OT: Climate Change
Jeff Thies
that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by added
CO2 in the atmosphere.
The one Rush Limbaugh speaks of is Roy Spencer, and I hear his name
from other Republicans.
I find this interesting, as when you look at his current site, that
it does nothing to refute that CO2 is causing global warming. What I see
instead is an assumption that negative feedback might help counteract
warming.
What I gather from Dr Spencer is that with the passing of La Nina
cooling and entering a cycle of PDO warming, it looks like the past
decade will be just a cool memory.
So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have screwed
ourselves?
Jeff
Bill who putters
Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote:
http://premiuma.accuweather.com/premium/jbEurope.asp
This guy does long range hurricane forecasts. Says five hitting USA
this year.
...............................
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-polar-interpolation/#more-2264
8
Bill who does not mind the heat but HATES DEWPOINTS ABOVE 60 F.
--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
What use one more wake up call?
globalvoicesonline.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY
Chris
There is no real scientific controversy about anthropogenic global
climate change. The "scientists" who deny it are pretty much all
shills for energy companies like Exxon-Mobil.
Chris
Higgs Boson
These scientists are whores who work for the Marshall Institute
<http://www.marshall.org/>.
It is a far, far, far Right outfit, supported by oil, coal, gas,
forest -- in short the extractive industries
that want to keep on making money even while the planet heats up under
their feet and above
their heads and in their oceans. What kind of world they will leave
for their grandchildren doesn't seem to factor in.
Maybe it's denial; maybe it's willful ignorance; more likely simple
greed.
The Marshall Institute whores have worked diligently to sow doubt in
the minds of the uninformed
public for decades. Not only about climate change, but about DDT,
acid rain, tobacco, and
other such public policy dangers.
The entire scenario is perfectly described in "Merchants of Doubt" by
Oreskes and Conway.
Worth a read. Educate yourself and those around you.
The Dr. Roy Spencer that Rush Limbaugh is pushing is attached to the
Marshall Institute.
QED.
Last-minute thought: I apologize to honest sex workers for comparing
them to those
who work for the Marshall Institute to spread doubt about confimed,
validated scientific matters.
David Hare-Scott
I don't think there are very many deniers who are qualified, ie
climatologists. There are many who represent themselves as "experts" but
turn out to be like Singer who used to get paid by the tobacco industry to
deny smoking caused harm or like Monkton who is a journalist trained in
classics but seems a little mad and in love with the spotlight. So much of
the propaganda from such experts is not a scientific argument anyway but an
appeal to consequences "your taxes will skyrocket, they want a world
government which will take all your rights, etc". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
There was one bloke who used to work for the CSIRO who has some professional
training in the area (I cannot think of his name sorry) but I recall
following up on it and he was soundly refuted by the majority position.
Spencer himself gets quite a drubbing from some climatologists, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
That is not to say there is universal agreement, there are bound to be
differences of opinion on the details and especially the modelling but for
the main point that humans have caused real climate changes due to burning
fossil fuel and it will get worse if we don't stop the consensus among
scientists is real.
I know that science never proves anything to the 100% certainty level but it
is only those who are looking to freeze the political process into inaction
that claim that it should. The precautionary principle says that as the
consequences of inaction get more serious you should act to prevent problems
even if the matter is not certain. It's like insurance, you pay a little to
cover the possibility of disaster that costs much more. This principle is
written into much environmental protection legislation so why wouldn't we
use it now on a broader scale? The failure to resolve this is not from the
scientists who failed to provide reasonable evidence it is from the
politicians who have collectively failed to act on it.
Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a sustainable
energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort, we have to do it
soon anyway regardless of climate change. The cost of converting too soon
is trifling compared to the cost of going too late. So why dither?
David
Billy
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
And then there are those who see global catastrophe as an opportunity.
An opportunity to sell you white paint, or shoot sulfur particles into
the stratosphere to block the incoming light, or what ever cockamamie
idea that they have at the time.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html
FarmI
> Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a sustainable
> energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort, we have to do it
> soon anyway regardless of climate change.
There's probably even dissent about whether we really need to do that and it
seems there are some who think that peak oil is a myth.
Phillip Adams mentioned in his column in the weekend Oz that he'd met a
small time American oil man who believed that oil was not formed in ancient
times but was produced constantly deep within the earth. He make no comment
about this person other than to report his opinion. I thought that was
admirable restraint.
David Hare-Scott
This kind of thinking is an excellent example of the appeal to consequences
type of logic. Although this far gone probably qualifies as ostrich
behaviour too.
"The consequences of the world running out of oil are terrible therefore it
isn't happening."
D
Billy
College tuitions are going up quickly and funding for primary and
secondary education is falling in the US. Rote memorization of facts is
considered education. I suspect that a well educated constituency is the
bane of politicians.
Rod Speed
Because it makes a lot more sense to change to nukes for electricity
generation and use the electricity from them to heat our houses if you
want to do something about CO2 levels.
Rod Speed
> David Hare-Scott <sec...@nospam.com> wrote
>> Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a
>> sustainable energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort,
>> we have to do it soon anyway regardless of climate change.
> There's probably even dissent about whether we really need to do that and it seems there are some who think that peak
> oil is a myth.
> Phillip Adams mentioned in his column in the weekend Oz that he'd met
> a small time American oil man who believed that oil was not formed in
> ancient times but was produced constantly deep within the earth.
Pity he cant explain where the carbon comes from.
Billy
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
If the nuclear power producer doesn't want to accept liability, that
tells me that they aren't that confident either. There MAY be a place
for nuclear, but not with this pressurized systems that we as using now.
Rod Speed
More fool you.
> There MAY be a place for nuclear,
Corse there is, France generates 90% of its electricity that way.
> but not with this pressurized systems that we as using now.
Try telling that the french. Dont be too surprised when they just laugh in your silly little face.
h
"Billy" <wild...@withouta.net> wrote in message
news:wildbilly-E700D2.08252306082010@c-
>I suspect that a well educated constituency is the bane of politicians.
Well, duh.
Gary Heston
>that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by added
>CO2 in the atmosphere.
Most disagree that there's any significant warming; real numbers (as
opposed to the manipulated ones from East Anglia) don't show it.
There is, however, no real evidence of human-caused warming. The sun
can easily (and is, at the moment) cause significant increases in the
earth's temperature.
