others to do the like,
in time of an engagement, shall suffer
death immediately.
Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV);
October 18, 1907
...
Art. 30.
A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial.
And as I recall you claimed that the 1907 Hague conventions
and the Articles of War cannot be used to support the
statements I made about the Hague Conventions and the
Articles of War because the Hague Conventions and the
Articles of War aren't the Geneva Conventions.
That pretty much brings us up to date.
Google is my friend.
--
FF
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>
>>That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>>Rove spin.
>
>Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
>all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
>that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
>elected to Congress.
You are smarter than that, Douglas:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
> > "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
> >
> >> Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
> >> one thing: hard evidence.
> >
> > So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation
and
> > causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence".
>
> Nice terminology,
You would do well to understand it.
> but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world
> is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the
> cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no
> dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence.
> Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is
> indisputable.
Examples of this "indisputable" evidence, please.
> > It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and
take
> > the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as
> > scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does
not
> > even rise to the level of an "hypothesis".
> >
> > One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not
qualify
> > as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based
upon
> > "computer modeling".
>
> And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an
> extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just
> that--an assumption.
There is NO scientific evidence at this point. Zero, zip, nada. Nothing but
an attempt at correlating cause and effect.
> > In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being
refined;
> > insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
> > statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
> > always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not
> > least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying
> > upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to
publish.
>
> Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush
> to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who
> support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal
> advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be
> trusted on any issue.
You obviously do not comprehend that to which you are replying.
Once again ... those who do not use establised "scienctific method", but
misuse "statistics" parading as "scientific method", and they abound on this
issue, do not deserve to be trusted.
> > Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based
> > solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in
> > reality. GIGO!
>
> Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term
> climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the
> long-term evidence.
Once again, there is NO long term evidence ... 70 years at best.
>As someone pointed out, ice cores reveal climate for
> the past millions of years, and show a CO2 level that is unprecedented.
"Someone"? ... to the contrary, there is much geologic evidence that CO2
levels have been far higher in the planets history than at present.
> > Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better
> > argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ...
the
> > point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side.
> >
> I'm hardly gullible, nor do I have my head in the sand as some people
> seem to have. And you give not one single fact yourself.
LOL ... I don't need to. It is you, and the GW "opinionist" who are trying
to prove mankind induced GW, who must provide "facts".
We're still waiting ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
"Lee K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
>>> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>>
>> I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>>
>> The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
>> Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
>> general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
>> winters.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If
> it's cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's
> because of global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's
> because of global warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes,
> it's because of global warming.
>
>
In that sense, it is a lot like El Nino. Which got blamed for everything
from a shortage of tobacco to psoriasis.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>Joe Bleau wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
>>>you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>>>the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>>>melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>>>Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>>> luck to all,
>>> jo4hn
>>
>>
>> It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
>> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>>
>> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
>> with spotted owls.
>>
>> Joe
>Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
>that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
>dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
>years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
>aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
conclusions contrary to their faith.
To the former point, I've seen other conclusions, but am too tired to go
digging for em right now. It's not worth it anyway, it will only
demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but opposite
PhD." Wouldn't matter anyway, those who have signed onto the global
warming religion aren't going to believe anything that derails that
nebulous theory. Even more so those who are convinced that all of that CO2
increase is man-made and man-caused (what they usually mean is western
civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
industrial nations apparently has no effect).
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:03:17 -0600, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon wrote:
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
>>> can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here
>>> yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used.
>>
>> Absolutely correct.
>>
>> The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
>> weather changes to be accurate.
>> The average person can guess as accurately as the models.
>>
>>
>There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic,
>predictions more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking
>climate here, not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.
Given that climate is the statistical summarization of "weather", and
that the climate being scientifically codified is the statistical modeling
of the weather as measured, it is relevant that weather models are
notoriously unreliable -- how then can climate models be any more reliable?
If you can't predict weather events with any reasonably high degree of
precision, why should climate change predictions to within a few degrees or
tenths of a degree be relied upon ,particularly for the purpose of enacting
statist policies?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 15, 8:23 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> 5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the
>> recently observed shrinkage of the polar ice caps on ***MARS*** ?
>>
>> That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the Earth
>> is warming due to human activity.
>
>Why?
>
Because if Mars is warming, it's pretty clearly due to increased solar output;
if solar output has increased, that would explain warming here too -- in fact,
it would make warming here pretty much unavoidable.
Or perhaps you're prepared to posit some mechanism by which human activity on
Earth causes global warming on other planets too?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>> > "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
>> >> one thing: hard evidence.
>> >
If the average temperature is rising, which it is over the period examined,
then it's warming. What's so difficult to comprehend? Don't even have to
debate over "what _is_ is," to figure this out.
Cause? Could be coincidence, could be the carbon. It's the only thing most
people will research, lest they fall afoul of the current religion. So far
we only have two rising.
Solution? Certainly not the crap from Kyoto, where some, like the two most
populous nations get to make gas without restriction, others must restrict.
That's plain stupid. Politically it's a club to use, but the club-wielding
caveman Algore is not about to suggest anything as unpopular as mandating
taking the bus and leaving the car at home, or making electricity
differently, or any of the other sure ways to drop emissions. You don't
blame the voters, lest ye die. Let "them" do it. The ones who can't vote
and will do anything to make a buck, and are therefore willing to comply.
Effect? When the models can predict the next day's weather, or even agree
between NOAA and the European model, I'll regard the "predictions" as more
than the hot air they predict.
Now go out and take some carbon out of the cycle and make it into furniture.
The tree you cut will make room for another to grow. Ooops, that's not PC
either....
On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 17, 12:36 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> (what they usually mean is western
>> >> civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
>> >> industrial nations apparently has no effect).
>>
>> >Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.
>>
>> That's an inference, drawn from the fact that the Kyoto Protocol exempts China
>> and other developing industrial nations from the restrictions that it imposes
>> on Western industrial democracies.
>>
>
>IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
>scientific
>data.
WHOOSH! And irony flies right over Fred's head, again.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>>
>>>That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>>>Rove spin.
>>
>>Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
>>all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
>>that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
>>elected to Congress.
>
>
>You are smarter than that, Douglas:
>
>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to
Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less
a fact.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
>>>are not given credence in scientific journals.
>>
>> If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
>> biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
>> rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
>> wrong.
>
>I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions.
>They also love to be first with groundbreaking research.
>
>Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be
>proven, then it's not science.
And by that definition, global warming is not science.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the population of the earth was ten times what it is and the per
> capita energy consumption was 100 times what is is in the United
> States today, the amount of hydrogen in the oceans is sufficient to
> last for approximately 10 million years.
Please post the worksheet which allowed you to arrive at those
numbers.
If quoted from another source, please cite.
r -----> who is still waiting... unless you sucked those numbers out
of your thumb and too ashamed to admit that you were trying to
bullshit your way through a discussion.
A lot of hat, no cattle.
On Feb 19, 3:04 pm, "John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke, Robatoy, et.al.,
>
> I need some help here. (although some would say I'm
> beyond help) I'm coming across a new, at least new to
> me, conversational response to statements.
>
When somebody makes a claim in order to support their position, it is
only prudent to try to establish the validity of those claims.
When I read stuff like this:
> If the population of the earth was ten times what it is and the per
> capita energy consumption was 100 times what is is in the United
> States today, the amount of hydrogen in the oceans is sufficient to
> last for approximately 10 million years.
