OT: AGW - to what depths will those crooks sink?
Rich Grise
you heard about Climategate?"
Just to check and see how popular it is, I did a quick google and Yikes!
http://www.google.com/search?q=clmategate
"about 28,600,000" hits!
This is possibly the most egregious:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100013199/governments-6-million-bedtime-story-climate-change-ad-biggest-waste-of-taxpayers-money/
They're adopting the propaganda tactics of the Church of Antismokerism,
to wit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
(just label the boogeyman from the above ad, "second-hand smoke.")
For the record, I'd like to challenge any antismokerist to take the Garage
Test: You fill up your gas tank and park in the garage, I'll buy a couple
of cartons of cigarettes and sit in an equivalent garage. Close all the
doors and windows, and seal the air leaks. You start your car, and I'll
start smoking. When either your car runs out of gasoline, or I run out of
cigarettes (whichever comes first), we'll both come out and report on our
results.
Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
John Devereux
How is that different from "I'll shoot you through the head, and start
smoking at the same time. We see who dies first."
> Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
What kind of brain-dead "argument" is that? Smoking two packs of
cigarettes is less dangerous than breathing an oxygen-free atmosphere
with carbon monoxide?
I don't have the time to go deeply enough into AGW to have an
independently informed opinion. What I do note is that it is the
"supporters" that tend keep coming back with numbers, detailed evidence,
rational arguments. And it is the "deniers" who tend to keep coming back
with nothing but name calling and the same empty arguments - the same
ones refuted here again and again.
--
John Devereux
Existential Angst
news:pan.2009.12.04....@example.net...
I'm not a smoker, and don't like second-hand smoke (see philosophy below),
but I am truly amazed at the momentum and ferocity of the anti-smoking
campaign. I never thought it would take off like that.
Here in Westchester, NY, non-smoking rental tenants have some recourse
against smoking tenants AND the landlord!!
In NYC in general, it is fairly difficult to smoke *anywhere* except mebbe
in yer car!
How this was pulled off is beyond me, but whoever masterminded this was a PR
artiste.
I only wish the bureaucrats would take gratuitous *noise* as seriously as
effing cig smoke.
I have always wondered about those 2nd-hand smoke stats, and indeed, they
smack of bureaucratic alarmism, climategate, etc.
As far as climategate goes, I haven't read the money-trail thing yet, but
any "economic perturbation" makes some people rich, and others more
miserable and more broke.
I would like to see a simple experiment done:
Take, say, a biosphere, irradiate with sunlight, measure the equilibrium
temp.
Increase the CO2 by X percent, re-take the temp.
Then extrapyoolate.
I have never heard of any citation of this.
Ackshooly, a g-d Erlenmeyer flask, with a series of CO2 concentrations from
0 to 100% would provide catch-all data. Sheeit, even at 100% CO2, it's not
like the earth will burn up!
Me, I'm on the fence about global warming.
But sheeit, it's December 4th here in NYC, and it's been pert near fukn 60
degrees for the past 2 months.
In 1970, by Sept. 30 I was freezing my goddamm skinny ass off.
Yeah, I know, two issues: 1. IS there in fact global warming, and 2. If
there is, what is the cause(s)?
Bottom line:
We got 6,000,000,000+ oblivious narcissistic muthafuckas on this planet,
pissing and shitting all over the effing place.
You wanna save the earth?
Eliminate 5,400,000,000 of them. Dats right, 600,000,000 people left, 1/10
the current population.
And hopefully none of the remaining will be rappers, lawyers, sports
figures, or celebrities. Heh, heaven on earth, eh?
--
EA,
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
>
Too_Many_Tools
> The 6th is my brother's B-day, so I emailed him; I casually asked, "Have
> you heard about Climategate?"
>
> "about 28,600,000" hits!
>
> This is possibly the most egregious:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100013199/governmen...
>
> They're adopting the propaganda tactics of the Church of Antismokerism,
> to wit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
>
> (just label the boogeyman from the above ad, "second-hand smoke.")
>
> For the record, I'd like to challenge any antismokerist to take the Garage
> Test: You fill up your gas tank and park in the garage, I'll buy a couple
> of cartons of cigarettes and sit in an equivalent garage. Close all the
> doors and windows, and seal the air leaks. You start your car, and I'll
> start smoking. When either your car runs out of gasoline, or I run out of
> cigarettes (whichever comes first), we'll both come out and report on our
> results.
>
> Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
Idiot.
It is a shame that I have to share a planet with you and your kind.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> writes:
> > The 6th is my brother's B-day, so I emailed him; I casually asked, "Have
> > you heard about Climategate?"
>
> > Just to check and see how popular it is, I did a quick google and Yikes!
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=clmategate
> > "about 28,600,000" hits!
>
> > This is possibly the most egregious:
>
> > They're adopting the propaganda tactics of the Church of Antismokerism,
> > to wit:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
>
> > (just label the boogeyman from the above ad, "second-hand smoke.")
>
> > For the record, I'd like to challenge any antismokerist to take the Garage
> > Test: You fill up your gas tank and park in the garage, I'll buy a couple
> > of cartons of cigarettes and sit in an equivalent garage. Close all the
> > doors and windows, and seal the air leaks. You start your car, and I'll
> > start smoking. When either your car runs out of gasoline, or I run out of
> > cigarettes (whichever comes first), we'll both come out and report on our
> > results.
>
> How is that different from "I'll shoot you through the head, and start
> smoking at the same time. We see who dies first."
>
> > Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
>
> What kind of brain-dead "argument" is that? Smoking two packs of
> cigarettes is less dangerous than breathing an oxygen-free atmosphere
> with carbon monoxide?
>
> I don't have the time to go deeply enough into AGW to have an
> independently informed opinion. What I do note is that it is the
> "supporters" that tend keep coming back with numbers, detailed evidence,
> rational arguments. And it is the "deniers" who tend to keep coming back
> with nothing but name calling and the same empty arguments - the same
> ones refuted here again and again.
>
> --
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I note that trend too.
It is telltale sign of the "deniers" have nothing.