> So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have screwed
>ourselves?
Here's a Physics PHD with a Nobel Prize:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
If you want to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
go plant trees.
David Hare-Scott
> In article <i3ed9g$caq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote:
>> It is claimed by some that there are many scientists who disagree
>> that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by
>> added CO2 in the atmosphere.
> [ ... ]
>
> Most disagree that there's any significant warming; real numbers (as
> opposed to the manipulated ones from East Anglia) don't show it.
>
Is this is your own invention or are quoting somebody? While the email
scandal was big political field day for contrarians (it proves it's all a
big conspiracy don't you know) it has nothing to do with the science.
> There is, however, no real evidence of human-caused warming. The sun
> can easily (and is, at the moment) cause significant increases in the
> earth's temperature.
>
That's odd you just got through saying "Most disagree that there's any
significant warming". Do you have any evidence for the sun being
responsible? Solar forcing has postulated as the cause of climate change
but the case has never been made satisfactorily.
>
>> So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have
>> screwed ourselves?
>
> Here's a Physics PHD with a Nobel Prize:
>
> http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
>
>
This is a long and rambling article. It makes a number of sweeping
statements about climate and supports none of them with any calculations.
Do you have a simple take-home message from this tract that you think is
important? What is it? Where is the evidence for it?
David
Rod Speed
> Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote
>> It is claimed by some that there are many scientists who disagree
>> that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by
>> added CO2 in the atmosphere.
> Most disagree that there's any significant warming; real numbers
> (as opposed to the manipulated ones from East Anglia) don't show it.
Thats a lie. The Thames froze over at one time and doesnt anymore.
The glaciers certainly have retreated.
Whether that is due to human activity or not is a separate matter entirely.
> There is, however, no real evidence of human-caused warming.
It is clear that the CO2 levels have increased significantly.
> The sun can easily (and is, at the moment) cause
> significant increases in the earth's temperature.
Yes, but you havent established what you have in brackets.
>> So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have screwed ourselves?
> Here's a Physics PHD with a Nobel Prize:
> http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
Billy
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
Billy
ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
> In article <i3ed9g$caq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote:
> > It is claimed by some that there are many scientists who disagree
> >that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by added
> >CO2 in the atmosphere.
> [ ... ]
>
> Most disagree that there's any significant warming; real numbers (as
> opposed to the manipulated ones from East Anglia) don't show it.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy>
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in
the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of
emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA)
Climatic Research Unit (CRU). . . Allegations by climate change sceptics
that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community
were quickly publicised by the media.
Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two
of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the remaining
review releasing its findings on 7 July.
The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it
is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails[12]
and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in
any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
<http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/final-university-of-east-report
-clears-scientists-0421.html>
July 7, 2010
Final University of East Anglia Report Clears Scientists
So-called Scandal is Over, Science Group Says
WASHINGTON (July 7, 2010) ‹ The so-called "Climategate" scandal is over,
according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and it really
wasn't a scandal after all.
Brenda Ekwurzel, a UCS climate scientist, said the manufactured scandal
over the stolen emails has been an unwelcome distraction for her
colleagues. "Scientists now can get back to doing science," she said.
"This report should lay these unwarranted accusations against climate
scientists to rest once and for all. The politicians and pundits who
attacked these scientists and dragged their names through the mud owe
them an apology."
>
> There is, however, no real evidence of human-caused warming. The sun
> can easily (and is, at the moment) cause significant increases in the
> earth's temperature.
>
And this explains why atmospheric CO2 went from 280 parts per million
(ppm) in 1800, to 310 ppm in 1960, to 390 ppm in 2010? I don't think so.
Also see reports on acidification of the oceans and its affect on marin.
life.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-ocean-acidifica
tion-intimates-long-recovery-from-climate-change>
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=whys-the-ocean-less-gre
en>
And the Scientific American article "Threatening Ocean Life from the
Inside Out" in the August 2010 edition of Scientific American. p.66
>
> > So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have screwed
> >ourselves?
>
> Here's a Physics PHD with a Nobel Prize:
>
> http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
And he isn't a meteorologist.
What else do you got?
>
>
> Gary
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Pauling had a PhD and a Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the room,
Like hell he ever was with his vitamin shit.
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
The Real Bev
> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two
> of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the remaining
> review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>
> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it
> is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails[12]
> and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in
> any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky.
--
Cheers, Bev
================================
Eat right. Stay fit. Die anyway.
Billy
The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/07/10 11:04, Billy wrote:
>
> > Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two
> > of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the remaining
> > review releasing its findings on 7 July.
> >
> > The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it
> > is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails[12]
> > and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in
> > any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
>
> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman: Monica Lewinsky.
Actually, the judge said he could use the dictionary definition, which
was vaginal, so TECHNICALLY he didn't have sex with that woman.
But what does that have to do with "Global Warming", or do you just like
to talk about oral sex? Do you have something to say? Spit it out.
Billy
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you could learn punctuation, and didn't talk like a potty mouth, you
might actually be listened to more. IMHO
Slim
> So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have screwed
>ourselves?
Slim
>Here's a Physics PHD with a Nobel Prize:
>
> http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
How about over 9000 PHD's?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Qualifications of Signers
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
Slim
>There is no real scientific controversy about anthropogenic global
>climate change. The "scientists" who deny it are pretty much all
>shills for energy companies like Exxon-Mobil.
Not so.......over 31000 scientists disagree.
http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
The Real Bev
> In article<i3l812$jta$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/07/10 11:04, Billy wrote:
>>
>> > Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two
>> > of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the remaining
>> > review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>> >
>> > The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it
>> > is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails[12]
>> > and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in
>> > any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
>>
>> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman: Monica Lewinsky.
>
> Actually, the judge said he could use the dictionary definition, which
> was vaginal, so TECHNICALLY he didn't have sex with that woman.
>
> But what does that have to do with "Global Warming", or do you just like
> to talk about oral sex? Do you have something to say? Spit it out.
That governments and governmental leaders will say what they need to say
regardless of the truth, and that you can find "independent reviewers"
to arrive at whatever conclusion you want -- or can afford.
Where did they find an "independent review" panel composed of persons
who (a) can evaluate the data; (b) can evaluate the language used; and
(c) have no connection one way or the other with the global warming
controversy?
The globe gets warmer and cooler and has done so for quite a long time.