...I have reason to doubt the validity of the calculations unless
corroborated.
This isn't A says rain, yadda, yadda. This is me, exposing Clarke for
what he is. Period.
r
On Feb 19, 11:17 pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipperoo]
> let's get back to woodworking.
Let's!
r
On Feb 19, 11:17 pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> let's get back to woodworking.
>
Sure.. but meanwhile I'm digging up stuff about solar heating.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml
J. Clarke wrote:
| On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| J. Clarke wrote:
||| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
||| <[email protected]> wrote:
|||
|||| J. Clarke wrote:
||
||||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
||||| conventional house?
||||
|||| By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of
|||| course.
|||
||| That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would
||| result in a conventional house being less expensive too though.
||
|| True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design
|| and materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home
|| could hardly be called "conventional".
||
||| All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and
||| thermal mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also
||| has to have backup heat.
||
|| Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but
|| beyond that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort.
|| Thermal mass provides storage for replacement heat to compensate
|| for losses. When the losses become sufficiently small, the need
|| for thermal mass shrinks to near nil.
|
| No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal mass". The
| plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor joists are
| "thermal mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In a
| relatively warm climate it might be possible to provide sufficient
| thermal mass entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not
| unless you have some active means of insulating or isolating the
| collector at night and at that point you no longer have a passive
| design.
Ok. All of the furnishings in a house do constitute "thermal mass",
but they're not normally considered part of the structure we call a
"house" (at least not for the purposes of calculations).
It's possible to build truly passive solar collectors that function as
"thermal diodes". At one point I made an attempt to catagorize passive
air-heating collectors and posted drawings on a web page at
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/SC_Types.html. The "Type 3" collector
_passively_ locks up (without moving parts) and functions as an
insulator at night.
| As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a
| nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means
| that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking
| odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat
| exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy
| insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've
| traded one set of construction costs for another.
The house in the photo I posted to ABPW is insulated to R-40 in all
walls, roof, and floor and had, according to the builder, a
construction cost on the close order of $55K.
Ventilation is indeed necessary, and the easiest and least expensive
solution is to provide sufficient heating that some heat can be
"thrown away" on a controlled basis. There is a temptation to label
this "excess capacity", but there's nothing "excess" or "wasteful"
about it. A heat exchanger is needed only if there's no thermal budget
for the venting.
|||| I
|||| have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've
|||| been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a
|||| contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional
|||| methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and
|||| is in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F.
|||
||| Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might
||| be possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I
||| doubt it would work here though, where single-degree temperatures
||| for days at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined
||| with significant snowfall are the norm.
||
|| You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block
|| shop in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector
|| panels.
|
| And was it cheaper to build that one than one from the same
| materials with conventional heat?
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking - but given that a major
portion of the south-facing wall consisted of a pair of 6'x12' solar
panels which would not have been present in the same structure
intended for conventional heating - yes, the solar version of the
building was somewhat less expensive to build and very much less
expensive to operate.
|| There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed
|| was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and
|| work in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls.
|
| That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how much did those
| collectors cost? Note that if they were free or inexpensive due to
| efficient scrounging on your part then you're not describing
| something that someone building houses commercially can count on
| doing.
At 4am (an hour at which I can't recall ever having been in /any/
workshop) in the winter the shop was anywhere from cool to chilly -
but never cold enough to freeze water or coffee left out. The panels
were built with wood, aluminum, twinwall polycarbonate solar glazing,
and a tube of gasket compound - all purchased at retail from the
local (rural community) lumber yard and hardware store for (I think)
about $500 total. The panels were built in place so as to be an
integral part of the wall.
I guess that if you wanted to use the workshop at 4am, you'd probably
want to insulate the walls. I didn't.
|| Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and
|| construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well.
|| Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of
|| innovation.
|
| What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that there is some
| kind of new insulation that is cheaper than fiberglass? If so why
| is not every builder jumping on it?
Excellent questions! [1] I only know some of the answers so would
suggest asking in alt.solar.thermal and alt.architecture.* newsgroups
where you can get expert answers. [2] Yes I am, but only in the
context of a complete structure. [3] My WAG would be that many/most
builders avoid the unfamiliar.
BTW, if fiberglass is your performance baseline, then you would do
well to investigate the characteristic behavior of that insulation at
low temperatures. You may be in for a not-pleasant surprise. If I
recall the discussion on alt.solar.thermal correctly, the R-factor
begins dropping off significantly somewhere around 20F.
||| Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in
||| my neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left
||| now.
|||
||| But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house.
||
|| Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it
|| does about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to
|| make that kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that
|| the panels would actually be worth having.
|
| So with them paid for why would they not be "worth having"?
According to your comment, only one set appears to have been judged by
only one of your neighbors to be "worth having". At every other
household they've been discarded. Do you draw a different conclusion?
Seems to me like a good question, but one which would be better
directed to your neighbors. My guess is that the panels performed
poorly or weren't well constructed. If you do ask your neighbors, I
would be very interested in their answers.
||||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
||||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
||||| actually humorous.
||||
|||| Re-read for comprehension.
|||
||| Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you
||| should write what you mean.
||
|| I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you
|| presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule.
|
| So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be online _now_!
| We just have more "important" things to spend the money on. "
I'm of the opinion, based on comments made by actual participants,
that if we could develop a whole collection of new technologies,
tools, and methods in ten years to send people to the moon and bring
them back, then we should be able to accomplish this project in a
comparable short time frame.
The cost guesstimate, with which you seem really hung up, was given to
me on an off-the-cuff basis and isn't something I feel obliged to
defend. If you have a Perted schedule with a closely-coupled budget,
I'd probably be willing to give it as much credence (perhaps more or
perhaps less) as I did my original input.
| So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion in 1976 would
| have done it, how much would have and spent when?
Do you really expect me to defend someone else's 30-year old WAG?
Since you have been strongly inferring that you have superior
knowledge on the matter, why don't you stop playing silly word games,
establish your credentials as a holder of verifiable information, and
inform the group? If you don't have anything of substance to offer,
then let's get back to woodworking.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
>| <[email protected]> wrote:
>|
>|| J. Clarke wrote:
>
>||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
>||| conventional house?
>||
>|| By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of
>|| course.
>|
>| That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would
>| result in a conventional house being less expensive too though.
>
>True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design and
>materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home could
>hardly be called "conventional".
>
>| All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and thermal
>| mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also has to
>| have backup heat.
>
>Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but beyond
>that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort. Thermal mass
>provides storage for replacement heat to compensate for losses. When
>the losses become sufficiently small, the need for thermal mass
>shrinks to near nil.
No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal mass". The
plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor joists are "thermal
mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In a relatively
warm climate it might be possible to provide sufficient thermal mass
entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not unless you have
some active means of insulating or isolating the collector at night
and at that point you no longer have a passive design.
As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a
nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means
that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking
odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat
exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy
insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've
traded one set of construction costs for another.
>|| I
>|| have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've
>|| been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a
>|| contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional
>|| methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and is
>|| in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F.
>|
>| Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might be
>| possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I doubt it
>| would work here though, where single-degree temperatures for days
>| at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined with
>| significant snowfall are the norm.
>
>You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block shop
>in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector panels.
And was it cheaper to build that one than one from the same materials
with conventional heat?
>There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed
>was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and work
>in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls.