TMT
RBnDFW
> I would like to see a simple experiment done:
> Take, say, a biosphere, irradiate with sunlight, measure the equilibrium
> temp.
> Increase the CO2 by X percent, re-take the temp.
> Then extrapyoolate.
There's a perfectly good biosphere in Arizona, sitting idle, would be
perfect for this. No takers.
> Bottom line:
>
> We got 6,000,000,000+ oblivious narcissistic muthafuckas on this planet,
> pissing and shitting all over the effing place.
> You wanna save the earth?
> Eliminate 5,400,000,000 of them. Dats right, 600,000,000 people left, 1/10
> the current population.
> And hopefully none of the remaining will be rappers, lawyers, sports
> figures, or celebrities. Heh, heaven on earth, eh?
Per Gunner, this process begins within the next 3 years.
Too_Many_Tools
Gunner has realized that the Republicans will lose the next
Presidental elections unless something drastic happens to eliminate
the opponents of the Republicans.
Meanwhile we are seeing the Republican Culling occurring before our
eyes.
TMT
John Larkin
wrote:
The difference of course is that I'm unlikely to die from car exhaust
in my garage, but you have a 1/3 or so chance of dying from smoking.
And I'd much rather die painlessly in a few minutes than spend a year
or two watching cancer and surgeons tear my body apart. I've seen that
happen and it's horrible.
>
>Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
>
>Cheers!
>Rich
I've lost three people that mattered to me to lung cancer, two uncles
and my best friend. All three smoked. I know one guy who is
permanently disabled from emphysema; he smoked heavily. I don't know
any non-smokers who got lung cancer or emphysema.
And cigarettes stink. They'll rot your teeth, too. I rather like my
teeth.
John
John Larkin
I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill.
Three weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
John
Joerg
[...]
> I've lost three people that mattered to me to lung cancer, two uncles
> and my best friend. All three smoked. I know one guy who is
> permanently disabled from emphysema; he smoked heavily. I don't know
> any non-smokers who got lung cancer or emphysema.
>
I do. Or I should say, did :-(
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
John Devereux
> Existential Angst wrote:
>
>> I would like to see a simple experiment done:
>> Take, say, a biosphere, irradiate with sunlight, measure the
>> equilibrium temp.
>> Increase the CO2 by X percent, re-take the temp.
>> Then extrapyoolate.
>
> There's a perfectly good biosphere in Arizona, sitting idle, would be
> perfect for this. No takers.
It may not be that easy. As I understand it, the (mis-named) "greenhouse
effect" is caused by adsorption of IR radiation from the ground that
would normally escape into space, and is instead re-radiated downwards.
The actual atmosphere is many km thick rather than a few meters. So your
proposed experiment should work in principle but it could turn out to be
a very small effect at that scale - perhaps overwhelmed by uncontrolled
factors. A controlled lab experiment that can be isolated from winds
would likely be better (and perhaps has been done, I am not an
expert). But the spectrum of the sun and the spectral
absorption/emissions of gases are extremely well characterised, it is
not clear what would be gained here.
--
John Devereux
Existential Angst
> you heard about Climategate?"
>
> Just to check and see how popular it is, I did a quick google and Yikes!
> http://www.google.com/search?q=clmategate
> "about 28,600,000" hits!
>
> This is possibly the most egregious:
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100013199/governments-6-million-bedtime-story-climate-change-ad-biggest-waste-of-taxpayers-money/
>
> They're adopting the propaganda tactics of the Church of Antismokerism,
> to wit:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
>
> (just label the boogeyman from the above ad, "second-hand smoke.")
Big Lies are inneresting, and I think the concept is valid.
But in the longterm, you really don't need Big Lies, you just need zillions
of Little Lies, so that The Truth is like a needle in a haystack. Or
worser, one sharp needle amidst mountains of dull needles. Then you cain't
even use a magnet. :)
The key being, that The Truth share the statistical marketplace with The
Bullshit.
Which means, if you throw a dart at an Informational Dartboard, you'll have
mebbe a 0.00000001% chance of hitting A Truth.
Which is what keeps us perpetually running on that economic rat exercise
wheel.
And google/internet is just another way of throwing the darts, just another
canvas filled with more bullshit.
Which means for 99.999999% of the Pubic, decisions are based not on
rationale, logic, meaningful research, or even commen sense, but Spin.
And Spin costs boucou money, and allows the Giants to keep bullshitting away
in a pre-arranged pre-choreographed competition with each other, with
impunity.
Once The Truth is known, it becomes like an economic tsunami, sweeping away
bullshit like straw huts.
For example, if you knew the biology of hair, you would dispense a universe
of bullshit hair care products, and wash yer hair in dishwashing liquid --
in principle.
If you knew the truth about fitness, *every equipment mfr/guru in the world
would go bankrupt* -- well, except me, of course. And mebbe Leonard
Schwartz, and Ken Cooper.
If we were truly privvy to performance tests among appliances, there would
be hand-fuls of appliances to choose from, instead of oceans.
Lies/MisInformation are literally what keep our economy running. If we were
to all wake up one day, there would be world-wide economic collapse, and a
necessary restructuring of society.
And perhaps the elimination of 5,400,000,000 assholes.
So yeah, Big Lies are magnificent/impressive/remarkable in their own right,
but it's the cumulative effect of all the Small Lies that carries the
long-term impact.
Like radiation and pollution. Heh, like second-hand smoke. :)
So yeah, The Truth is out there, and you know what? The BullShitters don't
really care, because 99.999999% of the Pubic won't recognize The Truth if
they trip over it, or appreciate it if they do recognize it.
It's really quite brilliant.
Small case in point:
WD40 outsells Kroil/PB Blaster combined by proly a factor of 100,000 : 1.
--
EA
Existential Angst
news:87zl5yy...@devereux.me.uk...
Beautiful!!
An untestable hypothesis, then!!
Untestable hypotheses are what make Merka great!
--
EA
>
> --
>
> John Devereux
Existential Angst
news:4b196aba$0$22517$607e...@cv.net...
Still, it would be nice to see what happens in a controlled biosphere, just
as a reference point.
