Re: Russia Takes Aim At Asteroid (fwd)
Poetic Justice
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2010 10:46 AM, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/7/2010 8:25 AM, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wall Street Journal, Jan 6, 2010, page A13:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Russia Takes Aim At Asteroid"
>>>>>
>>>>> Says the head of Russian Space Agency "...called for a closed
>>>>> meeting of
>>>>> Russian scientists to counter a killer asteroid headed our way."
>>>>
>>>> If you want to get into a scam, then do it early in the scam....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since Russia was left out of Global Warming, they needed their own scam
>>>> to drain money from our ignorant congress and Federal bureaucrats.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You sound like the guy who got the idea that they should _sell_ the idea
>>> that the Titanic is unsinkable, so we don't need enough lifeboats, don't
>>> take safety seriously, don't worry about icebergs, and the bulkheads
>>> will hold against anything.
>>
>> I'm the guy that would doubt the "unsinkable" claim as a scam used to
>> sell you a ticket on a boat with no life boat for you.
>
> Oh, thank you for clearing that up. I thought you might be one of those
> guys who is just anti-something because he doesn't like it.
>
>> Normally I would laugh at how stupid you people can be to buy a ticket
>> from a huckster salesman like that....
>
> OK, so you've bought into the scam that we don't need to worry about
> global warming at all?
>
>> But you assholes are trying to make me buy your ticket.
>
> So, what are you going to do _if_ the planet melts? Just laugh your way
> into heaven?
>
> Scam you and I
>> can laugh but try to make me pay for you being scammed and I get riled.
>
> So, what do you want? A free ride?
>
>> *WELCOME ABOARD THE GOOD SHIP GLOBAL WARMING, IT'S UNSINKABLE*
>
> Poetic Justice's Scam: Good Ship Global Warming doesn't exist because
> its like ghosts, witches, and magic, which are scientifically proven to
> not exist. Of course, PJ doesn't need science, he just dismisses
> something as impossible based on his notion.
Well you finally hit the nail right on the head, you have to "believe"
in Global Warming.... As with God, you can't disprove his existence nor
can you prove his existence. Which is exactly where Global Warming
is... *YOU CAN'T PROVE GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS* and I'm NOT interested in
proving *THAT GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST* just like God and that makes
it a religion just like God.
> Nice scam job, PJ, with your "unsinkable" notions that GW doesn't exist.
Show me proof that HUMAN CO^2 created Global Warming, when you have that
absolutely and reproducible evidence tied together with facts that are
real and not consensus get back to me.
Until then I will treat your hypothesis the way it needs to be treated,
as a *miracle of a God* since you say belief and faith are what's needed
to reconcile that Global Warming is up there in the Sky and Universe
somewhere and it's all powerful and will destroy us for our lack of
*FAITH* .
Me, ...again!
You posted two of these, I answered the other one.
/////////////////////
Poetic Justice
> Antarctica, melting at the North Pole so surface ships can go almost
> anywhere, and massive glacier retreats, and snow capped Mt. Everest
> which has no snow anymore....all that stuff doesn't exist? Or you think
> the tooth fairy took it away and not global warming?
>
>>> Nice scam job, PJ, with your "unsinkable" notions that GW doesn't exist.
>>
>> Show me proof that HUMAN CO^2 created Global Warming, when you have that
>> absolutely and reproducible evidence tied together with facts that are
>> real and not consensus get back to me.
>
> Antarctica, glacier retreats, and N. pole ice melts didn't happen, and
> then we can speculate on "why" that's happening.
>
> CO2, methane.... hard to say. I'll tell you that from what I know, most
> of the measurements are hard to make, but you can calculate from
> combustion of known tonage of fuel how much humans are creating. Add
> China and India by 10 years from now (China, this year, has a carbon
> footprint same size as US, and that is up from almost nothing ten years
> ago) or even 20, are you going to say that's not going to affect
> temperature?
>
>> Until then I will treat your hypothesis the way it needs to be treated,
>> as a *miracle of a God* since you say belief and faith are what's needed
>> to reconcile that Global Warming is up there in the Sky and Universe
>> somewhere and it's all powerful and will destroy us for our lack of
>> *FAITH* .
>
> a lot on interpretation. You can look at the curves and pick whatever
Interpret this.
Tell me what percent of global ice caps has melted and what percent of
Al Gores 21 meters of calculated ocean rise has occurred?
Do they add up?
If all this ice is gone, where did the water go?
Come on.... Mt Everest is melted and the north pole is melted and all
the glaciers are nearly gone, even the Polar bears are drowning... where
is the water?