That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how much did those
collectors cost? Note that if they were free or inexpensive due to
efficient scrounging on your part then you're not describing something
that someone building houses commercially can count on doing.
>| Around here effective passive solar design means a
>| house-within-a-house design.
>|
>|| The lowest indoor temperature
>|| this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar
>|| panels to raise that somewhat.
>|
>| I can understand that. But there's another cost increase.
>
>I guess that'd depend on what you're using as a base. My understanding
>is that an R-40 house like that in the photo can be built for about
>$55K in the Tuscon area. I have no way of knowing whether that'd be an
>increase or decrease of conventional house cost in your area. FWIW,
>it'd be a very respectable cost decrease in the Des Moines area (and
>I'd expect there to be remarkably few homes with that kind of thermal
>efficiency here.)
I'd be very surprised if R-40 with no supplemental thermal mass was
sufficient here.
>|| For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this
>|| question in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to
>|| having such a home built, I can foreward your contact info to the
>|| contractor.
>|
>| It was a rhetorical question. If I was going to build such a house
>| I'd dust off my engineering degree and dig out my solar engineering
>| texts.
>
>Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and
>construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well.
>Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of
>innovation.
What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that there is some
kind of new insulation that is cheaper than fiberglass? If so why is
not every builder jumping on it?
>| Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the
>| more I learned about it the less attractive it became.
>|
>||| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar
>||| equipment", it uses design.
>||
>|| It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat
>|| aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper"
>|| homes, there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their
>|| heating costs in a way they find satisfying.
>|
>| Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in my
>| neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left now.
>|
>| But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house.
>
>Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it does
>about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to make that
>kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that the panels
>would actually be worth having.
So with them paid for why would they not be "worth having"?
>||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
>||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
>||| actually humorous.
>||
>|| Re-read for comprehension.
>|
>| Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you
>| should write what you mean.
>
>I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you
>presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule.
So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be online _now_! We
just have more "important" things to spend the money on. "
So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion in 1976 would
have done it, how much would have and spent when?
>I don't know
>any more about the cost (or physics) now than I did then, but am
>somewhat more aware of how a '76 dollar has inflated.
>
>I wrote exactly what I meant and gave you the benefit of the doubt by
>assuming miscomprehension rather than misrepresentation.
So you did mean that by spending 2 billion dollars in 1976 we could
have had fusion online now? Because that is what you wrote.
J. Clarke, Robatoy, et.al.,
I need some help here. (although some would say I'm
beyond help) I'm coming across a new, at least new to
me, conversational response to statements.
For example: If person A says it is raining outside
and person B challenges the statement because they
disagree, they are doubtful or they are skeptical; then
logically, who has the burden of proof of the
statement?
In my example above, must person A prove their 'claim'
that it is raining outside or must person B prove it is
not raining?
I bought a burfl from Tinker Bell for $100.00 dollars.
When I state that burfls are expensive, I might be
challenged to provide documentation showing what I
paid. But, if you know you can buy a burfl for $19.95,
should you challenge my price statement or should you
present the documentation to support your position.
It would seem to me that effective dialog consists of
presenting different points of view with a bit of hope
that one might sell one's view based on facts.
Instead of this new confrontational response, I would
rather see an orderly presentation of facts and logic
that supports one's position rather than attacking
another's position.
I don't pretend to be an expert in climate, weather or
even woodworking. But, I am always trying to learn.
As I said in an earlier post, I didn't buy into the
coming ice age, the global starvation, the running out
of oil in six years. I am a still a first class
skeptic on global warming because the facts seem to be
distorted, over-hyped, AlGored, conveniently ignored or
just plain wrong.
I will continue to search for effective dialog.
John Flatley
Jacksonville, Florida
--
One consolation about memory loss in old age is that
you also forget a lot of things you didn't intend to
remember in the first place.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
<[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| >J. Clarke wrote:
| >| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| >| <[email protected]> wrote:
| >|
| >|| J. Clarke wrote:
| >
| >||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is
cheaper than a
| >||| conventional house?
| >||
| >|| By careful design and selection of appropriate
materials, of
| >|| course.
| >|
| >| That "careful design and selection of appropriate
materials" would
| >| result in a conventional house being less
expensive too though.
| >
| >True - although one might take the viewpoint that
until the design and
| >materials became the norm for homebuilding, the
resulting home could
| >hardly be called "conventional".
| >
| >| All else being equal a solar house needs
collecting area and thermal
| >| mass, and in an area where they have real winters
it also has to
| >| have backup heat.
| >
| >Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting
area - but beyond
| >that it need only retain sufficient heat for
comfort. Thermal mass
| >provides storage for replacement heat to compensate
for losses. When
| >the losses become sufficiently small, the need for
thermal mass
| >shrinks to near nil.
|
| No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal
mass". The
| plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor
joists are "thermal
| mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In
a relatively
| warm climate it might be possible to provide
sufficient thermal mass
| entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not
unless you have
| some active means of insulating or isolating the
collector at night
| and at that point you no longer have a passive
design.
|
| As for "when the losses become sufficiently small",
now you've got a
| nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration
loss, which means
| that you need an effective scrubber to take out
bathroom and cooking
| odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an
effective heat
| exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need
exceedingly heavy
| insulation to minimize the conduction through the
walls. So you've
| traded one set of construction costs for another.
|
| >|| I
| >|| have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of
one for which I've
| >|| been asked to quote heating panels. The house was
built by a
| >|| contractor who wanted a test case for some
non-conventional
| >|| methods and materials. The house shown has no
heating plant and is
| >|| in an area where winter night time temperatures
drop to 20F.
| >|
| >| Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far
south it might be
| >| possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar
house. I doubt it
| >| would work here though, where single-degree
temperatures for days
| >| at a time and occasional excursions below zero
combined with
| >| significant snowfall are the norm.
| >
| >You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated
concrete block shop
| >in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its
collector panels.
|
| And was it cheaper to build that one than one from
the same materials
| with conventional heat?
|
| >There were days when the outside temperature
was -30F and windspeed
| >was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the
doors ajar and work
| >in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated
walls.
|
| That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how
much did those
| collectors cost? Note that if they were free or
inexpensive due to
| efficient scrounging on your part then you're not
describing something
| that someone building houses commercially can count
on doing.
|
| >| Around here effective passive solar design means a
| >| house-within-a-house design.
| >|
| >|| The lowest indoor temperature
| >|| this winter has been 65F. The contractor would
like to add solar
| >|| panels to raise that somewhat.
| >|
| >| I can understand that. But there's another cost
increase.
| >
| >I guess that'd depend on what you're using as a
base. My understanding
| >is that an R-40 house like that in the photo can be
built for about
| >$55K in the Tuscon area. I have no way of knowing
whether that'd be an
| >increase or decrease of conventional house cost in
your area. FWIW,
| >it'd be a very respectable cost decrease in the Des
Moines area (and
| >I'd expect there to be remarkably few homes with
that kind of thermal
| >efficiency here.)
|
| I'd be very surprised if R-40 with no supplemental
thermal mass was
| sufficient here.
|
| >|| For more detailed how-to info, you should
probably ask this
| >|| question in alt.solar.thermal - and if your
interest extends to
| >|| having such a home built, I can foreward your
contact info to the
| >|| contractor.
| >|
| >| It was a rhetorical question. If I was going to
build such a house
| >| I'd dust off my engineering degree and dig out my
solar engineering
| >| texts.