Surely some sort of scale could be created.
--
EA
Raveninghorde
<jo...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
SNIP
>
>I don't have the time to go deeply enough into AGW to have an
>independently informed opinion. What I do note is that it is the
>"supporters" that tend keep coming back with numbers, detailed evidence,
>rational arguments. And it is the "deniers" who tend to keep coming back
>with nothing but name calling and the same empty arguments - the same
>ones refuted here again and again.
You obviously don't read SED.
570+ posts in ping bil slowman and half of them are Slowman calling
all non believers various forms of idiots.
John Fields
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
---
You don't have to. ;)
JF
Rich Grise
> "Rich Grise" <rich...@example.net> wrote in message
> I'm not a smoker, and don't like second-hand smoke (see philosophy below),
> but I am truly amazed at the momentum and ferocity of the anti-smoking
> campaign. I never thought it would take off like that. Here in
> Westchester, NY, non-smoking rental tenants have some recourse against
> smoking tenants AND the landlord!!
>
> In NYC in general, it is fairly difficult to smoke *anywhere* except mebbe
> in yer car!
> How this was pulled off is beyond me, but whoever masterminded this was a
> PR artiste.
>
I was a paralegal assistant (document coder) during the big money grab
lawsuit-fest back in the '80s or '90s, and read hundreds, if not thousands
of documents, from both sides, so I know these facts to be true. I think
my NDA was only for 7 years, so this should be OK to reveal them:
Henry Waxman was the Al Gore of antismokerism. The EPA _VIOLATED THEIR
OWN RULES_ just to "show a statistical correlation". The official sigma
was five percent, for the antismokerism crusade they loosened that to ten!
I've also read a couple of other studies that showed that when personality
type is used as a criterion, the type A personalities (rigid,
authoritarian, no lips, inability to express emotion) had overwhelmingly
more cancer in general than type B (plain ol' joe next door, does his job,
loves his wife and kids and isn't afraid to say so - you know, most
people) and type C (artsy-fartsy, head in the clouds, dreamers) PUT
TOGETHER, and the incidence of smoking was below the noise level.
This study got buried, or either since it was actual science, it had
big words and so was incomprehensible to the typical cherry-picked juror.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Rich Grise
> For example, if you knew the biology of hair, you would dispense a
> universe of bullshit hair care products, and wash yer hair in dishwashing
> liquid -- in principle.
I do this routinely. It's WAY cheaper than shampoo. Another product that
works like a dream is liquid hand soap with lanolin in it. I refuse to use
that crap on my hands - I hate having my hands greasier after I wash them
than they were before - but it makes hair look like that "Don't hate me
because I'm beautiful" commercial. ;-)
P.S. I haven't had a haircut since the 1980s - it gets about a third of
the way down my back (about shoulder-blade level) and stops by itself.
("Gimme a head with hair, long beautiful hair...")
http://janfox.com/sixties_live_lyrics.htm#%22Hair%22
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> Rich Grise <rich...@example.net> writes:
>>
>> For the record, I'd like to challenge any antismokerist to take the
>> Garage Test: You fill up your gas tank and park in the garage, I'll buy
>> a couple of cartons of cigarettes and sit in an equivalent garage. Close
>> all the doors and windows, and seal the air leaks. You start your car,
>> and I'll start smoking. When either your car runs out of gasoline, or I
>> run out of cigarettes (whichever comes first), we'll both come out and
>> report on our results.
>
> How is that different from "I'll shoot you through the head, and start
> smoking at the same time. We see who dies first."
>
>> Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
>
> What kind of brain-dead "argument" is that? Smoking two packs of
> cigarettes is less dangerous than breathing an oxygen-free atmosphere with
> carbon monoxide?
>
(which people, including antismokerists, pollute our air with in
megaton quantities), will kill you outright.
So, if you drive a car, you have no right to bitch about my smoking.
But, like in all other religious cults (like warmingism), faith is
impervious to facts.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill. Three
> weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
>
Problem is, they don't.
A little inconvenient fact that the Church of Antismokerism has hidden
from public view.
Or do you think that nonsmokers are immortal?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
> John Larkin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I've lost three people that mattered to me to lung cancer, two uncles
>> and my best friend. All three smoked. I know one guy who is permanently
>> disabled from emphysema; he smoked heavily. I don't know any non-smokers
>> who got lung cancer or emphysema.
>>
> I do. Or I should say, did :-(
My Dad quit smoking about 50 years ago, at age 40 or so. And you know
what? He died anyway.
Antismoking does NOT confer immortality, contrary to what is apparently
popular opinion.
Cheers!
Rich
Steve W.
> The difference of course is that I'm unlikely to die from car exhaust
> in my garage, but you have a 1/3 or so chance of dying from smoking.
All I can say is you had better hope that he's a chain smoker. In a
sealed one car garage with an idling car you will have about 12 minutes
before the CO level is high enough to start causing problems. After that
you had better hope that your local hospital has a hyperbaric chamber to
drive the CO off of the red cells in your blood.
I've been around more than a few CO poisonings. They are NOT pretty.
>
> And I'd much rather die painlessly in a few minutes than spend a year
> or two watching cancer and surgeons tear my body apart. I've seen that
> happen and it's horrible.
True, cancer sucks. Lung cancer is VERY high on my Moms side and
Prostate and Liver cancer on my Dads side. So far I'm clear but....
>
>> Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Rich
>
> I've lost three people that mattered to me to lung cancer, two uncles
> and my best friend. All three smoked. I know one guy who is
> permanently disabled from emphysema; he smoked heavily. I don't know
> any non-smokers who got lung cancer or emphysema.
I know of many more than one and have been around many more.
>
> And cigarettes stink. They'll rot your teeth, too. I rather like my
> teeth.
>
> John
>
--
Steve W.
Rich Grise
> John Larkin wrote:
>> The difference of course is that I'm unlikely to die from car exhaust in
>> my garage, but you have a 1/3 or so chance of dying from smoking.
>
> All I can say is you had better hope that he's a chain smoker.
Nah - tried it once, and couldn't keep the damn things lit!