I think it would be more sensible to try to figure out how to deal
with change rather than engage in the rather fruitless undertaking of
trying to stop it.
Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
--
Cheers, Bev
*********************************************
Not all cultures are equal. If they were, we
would have a lot more cannibal restaurants.
David Hare-Scott
> On 08/07/10 11:04, Billy wrote:
>
>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK,
>> two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the
>> remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>>
>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that
>> it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the
>> emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific
>> malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
>
> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky.
Unless you know more through some sort of magic than all the authorities who
investigated this issue this is just a taunt. We already know there is a
slice of the population who believe the conspiracy theory you don't need to
repeat that or declare you are a member.
The conspiracy theorist either conveniently forget (or never understood)
that the scientific community around the world would be last place to try to
organise a conspiracy. First, there is no central authority to enforce
silence or conformity. Second, the way to fame in the scientific world is
to go against the prevailing wisdom AND to win by providing the evidence. I
am not saying there are no errors or disagreements but a global conspiracy
of climatologists is just a joke. Let me say it another way: if he/she has
the evidence there is a huge reward for the scientist who breaks ranks and
they cannot be effectively censored.
The contrarian lobby on the other hand continues to run out blatant lies
that have been refuted many times. But that can still work. You only have
to create enough FUD and your have won by default because no action will be
taken.
David
Rod Speed
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 08/07/10 11:04, Billy wrote:
>>
>>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK,
>>> two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the
>>> remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>>>
>>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that
>>> it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the
>>> emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific
>>> malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
>>
>> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky.
>
> Unless you know more through some sort of magic than all the authorities who
> investigated this issue this is just a taunt. We already know there is a
> slice of the population who believe the conspiracy theory you don't need to
> repeat that or declare you are a member.
I guess you missed -- or ignored -- the bit about "analyze the data
yourself and come to your own conclusion."
We're not talking about believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or Jesus here.
--
Cheers, Bev
==================================================
Segal's Law: A man with one watch knows the time.
A man with two is never sure.
Higgs Boson
> In article <8c4hjeFe3...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
>
> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
> room,
But totally around the bend, Vitamin C-wise
but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
Einstein had TWO Nobels, and spent the last 30 years of his life
chasing the GUT
(Grand Unified Theory) that would include gravity. All that time, he
basically refused
to accept Quantum Theory, but continued to function partly in & partly
out of Classical.
The battles between Nobelist Niels Bohr (who was himself stuck on
Complementarity)
and Einstein are legendary. Nobelist Johnny von Neumann, one of the
greatest mathematicians
of all time, led physicists down his own garden path for decades. And
on and on.
Great scientists aren't always free of obsessions. (Maybe that's part
of what makes them great?)
>
Cheryl Isaak
wildbilly-EBC6E...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au, "Billy"
<wild...@withouta.net> wrote:
> In article <8c4hje...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
>
> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
> room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
Having actually worked for a different Nobel prize winner and way too many
Ph.Ds, I think I can honestly say that to get to that rarified level
requires a bit of "loon".
C
root
>
> The conspiracy theorist either conveniently forget (or never understood)
> that the scientific community around the world would be last place to try to
> organise a conspiracy. First, there is no central authority to enforce
> silence or conformity. Second, the way to fame in the scientific world is
> to go against the prevailing wisdom AND to win by providing the evidence. I
> am not saying there are no errors or disagreements but a global conspiracy
> of climatologists is just a joke. Let me say it another way: if he/she has
> the evidence there is a huge reward for the scientist who breaks ranks and
> they cannot be effectively censored.
>
Your paragraph assumes that the work of the IPCC is science: it is not.
Science is open, science allows the work to be examined and reproduced
if possible. Science welcomes criticism. The review of the climategate
material misses the point that every effort was made to conceal the
materials and methods behind their work.
Before undertaking any measures to combat climate change all the
data should be made freely available in a public repository. All
computer models should be open source and freely available. All
aspects of the data collection methods should be public information.
des...@verizon.net
> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
"Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
or that they have their own readings.
Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a stricking
ignorance about the subject.
Billy
Cheryl Isaak <chery...@comcast.net> wrote:
Anecdotally, I've been taking 1 g of vitamin C/day since the early 70s
and 6 g/day if I have a cold (which is rare).
I doubt there is any silver bullet for either colds, or cancer (The
latter seems to be part of "metabolic syndrome". Staying away from
polyunsaturated oils, would probably help.).
Besides his work on vitamins, he published "The Nature of the Chemical
Bond, one of the most influential chemistry books ever published.[72] In
the 30 years after its first edition was published in 1939, the book was
cited more than 16,000 times. Even today, many modern scientific papers
and articles in important journals cite this work, more than half a
century after first publication."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling>
"Pauling was included in a list of the 20 greatest scientists of all
time by the magazine New Scientist, with Albert Einstein being the only
other scientist from the twentieth century on the list."
SEE LEGACY: Ibid)
And of course he was a "peace activist", who declined an invitation from
Robert Oppenheimer to join the Manhattan Project.
He was also one of the first to advocate a glass of wine a day, for a
longer life;O)
For his efforts he received The Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1954), and The
Nobel Peace Prize (1962). We definitely could use more loons like Linus
Pauling
Bill who putters
<wildbilly-74E3A...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Billy <wild...@withouta.net> wrote:
I thought one award Pauling received was due to pointing out the
dangers of open air nuclear bomb testing.
All in all exceptional scientist with a large field of expertise.
--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
globalvoicesonline.org
Bill who putters
A short biography.
http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/alp.html
Billy
Well, Bev, we can all agree that CO2 levels are going up, right? And we
can all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? We can all agree that
the pH of the oceans is dropping, right? So if there aren't a couple of
hidden volcanoes somewhere in the world, where does all this CO2 come
from?
Coupled with "Global Warming" is a short fall in potable water by 2030.
Agree or disagree?
We have already past the carrying capacity for Homo sapiens on Earth.
Number 7 billion arrives next year, 9 billion in 2050, 12 billion in
2067.
Agree or disagree?
Humanity is approaching a definitive moment for our species.
Agree or Disagree?
The people working at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), are meteorologists. I couldn't help but notice that only 494
signers of the petition project study the atmosphere.