| >
| >Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into
new materials and
| >construction methods since you last looked at those
texts, as well.
| >Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable
amount of
| >innovation.
|
| What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that
there is some
| kind of new insulation that is cheaper than
fiberglass? If so why is
| not every builder jumping on it?
|
| >| Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I
was a kid, the
| >| more I learned about it the less attractive it
became.
| >|
| >||| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't
use "solar
| >||| equipment", it uses design.
| >||
| >|| It would seem, then, that many houses with
retrofitted solar heat
| >|| aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living
in "improper"
| >|| homes, there are off-the-shelf products that can
reduce their
| >|| heating costs in a way they find satisfying.
| >|
| >| Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar
every house in my
| >| neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's
one set left now.
| >|
| >| But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of
the house.
| >
| >Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your
neighbors as it does
| >about the products purchased. It would seem
reasonable to make that
| >kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty
that the panels
| >would actually be worth having.
|
| So with them paid for why would they not be "worth
having"?
|
| >||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could
have been
| >||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion
dollars, that's
| >||| actually humorous.
| >||
| >|| Re-read for comprehension.
| >|
| >| Maybe you meant something other than what you
said. If so you
| >| should write what you mean.
| >
| >I did. I related something I was told some thirty
years ago and you
| >presented it as current belief in an attempt to
ridicule.
|
| So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be
online _now_! We
| just have more "important" things to spend the money
on. "
|
| So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion
in 1976 would
| have done it, how much would have and spent when?
|
| >I don't know
| >any more about the cost (or physics) now than I did
then, but am
| >somewhat more aware of how a '76 dollar has
inflated.
| >
| >I wrote exactly what I meant and gave you the
benefit of the doubt by
| >assuming miscomprehension rather than
misrepresentation.
|
| So you did mean that by spending 2 billion dollars in
1976 we could
| have had fusion online now? Because that is what you
wrote.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a
> nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means
> that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking
> odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat
> exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy
> insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've
> traded one set of construction costs for another.
>
Not to mention all the toxins venting from carpets, furniture, dry cleaned
clothing, etc, etc. Sealed airtight it can be your coffin.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:30:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Robatoy wrote:
>| On Feb 17, 12:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>|| On Feb 14, 1:02 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>||
>||| Up to my groin in snow.
>||| Just a few drifts.
>||| *poke, poke, poke*
>||| "There's a car in here somewhere..."
>||
>|| http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm
>||
>|| GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S.
>|| TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH
>||
>| ..and how will that help me find my car?
>|
>| I had NO idea that this would trigger such an avalanche of
>| responses. But, as with every thread which explodes, a nugget pops
>| out which wins the thread.
>|
>| This is the winner:
>|
>|| I see little
>|| difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and
>|| using fuel burned ten feet away.
>|
>| On the left, our sun, source of all life on earth, on the right a
>| Kawaswaki weed-whacker.
>| Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
>| Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
>|
>| Little difference.... other than the fact that I can turn off the
>| weed- whacker.
>|
>|
>| *bangs head on desk*
>
>Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)
>
>Hope you find your car.
And now we see the fundamental problem with the solar or nothing
loons. They don't grasp that regardless of where the energy comes
from some resource is being used up to provide it. The energy that
that Kawasaki uses came from "our sun, source of all life on earth"
(actually that's hardly true), it's just stored in a convenient form.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>I've also found a lot of information indicating net losses of ice
>>in the Arctic, and a net loss in the world's glaciers, but
>>information
>>on the former is not easily converted to net mass so I'm still not
>>clear on the recent net change, if any, in the global ice inventory.
>
>
> It's worth noting that, whatever the effects of loss of ice in the north polar
> cap may be, rising sea level is *not* among them: the north polar cap is
> floating, and melting all of it won't affect sea level.
>
> The south polar cap is an entirely different story. Some Antarctic ice is
> floating; some of it is on land, above sea level; and some of it is on land
> *below* sea level -- that is, it's in the ocean and resting on the ocean
> floor. Melting of ice in this last category will cause sea level to *drop*.
>
> Whether sea levels will rise or fall in response to melting polar ice caps
> depends on the relative proportion of submarine Antarctic ice to land-based
> ice in Antartica and Greenland.
>
> I've not been able to find data indicating what that proportion is.
>
So the only ice that, if melted, would raise the sea level is ice
resting on land masses. When one subtracts out ice on or in the ocean,
how much ice is left, and where is it? Also, that's the air temperature
over the land-based ice? Because if the temperature is 20 degrees F,
and global warming raised the temperature to 22, or even 25 degrees F,
it still isn't going to melt.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> On Feb 14, 9:17 pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> > > Gore never said that.
> >
> > Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
> > needed to change to words a bit.
>
> Context....context.
Interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Transcript right here:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/
When the Internet was "created", Gore was 21 and still in school.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Larry) wrote:
>Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>affirming or denying global warming?
Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is
warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be
recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:38:02 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>> Joe Bleau wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp
>>>>> wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better
>>>>> weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps
>>>>> and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna
>>>>> get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>>>>> luck to all,
>>>>> jo4hn
>>>>
>>>> It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
>>>> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>>>>
>>>> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
>>>> with spotted owls.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>> Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
>>> that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
>>> dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
>> Not so. It is the highest it has been *in a long time*, not "ever".
>
> I'm curious--do you have a source for that information? The analysis
> that I've seen of ice cores suggest that it is indeed the highest it
> has been during the period of time covered by the ice cores. My
> research in this area however has been quite limited and I may well be
> looking in all the wrong places.
>
I don't have anything handy. One place to look would be an older book
by Ballings and Michaels called "The Satanic Gasses". It is not a primary
reference work, but may have citations that help. The other place would be
a Google search. If I find a ref, I will pass along.
One other point - The ice cores cannot (as you point out) cover anything before
there was a polar cap. IIRC, a significant portion of the 4Billion or so years
of the planet's existence saw little or no polar ice, hence there is no record
of this to be found in the ice. For this you have to go to the geologic record
which is where IIRC Ballings & Michaels cite the highest concentrations of CO2
known at this time. But, this is an older text, and may well be out of date by
now.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
>>>Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.
>>
>> And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
>> viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?
>
>First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government.
Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the
money.
>But
>of those that are, apparently they approve the research and the
>government either censors the paper or decides to not publish the
>paper.
>
>http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061
>
>"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
>Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
>federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
>interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
>reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
>500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
>publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
>released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
>climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
>interference with their work over the past five years. "
>
>"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
>former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
>House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
That's the third or fourth time you've reposted that.
Since it is clear that you have maybe three sources and aren't making
any effort to find more, and since you just repeat the same thing over
and over again, it is clear that I have already seen everything that
you have to say, so there is no point in wasting further time on you.
<plonk>
In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or
>> exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the
>> initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already
> existed,
>> as you acknowledge above.
>
>It existed as a research tool for those funded by the government.
Correct. So how did Al Gore have anything to do with the creation of something
that already existed?
>It was NOT available for commercial use at the time.
I didn't say that it was.
And Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in *expanding* it to
commercial use -- a claim which would have been at least partially true, and
at worst an exaggeration. He made the patently false claim that he took the
initiative in *creating* it -- in creating something that you _agreed_ with me
was already in existence before he came along.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Bob Schmall wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Charles Koester wrote:
>>> On 2007-02-15, J Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>>>>>> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>>>>>> affirming or denying global warming?