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> and Liver cancer on my Dads side. So far I'm clear but....
>
Thanks!
Rich
John Devereux
That seems unfair... You could say that the theory that the moon goes
round the earth because of gravity is "untestable". You can't vary the
mass of the earth enough to make an observable difference. But you can
make observations, and small scale lab experiments, derive Newtons laws
etc. Probably a poor analogy but I expect you know what I mean. These
days one is allowed to assert that the laws of physics are the same in
the world as they are in the lab.
>> Untestable hypotheses are what make Merka great!
> Still, it would be nice to see what happens in a controlled biosphere, just
> as a reference point.
> Surely some sort of scale could be created.
Sure, it could well be that a controlled experiment would in fact work,
I don't really know the numbers.
But it is not really neccessary, I don't think the basic physics is at
all in dispute. You can see the same sort of effect directly yourself;
for example it tends not to be so cold on cloudy nights because the
clouds reduce the net radiation into space from the ground. A similar
effect occurs with CO2. The absorption/emission profile of CO2 has been
measured and so has the amount in the air.
--
John Devereux
John Devereux
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:04:48 +0000, John Devereux wrote:
>> Rich Grise <rich...@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>> For the record, I'd like to challenge any antismokerist to take the
>>> Garage Test: You fill up your gas tank and park in the garage, I'll buy
>>> a couple of cartons of cigarettes and sit in an equivalent garage. Close
>>> all the doors and windows, and seal the air leaks. You start your car,
>>> and I'll start smoking. When either your car runs out of gasoline, or I
>>> run out of cigarettes (whichever comes first), we'll both come out and
>>> report on our results.
>>
>> How is that different from "I'll shoot you through the head, and start
>> smoking at the same time. We see who dies first."
>>
>>> Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
>>
>> What kind of brain-dead "argument" is that? Smoking two packs of
>> cigarettes is less dangerous than breathing an oxygen-free atmosphere with
>> carbon monoxide?
>>
> The point is, second-hand cigarette smoke is harmless
You think *first hand* cigarette smoke is harmless IIRC.
>, while car exhaust
> (which people, including antismokerists, pollute our air with in
> megaton quantities), will kill you outright.
Smoking, driving a car or burning fuel can all be viewed as producing
"second hand smoke". All can be bad for yourself or others to varying
degrees depending on exposure. You would likely only produce
statistically significant effects for chronic exposure. Like working in
a bar, or living in a hut with a wood fire. The anti-smoking laws are
mainly to protect such workers AIUI. I am actually "philosophically"
against them too.
But I have to say it is nice to get back from the pub without having to
dump *every* item of clothing into the wash and shower all the crap out
of my hair!
> So, if you drive a car, you have no right to bitch about my smoking.
I don't care about your smoking!
> But, like in all other religious cults (like warmingism), faith is
> impervious to facts.
--
John Devereux
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:04:48 +0000, John Devereux wrote:
> > Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> writes:
>
> >> For the record, I'd like to challenge any antismokerist to take the
> >> Garage Test: You fill up your gas tank and park in the garage, I'll buy
> >> a couple of cartons of cigarettes and sit in an equivalent garage. Close
> >> all the doors and windows, and seal the air leaks. You start your car,
> >> and I'll start smoking. When either your car runs out of gasoline, or I
> >> run out of cigarettes (whichever comes first), we'll both come out and
> >> report on our results.
>
> > How is that different from "I'll shoot you through the head, and start
> > smoking at the same time. We see who dies first."
>
> >> Interestingly, I haven't had any takers yet. ;-)
>
> > What kind of brain-dead "argument" is that? Smoking two packs of
> > cigarettes is less dangerous than breathing an oxygen-free atmosphere with
> > carbon monoxide?
>
> The point is, second-hand cigarette smoke is harmless, while car exhaust
> (which people, including antismokerists, pollute our air with in
> megaton quantities), will kill you outright.
Here's Rich demonstrating that he can't do joined up logic.
The undeniable fact that smoking doesn't kill you immediately doesn't
make it harmless.
Smoking takes years to damage your health - unless you have a tendency
to chronic bronchitis, in which case 18 months of smoking can be
enough to permantly wreck your lungs, and even then emphysema usually
take a few decades to kill you.
> So, if you drive a car, you have no right to bitch about my smoking.
Bad logic. If you aren't exposed to almost enough carbon monoxide to
kill you, the chances are that you will recover without permanent
damage. The damage from exposure to second hand smoke does seem to
accumulate.
> But, like in all other religious cults (like warmingism), faith is
> impervious to facts.
If only Rich could get his "facts" right.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:04:48 +0000, John Devereux
>
Ravinghorde has a funny point of view. My main mode of response to non-
believers is to point out that they have got their facts wrong. This
isn't actually calling them idiots, though getting your facts wrong
does make you look a bit dim.
Ravinghorde himself doesn't actually get his facts wrong - he just
fails to understand what they mean.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> I've also read a couple of other studies that showed that when personality
> type is used as a criterion, the type A personalities (rigid,
> authoritarian, no lips, inability to express emotion) had overwhelmingly
> more cancer in general than type B (plain ol' joe next door, does his job,
> loves his wife and kids and isn't afraid to say so - you know, most
> people) and type C (artsy-fartsy, head in the clouds, dreamers) PUT
> TOGETHER, and the incidence of smoking was below the noise level.
>
> This study got buried, or either since it was actual science, it had
> big words and so was incomprehensible to the typical cherry-picked juror.
>
That study might be very interesting if you can find it, both for the
epidemiology and for the A/B/C binning technique.
jsw
pyotr filipivich
about Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:23:35 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
They would like to believe so.
It's an amusing image, them laying in a hospital bed, dieing of
nothing.
If you don't want to die from a heart attack, stroke or cancer,
your options are debilitation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Bill Sloman
Susceptibility is hereditary - or at least there are genetic
abnormalities that are associated with a greater risk of lung cancer
and other cancers.
Generally this is because one of the mechanisms that normally protects
the body from cancer cells doesn't work right.
People who don't have these known genetic abnormalities still get
cancer, albeit less often.