(I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
but
1,684 Geologists have signed the petition. Now call me impetuous, but
aren't these the kind of guys that coal mines, and oil companies hire?
You know, the people who make money by putting CO2 in the sky. Maybe,
I'm just cynical.
So tell me, I'd look this up, but I have other things I need to do, this
petition, does it address the rising CO2 levels, or does it just say
that the IIPC has it all wrong? I mean, if your guys have a position
paper, please tell me were it can be found.
As that war criminal Rumsfeld once said, "part of what we worry about is
not knowing if we know, what to worry about" (more or less), e.g.
anybody can make a mistake.
The simple choices come down to this.
Do nothing, and risk "Extinction 6*", or
do something that wasn't necessary, and look foolish.
Which bet are you prepared to lose?
*
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00037A5D
-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000>
Billy
More over, after the Republicans (please, they were just in power then)
shut do the Office Of Technology Assessment, they claimed that all
science that couldn't be done in a lab with reproducible results
(modeling) was "junk science".
The Republican War on Science (Aug. 25, 2006) by Chris Mooney
<http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/B000WCNU44/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281289895&sr=1-1-spell>
Billy
In 1958, Pauling joined a petition drive in cooperation with the
founders of the St. Louis Citizen's Committee for Nuclear Information
(CNI). This group, headed by Washington University professors Barry
Commoner, Eric Reiss, M. W. Friedlander, and John Fowler, set up a study
of radioactive strontium-90 in the baby teeth of children across North
America. The "Baby Tooth Survey," headed by Dr. Louise Z. Reiss,
demonstrated conclusively in 1961 that above-ground nuclear testing
posed significant public health risks in the form of radioactive fallout
spread primarily via milk from cows that had ingested contaminated
grass.[43][44][45] Pauling also participated in a public debate with the
atomic physicist Edward Teller about the actual probability of fallout
causing mutations.[46] In 1958, Pauling and his wife presented the
United Nations with the petition signed by more than 11,000 scientists
calling for an end to nuclear-weapon testing. Public pressure and the
frightening results of the CNI research subsequently led to a moratorium
on above-ground nuclear weapons testing, followed by the Partial Test
Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling>
Rod Speed
> Cheryl Isaak <chery...@comcast.net> wrote
>> Billy <wild...@withouta.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
>>> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy
>>> in the room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
>> Having actually worked for a different Nobel prize winner and way
>> too many Ph.Ds, I think I can honestly say that to get to that
>> rarified level requires a bit of "loon".
> Anecdotally, I've been taking 1 g of vitamin C/day since
> the early 70s and 6 g/day if I have a cold (which is rare).
And I havent bothered in more than 50 years and havent had a cold in decades now.
> I doubt there is any silver bullet for either colds,
Pity that fool Pauling claimed there is, without a shred
of rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate that claim.
> or cancer (The latter seems to be part of "metabolic syndrome".
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim.
> Staying away from polyunsaturated oils, would probably help.).
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim.
Some societys with some of the lowest cancer rates in the world use poly unsaturated oils extensively.
> Besides his work on vitamins, he published "The Nature of the
> Chemical Bond, one of the most influential chemistry books
> ever published.[72] In the 30 years after its first edition was
> published in 1939, the book was cited more than 16,000 times.
Irrelevant to whether he was always a complete loon on vitamins.
> Even today, many modern scientific papers and articles in important
> journals cite this work, more than half a century after first publication."
Fuck all do in fact now.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling>
Doesnt even mention some of his sillier stuff.
> "Pauling was included in a list of the 20 greatest scientists of all
> time by the magazine New Scientist, with Albert Einstein being the
> only other scientist from the twentieth century on the list."
> SEE LEGACY: Ibid)
> And of course he was a "peace activist", who declined an invitation
> from Robert Oppenheimer to join the Manhattan Project.
Whoopy fucking do.
> He was also one of the first to advocate a glass of wine a day, for a longer life;O)
Another lie.
> For his efforts he received The Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1954), and The Nobel
> Peace Prize (1962). We definitely could use more loons like Linus Pauling
We certainly could do without fools like you.
Chris
> In article <b2forewagner-162A99.13113708082...@news.supernews.com>,
> Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <wildbilly-74E3AC.09590308082...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> > Billy <wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article <C88408C9.A7BEB%cherylis...@comcast.net>,> > > > wildbilly-EBC6E3.10194907082...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au,
> > > > "Billy"
> > > > <wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <8c4hjeFe3...@mid.individual.net>,
It is also worth noting that Pauling would most likely have beaten
Watson & Crick to discovering the structure of DNA- had he had access
to Wilkins' and Franklin's data. But because of his pacifist
tendencies, he was denied a passport by the US State Department, and
could not travel overseas.
Chris
Rod Speed
Yes, but they were MUCH higher in the distant past.
> And we can all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
Doesnt mean that that is necessarily a bad thing.
> We can all agree that the pH of the oceans is dropping, right?
Wrong.
> So if there aren't a couple of hidden volcanoes somewhere
> in the world, where does all this CO2 come from?
Yes, it likely does come from the activity of man, currently.
> Coupled with "Global Warming" is a short fall in potable water by 2030. Agree or disagree?
Disagree that it matters, its completely trivial to produce more potable water when its required.
> We have already past the carrying capacity for Homo sapiens on Earth.
Thats just plain wrong.
> Number 7 billion arrives next year, 9 billion in 2050, 12 billion in 2067.
> Agree or disagree?
It isnt possible to predict what we will see in 2067.
The Club of Rome predicted all sorts of stuff that didnt happen.
> Humanity is approaching a definitive moment for our species.
> Agree or Disagree?
Thats just plain wrong.
> The people working at the Intergovernmental Panel
> on Climate Change (IPCC), are meteorologists.
Plenty of them arent.
> I couldn't help but notice that only 494 signers of the petition project study the atmosphere.
> (I) Atmospheric Science (112)
> II) Climatology (39)
> III) Meteorology (343)
> but 1,684 Geologists have signed the petition.
Petitions arent rigorous science.
> Now call me impetuous, but aren't these the kind
> of guys that coal mines, and oil companies hire?
Hardly any of them are hired by those.
> You know, the people who make money by
> putting CO2 in the sky. Maybe, I'm just cynical.
Certainly you are just a one eyed fool that hasnt got
a fucking clue about what rigorous science is about.