>>>>> =================
>>>>>
>>>>> Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from
>>>>> ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only
>>>>> recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to
>>>>> stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking.
>>>> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
>>>> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
>>>> journal.
>>>
>>> They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
>>> All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
>>> have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
>>> Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
>>>
>>> A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
>>> randomly selected research papers on climate change
>>> published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
>>> Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
>>>
>>> Zip. nada.
>>>
>>> A quote:
>>> Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
>>> first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
>>> accepting the consensus view; 25%
>>> dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
>>> no position on current anthropogenic climate
>>> change. Remarkably, none of the papers
>>> disagreed with the consensus position.
>>>
>>> Read it for yourself:
>>>
>>> <http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf>
>>>
>>>
>>> My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.
>>>
>>> Charles Koester
>
> (snippage of unsubstantiated rant.)
>
>> I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
>> merely practical
>> when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
>> the subject
>> is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
>> cook up
>> the model that makes your patron happy.
>
> Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
> in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
> some evidence.
> And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
> disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?
No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.
> And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
> cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
> Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.
> Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
> scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
> argument is completely invalid.
No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there
remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.
> Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if
> we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.
>
>> Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.
>
> Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
> science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
> Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
> issue. DAGS.
>
> Bob
And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
among he earth worshipers.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>D Smith wrote:
>> Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does your newsreader support threading?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
>>>> doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.
>>>>
>>> I call 'malarky'.
>>
>>> "Read and delete" is not normal behavior.
>>
>> He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me about
>> them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed again (with
>> effort, probably minimal).
>>
>
>Which he didn't bother to take.
Which I shouldn't have to, if you had bothered to include enough context to
make it unnecessary.
You're still missing the point, Bill -- by snipping useful context, you are
taking a deliberate action (not simply an act of omission) that makes it more
difficult for others to follow the gist of your posts.
What is the purpose in doing that?
>
>
>> Either include more context, or accept that people will just ignore
>> your posts. You're probably making an extra effort to delete more text,
>> and then making others do more work to find out why you're bothering to
>> post.
>>
>>
>
>If he wishes, he is free to filter me completely.
Good idea.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:17:53 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>>>
>>>>That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>>>>Rove spin.
>>>
>>>Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
>>>all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
>>>that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
>>>elected to Congress.
>>
>>
>>You are smarter than that, Douglas:
>>
>>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>
>I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to
>Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less
>a fact.
1958 - ARPA formed in response to Sputnik launch. (note: it was not
called darpa at this point.)
1967 - ARPANET design discussions held.
1969 - ARPANET commisioned by DoD for research into networking.
1970 - First publication of Host-Host protocol by ARPANET.
1973 - First international connection to ARPANET (University College
Of London).
1976 - Ethernet developed.
1976 - Al Gore the younger elected to Congress.
1978 - TCP and IP split.
1979 - USENET was born. (lucky us.)
1984 - ARPANET divided into MILNET and ARPANET.
1986 - IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) created.
Al did not say that he helped to create ARPANET.
BTW - Rick never said, "Play it again. Sam."
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Several obvious questions:
>1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like
>urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?
>
>2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or
>simply statistical "noise"?
>
>3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those
>temperatures during the late 19'th century?
>
>4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored
>because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?
5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the
recently observed shrinkage of the polar ice caps on ***MARS*** ?
That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the Earth
is warming due to human activity.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:05:48 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>On Feb 17, 12:36 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> >> (what they usually mean is western
>>> >> civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
>>> >> industrial nations apparently has no effect).
>>>
>>> >Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.
>>>
>>> That's an inference, drawn from the fact that the Kyoto Protocol exempts
>> China
>>> and other developing industrial nations from the restrictions that it imposes
>>> on Western industrial democracies.
>>>
>>
>>IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
>>scientific data.
>
>You're completely missing the point, Fred.
>
>If excess CO2 emission is a terrible thing that's going to bring about the end
>of the world as we know it --- why are emission restrictions imposed only on
>Western industrial democracies, and not on the developing industrial nations
>such as China and India?
>
>Kyoto says, basically, CO2 emitted by the US, Germany, UK, Canada, and Japan
>causes global warming and must be severely reduced -- but CO2 emitted by China
>and India is OK.
>
>What conclusions do *you* draw from that?
>>
It ain't worth it Doug. Lefists have absolutely zero appreciation of
irony nor any trace of sense of humor. Fred will continue to press me for
not providing scientifically verified proof that CO2 emissions from China
and the third world do not contribute to global warming, failing to see the
fact that the statement was an ironic jest poking fun and pointing out the
politically motivated, agenda driven parties that crafted the Kyoto
protocol.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 15, 10:23 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>> No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
>> exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.
>>
>If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting
>to it?
That statement *is* the point.
>
>So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement?
Nobody said that. (Nice red herring, though.) The point is that Gore claimed
to have, while a member of Congress, taken "the initiative in creating"
something that already existed *before* he was in Congress.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:41:49 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Larry) wrote:
>Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will
>be introduced into this thread?
Too late, you just did it.
On 14 Feb 2007 14:28:03 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
>warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
>And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.
>
>I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
I dunno--if he got the idea that he could have a career in show biz it
might keep him out of politics. On the other hand it didn't stop
Hanoi Jane.
In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-)
Spotted owl.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
> can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here
> yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used.
Absolutely correct.
The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
weather changes to be accurate.
The average person can guess as accurately as the models.
In article <[email protected]>, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.
It's *not* a closed system. We get an enormous input of energy from the sun. A
closed system by definition is one that has no interchange of matter or energy
with its environment.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:45 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Bob Schmall wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> Charles Koester wrote:
>>>> On 2007-02-15, J Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
>>> merely practical
>>> when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
>>> the subject
>>> is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
>>> cook up
>>> the model that makes your patron happy.
>>
>> Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
>> in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
>> some evidence.
>> And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
>> disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?
>
>No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
>being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
>people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
>are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
>a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
>is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
>of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
>just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
>thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.
>
>> And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
>> cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
>> Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
>
>The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
>oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.
Don't forget that there are plenty of ways in which corporate entities
can benefit from global warming legislation if they play their cards
right. If they put money in the right pockets, and a "carbon
surcharge" is added to every gallon of gasoline, an oil company would
stand to make a lot of money- maybe not as a direct 1-1 payment for
every gallon of gasoline sold, but certainly in the form of grants
intended to help them research ways to "clean up" their acts.
Dividing the government and global corporate structures into two
distinct and opposing groups is a fool's task. Who do you think
ponyied up the cash to get the politicians elected in the first place?
Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware of the contridiction
between this and a previous post. I had a moment of foolishness when
thinking about business, and considered that some of those companies
may be being attacked by this- no doubt some are, but I don't imagine
you have to scratch very deep to find a whole lot of connections to
corporate lobbies.
Rest assured, it is and will continue to be "business as usual". The
big boys beat their drums to confuse things, they make out, and the
rest of us get screwed while we continue to pay their bills.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>>
>[Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>>
>>
>I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
>dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
>after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
>earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
>correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
dynamic in nature.
>-Doug
>
Snopes=another Gore apologist. Event the Democrats (dipshits) realized that
Gore had not only stuck his foot in his mouth but swallowed the whole leg.
They spent a lot of time doing damage control. If you had watched the
interview, Gore's intent was clear.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> >
> > Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>
On 2007-02-15, J Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>>> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>>> affirming or denying global warming?
>>=================
>>
>>Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
>>(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
>>ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
>>tobacco companies and smoking.