Smoking increases the number of cells that turn cancerous in the first
place, so it is a bad idea in general, and an even worse idea if you
happen to be susceptible.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
Explain this.
Link 1 has a graph of US temps from 1902 to 1949 published in 1950.
Link 2 is source of US temp data
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
Link 3 is a plot of the 10 year moving average from link 2 to compare
with the graph in link 1
http://www.zen88234.zen.co.uk/ustemp/ustemp1.png
The 1950 graph shows a temp range from 52.6F to 53.8F
My graph shows a temp range from 52F to 53.4F.
So looking at the min and max of data downloaded today shows the 1920s
to 1940s 0.5F cooler than they thought at the time. The shapes aren't
identical either.
As I fail to understand what the facts mean perhaps you can explain?
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
> "Existential Angst" <UNfit...@UNoptonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b196aba$0$22517$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Devereux" <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote in message
> >news:87zl5yy...@devereux.me.uk...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So what is stopping the "deniers" from running a controlled
experiment?
Maybe skipping science class in school is catching up to them?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean that you and your kind will be leaving when the Rapture
happens.
How do you know that it didn't already happen?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:14:09 -0500, Existential Angst wrote:
Liar.
You were a paper filer...only a paper filer.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got proof?
TMT
John Larkin
My friend was Ashkenazi Jewish and likely had the bad brac gene. There
were a lot of cancers in her family. She smoked in her 20s, quit
before 30, and died of lung cancer before 40.
John
Bill Sloman
The first set of data is taken from Popular Mechanics in 1950, when
the graph would have been prepared by hand from tabulated data.
The second set of data is modern and comes from the US National
Climatic Data Centre, and presumably has had the benefit of more
thorough error checking, and less opportunity for human error to
introduce distortions.
If you wanted to get to the bottom of the difference, you'd have to do
an item-by-item comparison. The original 1950 data was probably stored
on Hollerith cards at some point, and images of that data could well
be accessible if you ask nicely.
The US National Climate Centre presumably has been asked this question
before, and may well have a canned answer.
Granting your enthusiasm for daft conspiracy theories, you are
unlikely to trust their answer, but that's your problem.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Hawke
>> I don't have the time to go deeply enough into AGW to have an
>> independently informed opinion. What I do note is that it is the
>> "supporters" that tend keep coming back with numbers, detailed evidence,
>> rational arguments. And it is the "deniers" who tend to keep coming back
>> with nothing but name calling and the same empty arguments - the same
>> ones refuted here again and again.
>>
>>
>> John Devereux- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> It is telltale sign of the "deniers" have nothing.
>
> TMT
They're also denying the decades of data climate scientists have
collected showing global warming was happening. What is interesting is
the side saying there is global warming only bases this on
scientifically collected and analyzed data over many years of
observations. None of them started out with bias one way or another on
the subject. It was just that when fact after fact kept piling up that
the true scientists said this is something real. It's definitely getting
hotter around here.
The deniers have a bias. The main anti global warming side is full of
businessmen who operate coal, oil, and other heavy industries that
produce the majority of the gases responsible for the warming of the
planet. If it is a proven fact that man is making the planet hotter then
those doing the polluting are going to feel the pain when we make them
stop what they have done for 100 years. In other words, it threatens
their profits, their businesses, and their power. So they have put on a
campaign, much like tobacco did, to muddy the water and to question
whether the science was correct. This is what the organized anti global
warming forces are doing. The people who have bought into their argument
are just very easy to deceive. They are almost all conservatives who are
easy to manipulate into whatever the business community tells them.
Because or one or two British scientists may have been proven to have
put out false reports they say all of the research from decades in now
all worthless. That's utter nonsense.
Given where the two sides are coming from; one from science, and one
from endangered business interests, a reasonable person would
automatically question what the business interests are saying. After
all, if they are at fault it will cost them a lot of money. But since
right wingers are anything but reasonable you can count on them backing
whatever the corporate interests are saying. Just like they did when the
tobacco executives got up in front of Congress and claimed they did not
think tobacco was addictive. The same people who believed the tobacco
execs now believe the polluters. They never fail to fall for the same
line of bull that business interests are selling.
Hawke
Hawke
>>> --
>>> EA
>>>> --
>>>> John Devereux- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what is stopping the "deniers" from running a controlled
> experiment?
>
> Maybe skipping science class in school is catching up to them?
>
> TMT
Yeah, that and the fact that all they learned in school was business,
how to make, ship, and market products. None of that other stuff was of
any importance to them. After all, the only reason to go to school is to
learn how to make profits. At least them them. Now they find out there
are other things in life than business and they are completely
unprepared. Look at this topic. They all believe what the corporate
interests who produce the greenhouse gases tell them and deny what the
majority of climate scientists are saying. You've got to love it. They
never learned how to think critically. What ever authority they follow
they believe no matter how crazy. Tobacco, no that's harmless. Fossil
fuels, they cause no harm. Yeah. You ever wonder who they were talking
about when they said the Brooklyn Bridge was for sale? Now you know.
Hawke
anorton
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote in message
news:ur6jh5tnoscphtjgo...@4ax.com...
2 minutes of research reveals a likely explanation. See the top of the page
of your link #2:
"These data are primarily intended for the study of climate variability and
change. Whenever possible, observations have been adjusted to account for
the artificial effects introduced into the climate record by factors such as
instrument changes, station relocations, observer practice changes and
urbanization. As a result, some values available on this site differ from
the official observations."
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very well said.
TMT
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:08:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill. Three
>> weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
>>
>
>Problem is, they don't.
>
>A little inconvenient fact that the Church of Antismokerism has hidden
>from public view.
Any nonsoluble particulates that you dump into your lungs are bad.
Silica. Asbestos. Diesel fumes. Wood smoke. Tobacco smoke. Marijuana
smoke. All cause cancer.
John
Paul Keinanen
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>They're also denying the decades of data climate scientists have
>collected showing global warming was happening. What is interesting is
>the side saying there is global warming only bases this on
>scientifically collected and analyzed data over many years of
>observations. None of them started out with bias one way or another on
>the subject. It was just that when fact after fact kept piling up that
>the true scientists said this is something real. It's definitely getting
>hotter around here.