> So tell me, I'd look this up, but I have other things I need
> to do, this petition, does it address the rising CO2 levels,
> or does it just say that the IIPC has it all wrong?
Petitions arent rigorous science.
> I mean, if your guys have a position paper, please tell me were it can be found.
That aint rigorous science either.
> As that war criminal Rumsfeld once said, "part of what
> we worry about is not knowing if we know, what to worry
> about" (more or less), e.g. anybody can make a mistake.
> The simple choices come down to this.
Like hell they do.
> Do nothing, and risk "Extinction 6*", or
> do something that wasn't necessary, and look foolish.
> Which bet are you prepared to lose?
You aint established that there is any bet to lose.
> *
> <http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00037A5D
> -A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000>
Billy
<f96596d6-50fc-42af...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
Saw a video of him modeling possible configurations of DNA. He used
scissors and folded paper, like we all did in kindergarten to make
snowflakes but his were helixes, and all kinds of amazing shapes.
David Hare-Scott
> On Aug 7, 10:19 am, Billy <wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
>> In article <8c4hjeFe3...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
>>
>> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
>> room,
>
> But totally around the bend, Vitamin C-wise
>
> but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
>
> Einstein had TWO Nobels, and spent the last 30 years of his life
> chasing the GUT
I know this is really trivial but he didn't. Pauling is the only person who
has ever got two Nobel prizes in their own right. Einstein got one and that
was for the photoelectric effect not for relativity.
> (Grand Unified Theory) that would include gravity. All that time, he
> basically refused
> to accept Quantum Theory, but continued to function partly in & partly
> out of Classical.
> The battles between Nobelist Niels Bohr (who was himself stuck on
> Complementarity)
> and Einstein are legendary. Nobelist Johnny von Neumann, one of the
> greatest mathematicians
> of all time, led physicists down his own garden path for decades. And
> on and on.
>
> Great scientists aren't always free of obsessions. (Maybe that's part
> of what makes them great?)
A better point.
David
David Hare-Scott
AND their expertise does not necessarily transfer to other topics. The
author of the article wthat started all this is a quantum physicist not a
climatologist.
David
David Hare-Scott
> On 08/07/10 22:48, David Hare-Scott wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 08/07/10 11:04, Billy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the
>>>> UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the
>>>> remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>>>>
>>>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and
>>>> that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by
>>>> the emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate
>>>> scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic
>>>> Research Unit."
>>>
>>> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica
>>> Lewinsky.
>>
>> Unless you know more through some sort of magic than all the
>> authorities who investigated this issue this is just a taunt. We
>> already know there is a slice of the population who believe the
>> conspiracy theory you don't need to repeat that or declare you are a
>> member.
>
> I guess you missed -- or ignored -- the bit about "analyze the data
> yourself and come to your own conclusion."
>
No I didn't because it wasn't visible to me when I posted the above.
> We're not talking about believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or Jesus
> here.
In what way did you "analyze the data yourself and come to your own
conclusion." regarding the 'climategate scandal' ? As you have presumably
done so it should be easy for you to show the evidence that demonstrates the
conspiracy. Don't deamand that I do your work for you prove your case.
David
David Hare-Scott
Much of it is:
Ice cores and climate records See http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
Sea ice records, back to 1750 See http://nsidc.org/
Today's numerical weather prediction model output? See
http://ftpprd.ncep.noaa.gov/
Today's analyzed sea surface temperature? See
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/
David
Jeff Thies
> In article<8c4hje...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed"<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
>
> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
> room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
You are either a quick study or you have run across Rod before. I had
felt some regret that I had brought Rod into a new unsuspecting group.
I'll watch my cross posting in the future.
Jeff
David Hare-Scott
Those who may not want to follow this whole thread will find a good
approximation here:
http://www.sensationbot.com/chat-rodspeed.html
David
Don Klipstein
Mostly such as times when Greenland and Antarctica lacked thick ice
sheets, and sea level was a couple hundred meters higher than it is now.
>> And we can all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
>
>Doesnt mean that that is necessarily a bad thing.
<SNIP issues of ocean pH, how many billions of people this planet is
carrying or will carry successfully or otherwise, whatever else>
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
<wildbilly-6915B...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, Billy
wrote in part:
>In article
><f96596d6-50fc-42af...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 1:23 pm, Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
>> > In article <b2forewagner-162A99.13113708082...@news.supernews.com>,
>> > Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
>> > > In article
>> > > <wildbilly-74E3AC.09590308082...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>> > > Billy <wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
>> > > > Anecdotally, I've been taking 1 g of vitamin C/day since the early 70s
>> > > > and 6 g/day if I have a cold (which is rare).
>> >
>> > > > I doubt there is any silver bullet for either colds, or cancer (The
>> > > > latter seems to be part of "metabolic syndrome". Staying away from
>> > > > polyunsaturated oils, would probably help.).
I heard that the bad ones are saturated ones and ones with all
"unsaturations" (double bonds) being of "trans" alignment.
That means the "bad ones" are coconut and palm oil, cocoa butter, fats
of warm blooded animals, and *partially hydrogenated* polyunsaturated
fats (partially hydrogenated typically-extratropical vegetable oils).
Unhydrogenated polyunsaturated fats have a high rate of sounding to me
to be "OK, or at least OK as far as fat intake goes".
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
Yes, but the earth clearly managed fine with those much higher CO2 levels.
The Real Bev
No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
analyzed the data and found it wanting.
And fix your spellchecker.
--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I don't care who your father is! Drop that cross
one more time and you're out of the parade!"
Billy
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
Thanks, but no.
Billy
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
In the period of 2004-2006 he, Robert Betts Laughlin, as David said, not
a meteorologist, served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South
Korea. Many institutions of higher learning now rely on privates grants
for significant amounts of their budgets. I was unable to find mention
of private funding for KAIST, but I have seen it run as high as 33% in
the US and Canada. Let's just say, that I have my doubts.
Billy
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
Yes, this is the debate that Ansel Keys started with his claim that
saturated fat causes cholesterol, which causes "cadiovascular disease".
The problem appears when you understand that Ansel Keys cherry picked
his information, Dwight Eisenhower died of a heart attack even though he
was on a low fat diet, and that many healthy cultures survived on
saturated fats, and none on polyunsatuated fats.