>
> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
> journal.
They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
randomly selected research papers on climate change
published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
Zip. nada.
A quote:
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the consensus view; 25%
dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
no position on current anthropogenic climate
change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position.
Read it for yourself:
<http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf>
My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.
Charles Koester
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:14:30 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>
>>>> Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is
>>>> warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be
>>>> recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.
>>>
>>>The peer reviewers do not get paid.
>>
>> Are you saying that they are all independently wealthy or that they
>> are all subsistence farmers? They get paid by _somebody_ or else htey
>> don't eat. And if the grant money is in research that tends to
>> support global warming then that's what they do.
>
>No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
>Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.
And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?
.000005%? I'll go along with that.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'll withdraw that argument, but not the rest of my discourse. GW
> exists, and we are responsible for at least a part of it.
J. Clarke wrote:
<SNIP>
> Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here
> after all.
Nothing, as long as you acknowledge it as being a religious and mystical
activity, not a scientific one and don't insist therefore that everyone
else join you ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
>>
>> OK, I'll ask, "Why not?"
>Al Gore's head would explode.
And the problem with that is... ?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:17:53 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>>>>>Rove spin.
>>>>
>>>>Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
>>>>all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
>
>>>>that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
>>>>elected to Congress.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are smarter than that, Douglas:
>>>
>>>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>
>>I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to
>>Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less
>
>>a fact.
>
>
>1958 - ARPA formed in response to Sputnik launch. (note: it was not
>called darpa at this point.)
>
>1967 - ARPANET design discussions held.
>
>1969 - ARPANET commisioned by DoD for research into networking.
>
>1970 - First publication of Host-Host protocol by ARPANET.
>
>1973 - First international connection to ARPANET (University College
>Of London).
Three years before AlGore's election...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> What conclusions do *you* draw from that?
>>
>
>I can't speak for Fred, but it looks like 'politics as usual' to me.
>
>What conclusion do -you- draw from it?
You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Feb 25, 12:03 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Feb 24, 6:09 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >NO armed person on a battlefield is a protected person
> >> >in the context of the 1949 Protocols.--LEAST OF ALL
> >> >uniformed soldiers of a regularly constituted armed
> >> >forces.
>
> >> That's kinda the point, Fred....
>
> >No, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of summary execution.
>
> Not at all. It's the central point.
The issue at hand is summary execution.
How is killing on the battlefield relevant to
summary execution?
>
>
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> >Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping
> >> >in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument,
> >> >he would be subject to summary execution.
>
> >> Since when is a barracks a battlefield?
>
> >Again, non-sequitor. The topic is NOT killng in battle
> >it is summary execution.
>
> Not a non-sequitur at all.
>
Nonsense.
Killing on the field of battle is not execution.
We were discussion summary execution of
spies and saboteurs. Killing on the battlefield
is not execution, summary or otherwise.
>
>
> >> >> [remainder snipped]
>
> >> >First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statements,
> >> >then you refuse to discuss further. I though better of you.
>
> >> And then, after that, you have the nerve to accuse *me* of presenting bogus
> >> arguments.
>
> >Because you have nothing but present bogus arguments
> >and obfuscation.
>
> >The issue at hand is summary execution. You have never
> >presented a single citation to support your claim that
> >summary execution of a spy or saboteur is permissible
> >Why did you you snip the reference to the 1907 Hague
> >conventions and to the Articles of War? Was that so
> >you could continue to pretend they do not exist?
>
> We were talking about the Geneva Convention.
If you thought that this discussion was
restricted to the 1949 Geneva Protocols, why do
you keep changing the subject to killing on the field
of battle?
Besides, as you can easily confirm should you deign to
use Google, YOU ASKED ME for a citation to the
1907 Hague conventions and to US law:
In article <[email protected]>,
I wrote:
Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
execution of accused spies has been prohibited internationally
since at least the Hague Conventions early int eh 20th century.
Then on On Feb 22, 3:15 pm, you requested:
Cite Please?
Now you refuse to read or discuss the citations you
requested and instead chastise me for providing
them to you, PER YOUR REQUEST.
Do you seriously argue that citing the 1907 Hague
Conventions and US law is irrelevant to what I wrote
about the 1907 Hague Conventions and US law?
Or will you just <snip> this again, without comment
and later claim to have rebutted it.
> Look -- the last time this came up,
> several of us showed pretty conclusively
> that you have misread, misinterpreted,
> and ignored parts of the GCs to suit
> your own preconceived notions.
Cite, please. All that I recall is your
circular argument, for which you cited
no authority, that an unlawful combatant
is not entitled to a hearing to determine
if he is an unlawful combatant.
Do you care to explain how Mary Robinson,
the ICRC, and the USSC also got it wrong?
Will you ever cite ANYTHING to support
your argument, or will you just continually
<snip> where citations are requested of you
and <snip> the citations that are provided
to you and later claim that you rebutted them?
I will also remind you that the UCMJ, which
replaced the Articles of War in 1949-50, also
prohibit summary execution.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Feb 25, 12:03 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> > Look -- the last time this came up,
> > several of us showed pretty conclusively
> > that you have misread, misinterpreted,
> > and ignored parts of the GCs to suit
> > your own preconceived notions.
>
> Cite, please. All that I recall is your
> circular argument, for which you cited
> no authority, that an unlawful combatant
> is not entitled to a hearing to determine
> if he is an unlawful combatant.
Like I said -- rehash it with yourself if it makes you happy. You still
haven't figured out that terrorists are *not* entitled to protection
under the Geneva Conventions, and, until you do, I see no point in
continuing to discuss the issue with you.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:59:51 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:45:44 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
>>Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
>>the United States...".
>
-snip-
>. "Any person subject to this chapter"
>is quite different from "any person".
>
>Sorry, but the jurisdiction of military commissions clearly does not
>extend to US citizens.
>
>The full text of the bill as signed may be found at
><http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf>.
>
>>
Perhaps you should have a chat with Mr. Padilla.
Renata
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Feb 17, 12:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >On Feb 15, 8:23 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> 5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the
>> >> recently observed shrinkage of the polar ice caps on ***MARS*** ?
>>
>> >> That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the
> Earth
>> >> is warming due to human activity.
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>> Because if Mars is warming, it's pretty clearly due to increased solar
> output;
>> if solar output has increased, that would explain warming here too -- in
> fact,
>> it would make warming here pretty much unavoidable.
>>
>> Or perhaps you're prepared to posit some mechanism by which human activity on
>> Earth causes global warming on other planets too?
>>
>
>The solar output as measured near the Earth has been decreasing
>during the same period as when warming was observed on Mars.
Source for that statement? I think that's incorrect.
>Do you suggest that a different sun shines on Mars than on the
>Earth?
Of course not -- which is one reason that I don't believe your claim that
solar output measured near Earth is decreasing.
>
>Would you agree that the great Martian Dust Storm of 1971 was
>not anthropogenic?
Of course. Would you agree that a dust storm that occurred 36 years ago is not
relevant to changes in Martian climate that are occurring now?
>
>Does that prove that the Depression era dustbowl was also not
>anthropogenic?
Of course not. Would you agree that that also is irrelevant to any
contemporary climate effects that may or may not be occurring?
>
>Or perhaps you're prepared to posit that the Earth and Mars can
>have similar trends for entirely different reasons?