>
There are three kinds of people:
1.) The worldwide temperature is and has always been constant (at
least since the last Ice age).
2.) The temperature has always been varying (at least since the last
Ice age) and the human interaction has had some _unknown_ percentage
influence on it.
3.) All (100 %) the more or less reliably observed warming since 1850
are due to human emission of carbon into the atmosphere.
The problem with point 2.) (which I subscribe to) is to determine the
percentage.
Mann and his fellows (IPCC) tried to convince the world that no global
temperature change occurred between 1000 AD and 1850 and all the
measured temperature changes since 1850 are human made (i.e. point 3.
in my list).
In order to support point 3 that all observed changes are due to human
activities, one must prove that no _natural_ climate change would
occur in 1850-2010 to cause this change.
The easiest way to prove this is assuming that there were no global
temperature changes between 1000 and 1850 AD or -10,000 BC and 1850
AD.
Regardless how hard Mann et al. tried to convince that no changes
occurred, there are strong evidence to the opposite view.
Thus, it is very hard to measure the human effect due to human
activities.
Without a reliable (non IPPC/Mann) prof, I am not going to accept the
claims that human activity caused (100 %) the average temperature
change between 1850-2010.
Gunner Asch
All MAY cause cancer in those suspeptable to cancer.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
John Devereux
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:04:48 +0000, John Devereux
> <jo...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>
> SNIP
>
>>
>>I don't have the time to go deeply enough into AGW to have an
>>independently informed opinion. What I do note is that it is the
>>"supporters" that tend keep coming back with numbers, detailed evidence,
>>rational arguments. And it is the "deniers" who tend to keep coming back
>>with nothing but name calling and the same empty arguments - the same
>>ones refuted here again and again.
>
> You obviously don't read SED.
>
> 570+ posts in ping bil slowman and half of them are Slowman calling
> all non believers various forms of idiots.
Well I did say "tend". But even here his responses seem to be very mild
compared to the sustained campaign of abuse shown by the other side. And
they are *repsonses* it is the "deniers" that keep starting useless
threads with the likes of
"It's really cold in arizona today, so much for global warming"
Or cut and pastes from some denialist website.
--
John Devereux
John Devereux
I doubt this is true, see e,g,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
The graph for the last 2000 years is
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png>
There are large historical changes shown. A quick skimming of the recent
IPCC report mentions changes in solar and volcanic inputs. It does not
appear to be news to the IPCC that non man-made effects occur.
> In order to support point 3 that all observed changes are due to human
> activities, one must prove that no _natural_ climate change would
> occur in 1850-2010 to cause this change.
>
> The easiest way to prove this is assuming that there were no global
> temperature changes between 1000 and 1850 AD or -10,000 BC and 1850
> AD.
>
> Regardless how hard Mann et al. tried to convince that no changes
> occurred, there are strong evidence to the opposite view.
>
> Thus, it is very hard to measure the human effect due to human
> activities.
>
> Without a reliable (non IPPC/Mann) prof, I am not going to accept the
> claims that human activity caused (100 %) the average temperature
> change between 1850-2010.
Since the IPCC is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of
climatologists, you have set yourself a criteria impossible almost by
definition.
Science is not about "proof". But there appears to be a strong
prima-facie case - based on well established physics - that CO2 would be
expected to cause a temperature rise. There is strong historical
evidence that it has done so in the past (or amplified external
forcing). We know the concentration of CO2 is increasing rapidly and we
know we are burning lots of stuff. Any burden of "proof" is now on the
other side.
(If some non-anthropogenic factors have *also* increased warming if
anything this tends to *support* the argument for reducing our own
contributions. It means that we would have to try "extra hard" to limit
the temperature rise).
--
John Devereux
John Devereux
>>>> --
>>>> EA
>>>>> --
>>>>> John Devereux- Hide quoted text -
[...]
>>
>> So what is stopping the "deniers" from running a controlled
>> experiment?
>>
>> Maybe skipping science class in school is catching up to them?
>>
>> TMT
>
> Yeah, that and the fact that all they learned in school was business,
> how to make, ship, and market products. None of that other stuff was
> of any importance to them. After all, the only reason to go to school
> is to learn how to make profits. At least them them. Now they find out
> there are other things in life than business and they are completely
> unprepared. Look at this topic. They all believe what the corporate
> interests who produce the greenhouse gases tell them and deny what the
> majority of climate scientists are saying. You've got to love it. They
> never learned how to think critically. What ever authority they follow
> they believe no matter how crazy. Tobacco, no that's harmless. Fossil
> fuels, they cause no harm. Yeah. You ever wonder who they were talking
> about when they said the Brooklyn Bridge was for sale? Now you know.
It's the attitude "my opinion is just as good as anyone elses, and
better than most" that kind of bugs me. It *isn't*! Not about a highly
technical subject that you haven't spent the last couple of decades
personally researching.
--
John Devereux
Paul Keinanen
Why should I believe anything IPCC related prior to 1850 due to the
Climategate scandal ?
After the current hockey stick scam, it is extremely hard to believe
any IPCC claims for stable temperatures in the era 1-1850 without
_very_ strong proofs.
Raveninghorde
<ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote in message
>news:ur6jh5tnoscphtjgo...@4ax.com...
SNIP
>> Explain this.
>>
>> Link 1 has a graph of US temps from 1902 to 1949 published in 1950.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yawg4dm
>>
>> Link 2 is source of US temp data
>>
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
>>
>> Link 3 is a plot of the 10 year moving average from link 2 to compare
>> with the graph in link 1
>>
>> http://www.zen88234.zen.co.uk/ustemp/ustemp1.png
>>
>> The 1950 graph shows a temp range from 52.6F to 53.8F
>>
>> My graph shows a temp range from 52F to 53.4F.
>>
>> So looking at the min and max of data downloaded today shows the 1920s
>> to 1940s 0.5F cooler than they thought at the time. The shapes aren't
>> identical either.