The gist is that agriculture, eating grains (carbohydrates), is the
biggest change in the human diet in the last 2,000,000 years, and most
of the medical problems of western culture stem from insulin rushes
caused by the sugar, refined, and in the starches of grains.
The definitive book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and
the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" (Vintage) by Gary Taubes
<http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033
462/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281329439&sr=1-1>
p. 15
The incidence and severity atherosclerosis are not directly affected by
the level of cholesterol in the blood serum per se.
p. 96
White flour's low protein, vitamins, and mineral content made it "less
liable than whole meal flour to infestations by beetles and the
depredations of rodents", as Sir Stanley Davidson and Reginald Passmore
observed in their textbook Human Nutrition and Dietetics (1963).
p.194
Anything that raises blood sugar - in particular, the consumption of
refined and easily digestible carbohydrates - will increase the
generation of oxidants and free radicals; it will increase the rate of
oxidative stress and glycation,and the formation and accumulation of
advanced glycation end products. This means that anything that raises
blood sugar, by the logic of the carbohydrate hypothesis, will lead to
more atherosclerosis and heart disease, more vascular disorders, and a
pace of accelerated degeneration, even in those of us who never become
diabetic.
-----
Much easier to read is
"The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability" by Lierre Keith
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_19?url=search-alias%3Dstripbook
s&field-keywords=the+vegetarian+myth+by+lierre+keith&sprefix=The+Vegetari
an+Myth&ih=16_1_1_0_0_0_0_0_0_2.144_306&fsc=18>
FarmI
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There is no real scientific controversy about anthropogenic global
>>climate change. The "scientists" who deny it are pretty much all
>>shills for energy companies like Exxon-Mobil.
>
> Not so.......over 31000 scientists disagree.
>
> http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php
And you've been caught believing in rubbish. Use google and you'll find out
that the 'petition project' is considered to be crud.
FarmI
news:i3lhm1$bim$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 08/07/10 22:48, David Hare-Scott wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK,
>>>> two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the
>>>> remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>>>>
>>>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that
>>>> it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the
>>>> emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific
>>>> malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
>>>
>>
>> Unless you know more through some sort of magic than all the authorities
>> who
>> investigated this issue this is just a taunt. We already know there is a
>> slice of the population who believe the conspiracy theory you don't need
>> to
>> repeat that or declare you are a member.
>
> I guess you missed -- or ignored -- the bit about "analyze the data
> yourself and come to your own conclusion."
How did you reach that conclusion based on what David wrote?
> We're not talking about believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or Jesus
> here.
David was not talking about any of those things.
FarmI
> On 08/08/10 06:57, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>
>> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
>> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>>
>> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
>> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
>> or that they have their own readings.
>>
>> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a stricking
>> ignorance about the subject.
>
> No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
> analyzed the data and found it wanting.
LOL. You mean to tell us that you didn't take your own advice but believed
what someone else told you? Well done!
Don Klipstein
Yes, this planet has managed to cope with events that fell short of
outright blowing it up.
As for a recently-dominating species that implemented industrialization
that is mostly in the past couple centuries of a 4-plus billion year old
planet known to harbor life forms including intelligent ones, I see a
different problem: Avoid changing sea level by so much as 1 meter from
what industrial coastal cities are accustomed to.
>>>> And we can all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
>
>>> Doesnt mean that that is necessarily a bad thing.
>
>> <SNIP issues of ocean pH, how many billions of people this planet
>> is carrying or will carry successfully or otherwise, whatever else>
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Billy wrote:
Are you on the "Low Carb" bandwagon? Favored not only by those selling
low-carb foods, but also favored by farmers of grains? An attitude of
"carbs (or grains) is what food eats" favors increased grain sales through
inefficient 4-footed or feathered middlemen!
> and most of the medical problems of western culture stem from insulin
>rushes caused by the sugar, refined, and in the starches of grains.
I closely know a veterinary student who tells me that Type II diabetes
results primarily from being overweight due to excessive calorie intake,
and occurs plenty-enough with even an outright carb-free diet.
Meanwhile, what does this have to do with polyunsaturated vs. other
types of dietary fats?
>The definitive book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and
>the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" (Vintage) by Gary Taubes
><http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033
>462/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281329439&sr=1-1>
>
>p. 15
>The incidence and severity atherosclerosis are not directly affected by
>the level of cholesterol in the blood serum per se.
>
>p. 96
>White flour's low protein, vitamins, and mineral content made it "less
>liable than whole meal flour to infestations by beetles and the
>depredations of rodents", as Sir Stanley Davidson and Reginald Passmore
>observed in their textbook Human Nutrition and Dietetics (1963).
>
>p.194
>Anything that raises blood sugar - in particular, the consumption of
>refined and easily digestible carbohydrates -
For that matter in general, especially for timeframe more than a couple
to a few hours, anything that has calories -
> - will increase the
>generation of oxidants and free radicals; it will increase the rate of
>oxidative stress and glycation,and the formation and accumulation of
>advanced glycation end products. This means that anything that raises
>blood sugar, by the logic of the carbohydrate hypothesis, will lead to
>more atherosclerosis and heart disease, more vascular disorders, and a
>pace of accelerated degeneration, even in those of us who never become
>diabetic.
While that neglects or attempts to ignore role of fats in formation of
arterial plaque.
And, what does that have to do with polyunsaturated being or not being a
"bad" kind of fat?
<I snip from here mostly a link to where to buy a book by someone who
wants to sell books, and somewhat poorly formatted for citation due to a
bit that comes up as gibberish in old-farters' newsreaders>
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
The Real Bev
I know his credentials. I know how his "peers" regard him. I know that
he's been analyzing data -- professionally -- for 50 years. I know he
doesn't lie. I know he has no axe to grind. And I know he's smarter
than you are.
--
Cheers, Bev
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for
anything, but they still bring a smile to your face
when you push them down a flight of stairs.
FarmI
> On 08/08/10 22:24, FarmI wrote:
>> "The Real Bev"<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:i3nv9u$50n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On 08/08/10 06:57, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
>>>> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>>>>
>>>> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
>>>> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
>>>> or that they have their own readings.
>>>>
>>>> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a stricking
>>>> ignorance about the subject.
>>>
>>> No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
>>> analyzed the data and found it wanting.
>>
>> LOL. You mean to tell us that you didn't take your own advice but
>> believed
>> what someone else told you? Well done!