Obviously your numbers won't add up.
The truth is either no significant amount of ice has melted or the water
left the planet... which is it?
You see how easily the lies can be uncovered.
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Poetic Justice wrote:
> On 1/7/2010 9:55 PM, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Until then I will treat your hypothesis the way it needs to be treated,
>>> as a *miracle of a God* since you say belief and faith are what's needed
>>> to reconcile that Global Warming is up there in the Sky and Universe
>>> somewhere and it's all powerful and will destroy us for our lack of
>>> *FAITH* .
>>
>> Nah, the ice cap disappearances, etc., are real. Global warming depends
>> a lot on interpretation. You can look at the curves and pick whatever
>
> Interpret this.
>
> Tell me what percent of global ice caps has melted and what percent of
Well, the biggest issue for me is that all the measurements are indirect
(eg. from satelites, aircraft) and that stuff can be one to two orders of
magnitude off from large experimental error. I also recall that if an ice
cube in a glass of water melts, the water level won't change.
> Al Gores 21 meters of calculated ocean rise has occurred?
I have not seen that figure, but then I'm not following it that closely.
One story remember is that sea level rize could be anywhere from a few
inches to single digit meters, and that is some 100 years from now. So,
I'm not worried for me because I'll surely be dead in 5-10 years from
something. If it is the larger number, there's likely to be plenty of time
for crash programs.
> Do they add up?
Like I said, I think there is too much uncertainty in the measurements and
even the last couple of decades the trends are still not clear.
> If all this ice is gone, where did the water go?
Well, if you want to get technical, I have Bjorn Lomborg's book "Skeptical
Environmentalist" and read many parts of it. He thinks GW is a waste of
time, but my view is more moderate. Another few decades of study will be
needed, and accurate measures of sea level change.
> Come on.... Mt Everest is melted and the north pole is melted and all
> the glaciers are nearly gone, even the Polar bears are drowning... where
> is the water?
Well, the question is why is this happening and if it is not due to GW,
then what is melting the ice?
I also don't have, handy, figures on water locked in glaciers (on land)
but figures I've seen on Greenland say some of them are five miles thick.
I can tell you that I'd rather argue with the various kooks (who also
think I'm a kook) on these NGs, than try to dig out all the glacier data.
> Obviously your numbers won't add up.
See below...
> The truth is either no significant amount of ice has melted or the water
> left the planet... which is it?
>
> You see how easily the lies can be uncovered.
You know, I'm a retired scientist with published papers in peer-reviewed
journals, edited books been on editorial panels for books, got research
grant money from agencies that do competitive proposal review, and I can
tell you that there are a lot of controversial ideas in lots of fields of
science and I have in depth knowledge in only my specialization. The GW
problem is a very complicated problem but not in my specializaton, and even
before it became an issue, there were other meteorlogical phenomena that are
stillnot understood very well (eg. hurricane prediction, tornados, tsunamis,
earthquakes, even rainfall they still can't predict very well, etc). And,
I don't think the question is going to be settled anytime soon. As I see
it, there is no imminent danger. But, 50-100 years from now, and if the
temperature rise is roughly linear and we do get a few degrees of temperature
increase, then young people might have to worry. Some people can't live
in the tropics because of the heat. If a lot of people have to move much
farther north, that could be the mother of all migrations.
So, I favor more research and wait and see what happens over the next
decades.
It reminds me of the clorination and fluoridation of drinking water
controversy when I was a kid. One set of guys said this is the answer to
water-borne disease and tooth decay. Another set of guys said it was a
communist plot to poison people.
More than that, another angle on wht you call "the scam" is that there are
a lot of big corporations that would just love to see international
agreements and standards agreed upon because it means they can _sell_ very
very expensive equipment and these big corporations can smell megatons of
money just around the corner and they don't care if the equipment is
needed or not because all they are interested in is making money and don't
care if the govt pays or the people pay.
Now, we spent a lot of time -- you and I -- talking about YOUR favorite
pet peeve (GW), and zero time talking about asteroid impacts (whose orbits
can be predicted by simple, verifiable mechanics, and measured to 5-6
decimal place accuracy, etc) and if one of them big dang thangs hit, we're
gonna be turned into a pile of junk pretty damned quick.
I guess one of the other things I worry about are these terrorists that
like to blow up people (and airplanes) by detonating bombs they carry (or
stealing jet airliners and flying them into skyscrapers). That's another
phenomenon that we're having a lot of trouble preventing.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:" Until then I will treat"
who cares