>>
>> As I fail to understand what the facts mean perhaps you can explain?
>
>2 minutes of research reveals a likely explanation. See the top of the page
>of your link #2:
>
>"These data are primarily intended for the study of climate variability and
>change. Whenever possible, observations have been adjusted to account for
>the artificial effects introduced into the climate record by factors such as
>instrument changes, station relocations, observer practice changes and
>urbanization. As a result, some values available on this site differ from
>the official observations."
>
>
On the face of it that doesn't make sense.
1. Instrument changes - I've seen no sign that thermometers 60 years
ago had an average error of 0.5F.
2. Station relocations. That would lead to corrections in the later
data to compensate for the change of altitude or whatever. But across
the US one would expect this to average out.
3. Observer practice changes. I can't think of one that wouldn't
average out.
4. Urbanization. That would increase more recent temepratures which
should then be reduced to be comparable with earlier records.
If you check:
Modern measurements aren't particularly good.
Raveninghorde
<jo...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
You admit you haven't an independent opinion but then call people
denialist. Hardly a balanced position. So perhaps you can explain what
people are meant to be denying?
CO2 increase since WW2? No
CO2 being a GHG? No
Increase in temperature since the little ice age? No
I can't think of many people who would deny the historical record
although there are questions over the accuracy of some data.
What I question, or deny in the alarmist language, is that cause and
effect are proven, that modest warming is a bad thing, that increased
CO2 (plant food) is a bad thing, that it is worth spending money to
try and prevent an unproven hypothesis.
It is worth looking at:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Pro AGW climate scientists in their own words.
For example:
Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming
and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
Or look at a brief analysis of some code:
Raveninghorde
Here I disagree.
As far as I am concerned the burden of proof that the AGW camp has to
produce increases with the cost of implementing "corrective" actions.
A billion dollars is small change and the precautionary principle
applies. A hundred billion here and another hundred billion there and
you are soon talking real money and that needs more proof than
currently available.
Note that I believe there may be other reasons for reducing oil use
for example. If only there is no point wasting a limited resource. But
AGW does not, yet, warrant the proposed expenditure.
John Larkin
<gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:08:27 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:23:35 -0800, Rich Grise <rich...@example.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:08:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill. Three
>>>> weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Problem is, they don't.
>>>
>>>A little inconvenient fact that the Church of Antismokerism has hidden
>>>from public view.
>>
>>Any nonsoluble particulates that you dump into your lungs are bad.
>>Silica. Asbestos. Diesel fumes. Wood smoke. Tobacco smoke. Marijuana
>>smoke. All cause cancer.
>>
>>John
>
>
>All MAY cause cancer in those suspeptable to cancer.
Exectly. Everybody. Some more than others.
John
John Devereux
It supports your *own* contention, that there were indeed temperature
changes before 1850. You claimed that they were unaware of this, yet in
their own publications they show them. Believe their data or not, but
you cannot have it both ways.
That's your choice. But your original line of argument seems false.
--
John Devereux
Paul Keinanen
<jo...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
The IPCC reports would be much more believable, if the authors could
reliable describe why the holocene climatic optimum, the medieval warm
period or the little ice age occurred.
With reliable results, this would describe the natural changes today
and it would be easy to separate the natural and man(Mann)made
temperature changes from each other.
Personally, I have no problem in believing that the humans caused 1-99
% of the observed climate change, but unfortunately, the IPCC reports
did not reliably reduce that tolerance range, not at least after the
current scam.
John Devereux
It was just shorthand. Perhaps for "people who deny that anthropogenic
global warming is real"".
> CO2 increase since WW2? No
> CO2 being a GHG? No
> Increase in temperature since the little ice age? No
>
> I can't think of many people who would deny the historical record
> although there are questions over the accuracy of some data.
>
> What I question, or deny in the alarmist language, is that cause and
> effect are proven,
> that modest warming is a bad thing, that increased
> CO2 (plant food) is a bad thing, that it is worth spending money to
> try and prevent an unproven hypothesis.
>
> It is worth looking at:
>
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>
> Pro AGW climate scientists in their own words.
>
> For example:
>
> Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming
> and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
Real scientists engaged in healthy debate, trying to look at all sides?
The immediate reply appears to address that:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1051
(If you were unable to find such internal debates, no doubt you would
have criticised *that* as proof that they did not question their own
work...)
> Or look at a brief analysis of some code:
>
> http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/
--
John Devereux
John Devereux
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:36:46 +0000, John Devereux
> <jo...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi> writes:
>>
[...]
Most of the proposed measures seem fairly benign, and useful in their
own right as you point out. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, and it is too useful in plastics and chemical manufacturing to be
simply burnt. To me this reduces effective cost and hence the "burden of
proof" required. The oil will still be in the ground - and all the more
valuable for it - if it turns out to be wrong after all.
>>(If some non-anthropogenic factors have *also* increased warming if
>>anything this tends to *support* the argument for reducing our own
>>contributions. It means that we would have to try "extra hard" to limit
>>the temperature rise).
--
John Devereux
Gunner Asch
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:51:09 -0800, Gunner Asch
><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:08:27 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:23:35 -0800, Rich Grise <rich...@example.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:08:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill. Three
>>>>> weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Problem is, they don't.
>>>>
>>>>A little inconvenient fact that the Church of Antismokerism has hidden
>>>>from public view.
>>>
>>>Any nonsoluble particulates that you dump into your lungs are bad.
>>>Silica. Asbestos. Diesel fumes. Wood smoke. Tobacco smoke. Marijuana
>>>smoke. All cause cancer.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>
>>All MAY cause cancer in those suspeptable to cancer.
>
>Exectly. Everybody. Some more than others.
>
>John
As I said...it MAY cause cancer in those suseptable to cancer.
There are many millions of people in many industries which have high
risks, who never got cancer. And a smaller number who did.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>> Without a reliable (non IPPC/Mann) prof, I am not going to accept the
>> claims that human activity caused (100 %) the average temperature
>> change between 1850-2010.
>
>Since the IPCC is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of
>climatologists, you have set yourself a criteria impossible almost by
>definition.