Or perhaps you're just a hypocrite who wants to have it both ways. Here's your
position, summed up in two sentences:
Earth gets warmer at the same time human industrial activity increases --
cause and effect. Mars gets warmer at the same time Earth does -- coincidence.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon.
>>> They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
>>
>> Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate.
>> Right. I got it.
>
>Nope--the Ice ages were a comparatively recent phenomenon, geologically
>speaking.
The fact that they're a *recent* (geologically speaking) cyclical phenomenon
does not alter their cyclical nature.
>
>
>> Phooey. Dinosaurs didn't need "at least a temperate climate" any more than
>> mammals and birds do -- because, like mammals and birds, they were
>> warm-blooded. Read "The Dinosaur Heresies," by Robert Bakker, for an excellent
>> exposition, by a PhD paleontologist, of the overwhelming evidence of this.
>
>> You're on pretty shaky ground if you're inferring that from the longevity of
>> the dinos.
>
>Hell, I'm on shaky ground in my shop, too, so I'm used to it. You
>oughtta see what I did to that last chair. I'll read the Bakker
>book--he's The Man in paleontology.
Enjoy it. It's fascinating. He uses arguments from all over the spectrum:
predator to prey ratios, microscopic examination of bone structure, fossil
trackways, and a host of other data, showing how it all points in the same
direction -- to warm-blooded dinos. He even argues, near the end of the book,
that his conclusions imply that dinosaurs are *not* extinct; it's just that we
call them birds now.
>
>I'll withdraw that argument, but not the rest of my discourse.
Too bad -- you were off to a good start.
>GW exists,
You have very little evidence for that statement...
> and we are responsible for at least a part of it.
.. and absolutely none for that one. Inference, yes. Evidence, emphatically
not.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
> Nobody said that. (Nice red herring, though.) The point is that Gore claimed
> to have, while a member of Congress, taken "the initiative in creating"
> something that already existed *before* he was in Congress.
The Internet as a research network existed. Only colleges and research
organizations could afford to be directly connected.
Essentially you had to have a DARPA contract to get connected.
It wasn't until funding for the Information Superhighway did the
Internet explode into commercial and home use.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
> And despite all this censorship, not one paper opposing global warming
> got published? Do tell.
Yeah - amazing isn't it? Even with a $20 million budget, they were
unable to find any scientists willing to LIE for them.
Did you check out the link:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/epa-websites/
This points to several grants the EPA funded:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalresearchprojects.cfm?detype=project&excCol=archive
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-epa.htm
Where are the results of these grants?
Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News.
And since then?
Go to
http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnewsletters.cfm?detype=document&mlf_id=39&incsub=newsletter&pgType=NEW&excCol=archive
and check it out yourself.
The last annual report was 2002. They didn't even publish any
papers DISPROVING global warming. Ask yourself why.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
D Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me about
> them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed again (with
> effort, probably minimal).
The human effort to refetch articles already read isn't large, but in this
newsgroup, with the number of postings, fetching EVERY article, and
applying the killfile filters does take time - several minutes.
There is no way I'm going to do it just because someone posts a
one-liner with no context. I just ignore them.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>>No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
>>>>Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.
>>>
>>> And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
>>> viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?
>>
>>First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government.
>
> Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the
> money.
Not for the reviews I have been involved with. I do it on my own
time. My employeer doesn't know or care about the comments I make in
a review. Reviewers are anonymous. The authors are also anonymous.
It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's
how science works.
If you have any evidence of conspiracy among scientists - please cite them.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>> Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is
>>> warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be
>>> recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.
>>
>>The peer reviewers do not get paid.
>
> Are you saying that they are all independently wealthy or that they
> are all subsistence farmers? They get paid by _somebody_ or else htey
> don't eat. And if the grant money is in research that tends to
> support global warming then that's what they do.
No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"todd" <[email protected]> writes:
>> As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating
>> the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway.
>
> Which isn't even close to being on point. Eisenhower was in office from
> 1953-1961. The Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed in 1956. So, Eisenhower
> can rightly claim the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System.
> In contrast, Gore was not yet in office when the Internet was first created.
And Eisenhower wasn't in office when the highway was invented.
> Perhaps he could rightly say that he took the initiative to expand the
> Internet, but that doesn't sound nearly as good saying you created it, so
> being a politician, he said the latter. In the end, I don't really care.
> The way he said it left him wide open for jokes to be made. You can't deny
> that it sounds funny, can you?
No argument there. It was definitely awkward. It would have been
slightly better if Gore used the term "Information Superhighway" - but
even that is not very accurate.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
[email protected] (Larry W) writes:
> Please explain how your news reader compensates when _your_ news server
> receives messages in a different order than _my_ server?
It's not even a question of order, but of delay.
Consider this:
Thu Feb 22 07:13:21 EST 2007 - Message A posted
Thu Feb 22 07:13:22 EST 2007 - I read message A and mark it read
Thu Feb 22 07:13:23 EST 2007 - Message B is posted in response to A.
If I quit my reading session, and pick it up later, message A is gone
(because I read it). So I see threaded response B, but unless I
retrieve ALL of the postings (which can take a while in this
newsgroup) I have very little idea what the response was to - even
though I have a threaded newsreader.
Including context to a response is really important if you want to
make a point.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
[email protected] (Larry W) writes:
> Please explain how your news reader compensates when _your_ news server
> receives messages in a different order than _my_ server?
It's not even a question of order, but of delay.
Consider this:
Thu Feb 22 07:13:21 EST 2007 - Message A posted
Thu Feb 22 07:13:22 EST 2007 - I read message A and mark it read
Thu Feb 22 07:13:23 EST 2007 - Message B is posted in response to A.
If I quit my reading session, and pick it up later, message A is gone
(because I read it). So I see threaded response B, but unless I
retrieve ALL of the postings (which can take a while in this
newsgroup) I have very little idea what the response was to - even
though I have a threaded newsreader.
Including context to a response is really important if you want to
make a point.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
> Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or
> exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the
> initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already existed,
> as you acknowledge above.
It existed as a research tool for those funded by the government.
It was NOT available for commercial use at the time.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding.
>>Reference:
>>
>>http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnewsletters.cfm?detype=document&mlf_id=39&incsub=newsletter&pgType=NEW&excCol=archive
>>
>>Here's the research the EPA initiated:
>>
>>http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalresearchprojects.cfm?detype=project&excCol=archive
>>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-epa.htm
>>
>>Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research.
>>They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie.
>>They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero.
>
> Now let's see, you've admitted that the EPA newsletter is not a
> peer-reviewed journal and yet you're on about how they haven't
> published results of research and are using the lack of that
> newsletter, which is not the proper venue for reporting the results of
> research, as evidence that they are not reporting such results.
Why should a LISTING and INDEX of the published publications require a peer review?
That's like saying a table of contents requires a peer review.
> This is called "circular reasoning" and is a logical fallacy.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
> journal.
I think a more correct statement was that at least $20 million was
spent by the EPA to create confusion and distortion of the scientific facts.
This was sone by censorship, or by refusing to publish the reports
they paid for.
See
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/epa-websites/
Here's another report on censorship.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/01/30/PM200701305.html
"A survey of 279 federal scientists found nearly half were pressured
to drop references to global warming in their research. Study author
Francesco Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the panel
today that the changes amount to censorship"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2467733&page=1
"Commerce Department officials may have tried to stop a government
scientist from speaking to reporters because of his views on global
warming, a California congressman says."
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061
"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "
"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
>>Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.