>
> I know his credentials. I know how his "peers" regard him. I know that
> he's been analyzing data -- professionally -- for 50 years. I know he
> doesn't lie. I know he has no axe to grind. And I know he's smarter than
> you are.
:-)) An ad. hom. to add to the score. You're really piling on the points
for lack of credibility. Well done!
Jeff Thies
LOL!
Jeff
>
> David
Bill who putters
6 % CO2 from food production. Conventional Vs. no-till calculator.
Billy
Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote:
He doesn't offer any information just his opinion, obscenities, and
invectives, i.e. a waste of time.
des...@verizon.net
> On 08/08/10 06:57, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>
>> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
>> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>>
>> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
>> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
>> or that they have their own readings.
>>
>> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a striking
>> ignorance about the subject.
>
> No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
> analyzed the data and found it wanting.
Well?
Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
> And fix your spellchecker.
Aggh! It was turned off.
Billy
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
If you are going to characterize me ("on low-carb bandwagon") I don't
see any point in continuing a conversation.
Grains aren't particularly good for animals either. If steers weren't
slaughtered at 6 mo. in CAFO, they would die anyway from stomach ulcers.
Ruminants were never meant to eat grains. They were meant to eat grass.
It is only because grains are US taxpayer subsidized that they are so
cheap. Feed it to chickens or farmed salmon, and they don't get omega3,
which they pass on in eggs and flesh. Omega3s come from leaves,
blood-clotting omega6s come from grains.
>
> > and most of the medical problems of western culture stem from insulin
> >rushes caused by the sugar, refined, and in the starches of grains.
>
> I closely know a veterinary student who tells me that Type II diabetes
> results primarily from being overweight due to excessive calorie intake,
> and occurs plenty-enough with even an outright carb-free diet.
I'd like a citation for that. "Western disease" (metabolic syndrome),
from my reading, usually manifests itself with the introduction of
refined carbs (white flour, white rice, sugar).
>
> Meanwhile, what does this have to do with polyunsaturated vs. other
> types of dietary fats?
>
Ancel Keys deduced that if saturated fats raised cholesterol, they were
bad, and since polyunsaturated fats (PUF) lowered cholesterol, they must
be good.
Then in the early 70s reports started coming out that PUFs seemed to be
giving lab animals cancer.
<http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html>
According to Ray Peat, Ph.D., a physiologist who has studied hormones
and dietary fats since 1968, says the polyunsaturated fatty acids or
PUFAs in vegetable seed oils are the bane of human health ‹ they
actually cause cancer, diabetes, obesity, aging, thrombosis, arthritis,
and immunodeficiencies. Their only appropriate use, he says, is as
ingredients in paints and varnishes.
<http://www.thescreamonline.com/essays/essays5-1/vegoil.html>
> >The definitive book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and
> >the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" (Vintage) by Gary Taubes
> ><http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033
> >462/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281329439&sr=1-1>
> >
> >p. 15
> >The incidence and severity atherosclerosis are not directly affected by
> >the level of cholesterol in the blood serum per se.
> >
> >p. 96
> >White flour's low protein, vitamins, and mineral content made it "less
> >liable than whole meal flour to infestations by beetles and the
> >depredations of rodents", as Sir Stanley Davidson and Reginald Passmore
> >observed in their textbook Human Nutrition and Dietetics (1963).
> >
> >p.194
> >Anything that raises blood sugar - in particular, the consumption of
> >refined and easily digestible carbohydrates -
>
> For that matter in general, especially for timeframe more than a couple
> to a few hours, anything that has calories -
It's the insulin spike from the carbs.
>
> > - will increase the
> >generation of oxidants and free radicals; it will increase the rate of
> >oxidative stress and glycation,and the formation and accumulation of
> >advanced glycation end products. This means that anything that raises
> >blood sugar, by the logic of the carbohydrate hypothesis, will lead to
> >more atherosclerosis and heart disease, more vascular disorders, and a
> >pace of accelerated degeneration, even in those of us who never become
> >diabetic.
>
> While that neglects or attempts to ignore role of fats in formation of
> arterial plaque.
We normally talk about LDL, and HDLs, but there is also Very Low Density
Lipids (VLDL) which mostly transport triglycerides, and are very small
and have an easier time adhering to the walls of arteries than the
balloon like LDLs. Our bodies need cholesterol as a precursor to vitamin
D. The brain represents only about 2 percent of your body weight, but
actually has about 20 percent of your body's cholesterol. There is
strong evidence that cholesterol is important for synaptic function and
is an essential component of cell membranes in the brain.
>
> And, what does that have to do with polyunsaturated being or not being a
> "bad" kind of fat?
>
> <I snip from here mostly a link to where to buy a book by someone who
> wants to sell books, and somewhat poorly formatted for citation due to a
> bit that comes up as gibberish in old-farters' newsreaders>
The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith
(Paperback - May 1, 2009)
<http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/160
4860804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281371938&sr=1-1>
If you had any sense, you would realize that these books are available
FREE from your local library.
I think I've answered all the questions from you as I care to.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Billy
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
You know about phytoplankton? Phytoplankton that contribute half of the
worlds oxygen?
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1298596/Massive-40-declin
e-oceans-phytoplankton-puts-entire-food-chain-threat.html>
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38451744/ns/us_news-environment>
You really should shove that rock off of you, and join the world.
None is so blind as he who will not see.
Bill who putters
<wildbilly-A3F71...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Billy <wild...@withouta.net> wrote:
> If you had any sense, you would realize that these books are available
> FREE from your local library.
>
> I think I've answered all the questions from you as I care to.
> >
> > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Free books are wonderful but some like Taubes and other's of similar
import require me to write all over them. I can only recall 5% of what
I read on a good day.
On the other hand I have an extensive library that no looks at but me.
Rock and A hard place comes to mind. Wonder if my books are doomed to a
yard sale...perhaps giving them away to a library now is intelligent.
But who wants books from 1950 ?
Billy
Everything has a lifetime. Gotta get outta the way for the new or
everything would come to a stop.
Bill who putters
<wildbilly-A405B...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Billy <wild...@withouta.net> wrote:
> In article <b2forewagner-3A31...@news.supernews.com>,
> Bill who putters <b2fore...@snip.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <wildbilly-A3F71...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> > Billy <wild...@withouta.net> wrote:
> >
> > > If you had any sense, you would realize that these books are available
> > > FREE from your local library.
> > >
> > > I think I've answered all the questions from you as I care to.
> > > >
> > > > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
> >
> > Free books are wonderful but some like Taubes and other's of similar
> > import require me to write all over them. I can only recall 5% of what
> > I read on a good day.
> > On the other hand I have an extensive library that no looks at but me.
> > Rock and A hard place comes to mind. Wonder if my books are doomed to a
> > yard sale...perhaps giving them away to a library now is intelligent.
> > But who wants books from 1950 ?
>
> Everything has a lifetime. Gotta get outta the way for the new or
> everything would come to a stop.
Some old stuff resonates with value and potential for growth. I think
of traditional slash and burn and our interest in charcoal. Also
wonder if the old was side stepped as it was not a money maker.
Anyway. I do the short form here is the long. Old fart stuff usually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUQSQi5xFSM&NR=1
Rod Speed
That last is a bare faced lie, most obviously with mediteranean cultures.
> The gist is that agriculture, eating grains (carbohydrates), is the
> biggest change in the human diet in the last 2,000,000 years, and
> most of the medical problems of western culture stem from insulin
> rushes caused by the sugar, refined, and in the starches of grains.
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim with any rigorous science.
> The definitive book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and
> the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" (Vintage) by Gary Taubes
> <http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033
> 462/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281329439&sr=1-1>
Just because someone claims something doesnt make it gospel.
> p. 15
> The incidence and severity atherosclerosis are not directly
> affected by the level of cholesterol in the blood serum per se.
Easy to claim. Pity he cant actually substantiate that claim with any rigorous science.
> p. 96
> White flour's low protein, vitamins, and mineral content made it
> "less liable than whole meal flour to infestations by beetles and the
> depredations of rodents", as Sir Stanley Davidson and Reginald
> Passmore observed in their textbook Human Nutrition and Dietetics
> (1963).
Irrelevant to what is better human health wise.
> p.194
> Anything that raises blood sugar - in particular, the consumption
> of refined and easily digestible carbohydrates - will increase the
> generation of oxidants and free radicals;
Easy to claim. Pity he cant actually substantiate that claim with any rigorous science.
> it will increase the rate of oxidative stress and glycation,and the
> formation and accumulation of advanced glycation end products.
Easy to claim. Pity he cant actually substantiate that claim with any rigorous science.
> This means that anything that raises blood sugar, by the logic of the carbohydrate
> hypothesis, will lead to more atherosclerosis and heart disease, more vascular disorders,
> and a pace of accelerated degeneration, even in those of us who never become diabetic.
Easy to claim. Pity he cant actually substantiate that claim with any rigorous science.
> -----
> Much easier to read is
> "The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability" by Lierre Keith
> <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_19?url=search-alias%3Dstripbook
> s&field-keywords=the+vegetarian+myth+by+lierre+keith&sprefix=The+Vegetari
> an+Myth&ih=16_1_1_0_0_0_0_0_0_2.144_306&fsc=18>
Just because someone claims something doesnt make it gospel.
Rod Speed
That wasnt due to the higher CO2 levels tho.
>> Yes, but the earth clearly managed fine with those much higher CO2 levels.
> Yes, this planet has managed to cope with events that fell short of outright blowing it up.
In fact it did a hell of a lot better vegetation wise in those times.
> As for a recently-dominating species that implemented
> industrialization that is mostly in the past couple centuries of a
> 4-plus billion year old planet known to harbor life forms including
> intelligent ones, I see a different problem: Avoid changing sea
> level by so much as 1 meter from what industrial coastal cities are
> accustomed to.
You havent established that there will be any man made sea level change of anything like that.
And Holland manages to handle sea levels like that anyway.
Higgs Boson
> "Slim" <ric.dun...@verizon.net> wrote in message
I wonder if he saw my post about the Marshall Institute, a shill for
the extractive industries and other corporate criminals.
They field whore *scientists who are well paid to instill doubt into
the public mind about global warming. They did this successfully
also about DDT, acid rain, the danger of tobacco, and other matters of
public policy.
*apologies to honest sex workers.
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 08/08/10 06:57, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>>> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>>
>>> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
>>> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>>>
>>> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
>>> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
>>> or that they have their own readings.
>>>
>>> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a striking
>>> ignorance about the subject.
>>
>> No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
>> analyzed the data and found it wanting.
>
> Well?
>
> Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Believe what you will. At least I have some rationality behind my belief.
>> And fix your spellchecker.
>
> Aggh! It was turned off.
Even worse -- you actually need one :-(
--
Cheers, Bev
*****************************************************************
"...and then I'll become a veterinarian because I love children."
-- Julie Brown
FarmI
> On 08/09/10 09:24, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 08/08/10 06:57, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
>>>> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>>>>
>>>> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
>>>> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
>>>> or that they have their own readings.
>>>>
>>>> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a striking
>>>> ignorance about the subject.
>>>
>>> No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
>>> analyzed the data and found it wanting.
>>
>> Well?
>>
>> Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
>
> Believe what you will. At least I have some rationality behind my belief.
What rot. You believe what else tells you. And yet you have tell David
(who many of us would know has done a lot of reading on this very subject)
to analyse the data. I'm sure I'm ot the only one who finds that highly
amusing.
David Hare-Scott
>
>>> And fix your spellchecker.
>>
>> Aggh! It was turned off.
>
> Even worse -- you actually need one :-(
Oh no the dreaded rebuttal by spelling error! Not Once But Twice! Can't
top that, you win the day, the glaciers are freezing.
D
Billy
I really don't have time for all the stuff you find for us to watch, but
this is good ;O)
des...@verizon.net
> On 08/09/10 09:24, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 08/08/10 06:57, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
>>>> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>>>>
>>>> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
>>>> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
>>>> or that they have their own readings.
>>>>
>>>> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a striking
>>>> ignorance about the subject.
>>>
>>> No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
>>> analyzed the data and found it wanting.
>>
>> Well?
>>
>> Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
>
> Believe what you will. At least I have some rationality behind my belief.
All that you've revealed is belief.
>>> And fix your spellchecker.
>>
>> Aggh! It was turned off.
>
> Even worse -- you actually need one :-(
Saw the error after hitting send.
Sue me.