>
> And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
> viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?
First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government. But
of those that are, apparently they approve the research and the
government either censors the paper or decides to not publish the
paper.
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061
"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "
"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
>>are not given credence in scientific journals.
>
> If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
> biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
> rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
> wrong.
I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions.
They also love to be first with groundbreaking research.
Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be
proven, then it's not science.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If the population of the earth was ten times what it is and the per
> capita energy consumption was 100 times what is is in the United
> States today, the amount of hydrogen in the oceans is sufficient to
> last for approximately 10 million years.
>
Please post the worksheet which allowed you to arrive at those
numbers.
If quoted from another source, please cite.
r
Rob,
I don't think you really want to squeeze that particular roll of Charmin
right now. Really.
GDR
Rick
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > If the population of the earth was ten times ...
> >
> Please post the worksheet which allowed you to arrive at those
> numbers.
>
> If quoted from another source, please cite.
>
> r
>
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:26:46 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Robatoy wrote:
>| On Feb 18, 2:36 pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>|
>| [biggie snip]
>|
>| I see from your post ( 7 minutes ahead of mine <G>) that you do see
>| a future in fusion. I do want to clarify, that I see a future there
>| as well. My stance is that we shouldn't stop developing alternative
>| energy sources with the thought in mind that the fusion reactor will
>| save us all in the end. I'm a proponent of developing what works,
>| What gives us known data, so we can predict costs and ROI. That, in
>| today's world, is already quite difficult. A 5 billion dollar
>| fission reactor ended up costing 14 billion. Still, at a steady
>| 2500 MW with known maintenance costs, there's a pay-back horizon
>| somewhere before the life-span of the unit.
>| Fusion looks like a black hole to me, financially speaking.
>
>Like you, I like things that /work/. By a fluke, I happened to be in
>the Princeton area (working on Tiros-N at RCA's Astro Engineering Lab
>in Hightstown) and gabbing on VHF during off-hours. One of the hams I
>met on-air turned out to be a neighbor and he introduced me to a bunch
>of other hams he worked with - all at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
>and all likeable people with similar interests. I think they were
>pleased that a systems geek could be so enthusiastic about what they
>were doing. I'm not sure that some measure of my enthusiasm about
>their project didn't stem from my resonance with the people (since I'm
>nowhere near being a physicist); but the enthusiasm was - and is -
>very real.
>
>The end game, as I understood it, is to build a ring of tokamaks
>capable of being fueled on ordinary water (not heavy heavy water or
>even heavy water); and using power from reactor[n] to power the firing
>of reactor[n+1]. From their comments, it seems do-able; but that,
>because of the energy levels involved and the newness of the
>technology, work needed to proceed in "baby steps". There was never
>any question that it'd be enormously expensive; but they were certain
>of both technology and payback.
>
>[ For anyone not in the know, tokamaks were a Russian development and
>produce energy by zapping a droplet of tritium oxide (water where the
>hydrogen nucleus contains two neutrons in addition to the usual
>proton) so hard that the atom shatters, liberating gazooba energy -
>that c-squared multiplier kicks pretty hard. ]
I think you're confusing the tokamak, which is a magnetic confinement
scheme, with inertial confinement devices such as Shiva, Nova, NIF,
and HiPER.
In fusion no atoms "shatter", two hydrogens combine to form helium (or
any other two ligher nuclei combine to form a heavier one) plus an
amount of energy equal to the mass deficit between the two elements.
>I do have one reservation: it makes me nervous to convert planetary
>mass to energy. Sol-3 isn't particularly short on water; but water
>mass converted to energy is gone _forever_ - and I suspect that
>humanity's hunger for free (or really cheap) energy might result in an
>incredibly accellerated reduction in one of our most important
>planetary resources. I wonder how many thousands (or tens of
>thousands) of years it might take before Earth bore more than a
>passing resemblance to Sol-4.
If the population of the earth was ten times what it is and the per
capita energy consumption was 100 times what is is in the United
States today, the amount of hydrogen in the oceans is sufficient to
last for approximately 10 million years.
In 10 million years, with fusion energy available, one would hope that
the ability to travel easily to other planets would have been
developed. If Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune were accessible
that would provide a quantity of hydrogen equal to approximately 300
times the entire mass of the Earth (each of those planets is many
times the size of Earth and each is mostly hydrogen). At the same
level of consumption that quantity would be sufficient to last
approximately several million times the age of the universe. If
humanity manages to hang around that long then I suspect that running
out of hydrogen in Earth's solar system will be the least of their
worries.
>Fission is ok, but fuel looks like a long-term problem. I particularly
>liked a German design I saw a while back - in which fuel pellets were
>wrapped in a ceramic jacket which controlled spacing between pellets
>and, as the reactor heated up, the jackets expanded to increase pellet
>spacing to reduce reaction rate. From a nuclear physics standpoint, I
>don't know enough to pronounce the design "good" or "bad"; but I liked
>the simple elegance of the approach. :-)
>
>The solar stuff I work on seems pretty tame by comparison; but it _is_
>something that can be managed at an individual level without major
>funding. Best of all, it works.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
> Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is
> warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be
> recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.
The peer reviewers do not get paid. Some critics take great joy in
criticizing papers with unsubstantiated claims.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
> As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they
> do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it
> except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never
> before been tested.
Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals.
And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions.
I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models.
> As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they
> are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at
> issue is the policies of journals.
And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly
regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by
thousands of other articles.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Lee K" <[email protected]> writes:
> Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If it's
> cold, it's because of global warming.
It's statistics - Standard Deviation. Bell Curve.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>The fact that there is, in fact, vigorous debate within the science
>community about just what the facts are and what they mean, but there
>is little peer-reviewed publication of that debate demonstrates how
>overtly political the funding process has become, not that science
>has reached a conclusion of any sort.
Cite your references, please?
As I mentioned, the EPA spent $20 million to investigate this debate,
and is aggresively funding research into this issue.
Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding.
Reference:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnewsletters.cfm?detype=document&mlf_id=39&incsub=newsletter&pgType=NEW&excCol=archive
Here's the research the EPA initiated:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalresearchprojects.cfm?detype=project&excCol=archive
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-epa.htm
Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research.
They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie.
They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero.
Also consider that the scientists *TRIED* to publish the reports,
"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "
"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
> Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.
Is it science, or is it the government?
Perhaps the EPA wanted to find some scientists that would publish
documents that proved global warming was a myth, but was unable to
find any scientists that would prostitiute themselves by lying.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
> OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
> to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying
> create and saying invent?
As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating
the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News.
>>
>>And since then?
>
> Is that a peer reviewed journal? I'm sorry, but personally I don't
> give a damn of the government decided to quit spending money on an
> agency newsletter.
>
Their newsletter is not a peer reviewed journal. It is an account to
the US people on how they spent our $20 million.
Apparently the EPA can waste $20 million a year and you are perfectly
happy about that. I am not.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Robatoy wrote:
>
> When asked
> to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
> Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
> Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
>
>
> "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
> initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
> forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
> to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
> improvements in our educational system."
>
> Gore never used the word "invent," and the
> words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.
>
>
OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create
and saying invent?
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
> Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
> one thing: hard evidence.
So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and
causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence".
It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take
the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as
scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not
even rise to the level of an "hypothesis".
One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
"computer modeling".
In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not
least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying
upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish.
Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based
solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in
reality. GIGO!
Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better
argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the
point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07