So why is it so clear that the released emails all show rabid attempts
by the "climate scientists" to cover up any and all data that casts
doubt on their holy mantra?
John Devereux
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:36:46 +0000, John Devereux <jo...@devereux.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Without a reliable (non IPPC/Mann) prof, I am not going to accept the
>>> claims that human activity caused (100 %) the average temperature
>>> change between 1850-2010.
>>
>>Since the IPCC is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of
>>climatologists, you have set yourself a criteria impossible almost by
>>definition.
>
>
> So why is it so clear that the released emails all show rabid attempts
> by the "climate scientists" to cover up any and all data that casts
> doubt on their holy mantra?
Of course I have not been through them all, but I did not see anything
all that "incriminating" even in the cherry-picked selection posted
here. They're human. Disappointing but I suppose it's not really all
that surprising that trawling through 10 years of private mails yielded
a few "questionable" ones when seen out of context.
--
John Devereux
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>It was just shorthand. Perhaps for "people who deny that anthropogenic
>global warming is real"".
Because
1. its not real
2. Its nowhere close to being even suggested, based on data
3. Except by those who make money from it.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
From your evident point of view..nothing would point to :incriminating:
Raveninghorde
<jo...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> writes:
>
SNIP
>> It is worth looking at:
>>
>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>>
>> Pro AGW climate scientists in their own words.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming
>> and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
>
>Real scientists engaged in healthy debate, trying to look at all sides?
>
>The immediate reply appears to address that:
>
>http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1051
>
>(If you were unable to find such internal debates, no doubt you would
>have criticised *that* as proof that they did not question their own
>work...)
>
Now you sound like an apologist for AGW.
Emails which discuss criminal behaviour such as deleting data subject
to a freedom of information request and physical assault show an
immaturity level of an undergrad on drugs. Several of the emails
discussing deleting emails and data are prima facie evidence of a
criminal conspiracy.
Such emails discovered in a business, even as small as mine, would
lead to an escort with a black sack to help you clear your desk.
These "scientists" are so childish that they can not control what they
write. Yet we are expected to accept their output without question?
Raveninghorde
<jo...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> writes:
>
SNIP
>> Here I disagree.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned the burden of proof that the AGW camp has to
>> produce increases with the cost of implementing "corrective" actions.
>> A billion dollars is small change and the precautionary principle
>> applies. A hundred billion here and another hundred billion there and
>> you are soon talking real money and that needs more proof than
>> currently available.
>>
>> Note that I believe there may be other reasons for reducing oil use
>> for example. If only there is no point wasting a limited resource. But
>> AGW does not, yet, warrant the proposed expenditure.
>
>Most of the proposed measures seem fairly benign, and useful in their
>own right as you point out. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign
>oil, and it is too useful in plastics and chemical manufacturing to be
>simply burnt. To me this reduces effective cost and hence the "burden of
>proof" required. The oil will still be in the ground - and all the more
>valuable for it - if it turns out to be wrong after all.
>
I do not see the required he level of taxation and interference in the
economy as benign, relative or otherwise.
However that is a political judgement and where you or I stand on this
is down to being a leftist weanie or right wing not or somewhere
inbetween. It is not about science. And that is the point AGW is a
political debate.
SNIP
anorton
>>>
>>> As I fail to understand what the facts mean perhaps you can explain?
>>
>>2 minutes of research reveals a likely explanation. See the top of the
>>page
>>of your link #2:
>>
>>"These data are primarily intended for the study of climate variability
>>and
>>change. Whenever possible, observations have been adjusted to account for
>>the artificial effects introduced into the climate record by factors such
>>as
>>instrument changes, station relocations, observer practice changes and
>>urbanization. As a result, some values available on this site differ from
>>the official observations."
>>
>>
>
> On the face of it that doesn't make sense.
I am sorry you have so much trouble making sense of things.
>
> 1. Instrument changes - I've seen no sign that thermometers 60 years
> ago had an average error of 0.5F.
With old mercury thermometers someone had to trudge out to the site perhaps
no more often than twice a day depending on location. Later recording
thermometers captured temperture swings throughout the full night and day.
There could be other issues as well, we do not know since neither of us are
experts in the field.
>
> 2. Station relocations. That would lead to corrections in the later
> data to compensate for the change of altitude or whatever. But across
> the US one would expect this to average out.
Why specifically do you EXPECT it to average out, and to what level,
0.000001 deg? 0.1 deg.? 10.0 deg? Announcing conclusions about a large set
of data without analyzing the data is arrogant bullshit.
Perhaps later automation allowed more stations to be placed in remote or
mountainous areas that are colder and previously undersampled. Neither of
us knows for sure.
>
> 3. Observer practice changes. I can't think of one that wouldn't
> average out.
I can think of at least one very easily: snow storms hindered access to
non-automated stations.
>
> 4. Urbanization. That would increase more recent temepratures which
> should then be reduced to be comparable with earlier records.
Ubanization would make some stations trend up, but does that fully negate
other effects or only partially, and how much? One would have to re-do a
very complicated analysis to know for sure.
>
> If you check:
>
> http://surfacestations.org/
>
> Modern measurements aren't particularly good.
The point is it is ridiculous to argue the minutiae of a complicated
scientific field without a serious study of ALL the issues and a thorough
understanding of the scientific method. The climate change issue has
suddenly spawned many amateur climatologists such as yourself who seem only
motivated by ideology and can not see the obvious such as what I pointed out
above.
Raveninghorde
You clearly didn't bother to look at the link I posted. It is for a
site run my a professional meterologist. So I am willing to believe he
knows how to measure temperature. When you see working climate
stations measuring in parking lots and on the roof near air
conditioners you know that current measurements are inaccurate. You
don't have to go further than the home page to see there is a problem
in the US with the source data for temperature measurement.
And not just the US. There is a related survey project over here in
the UK.
And I know how to measure temperature, I've been designing and
manufacturing temperature and humidity measuring kit since 1981 and I
know how to use it and how it used and installed. So just because you
don't understand something doesn't mean every one else is the same.
John Larkin
<gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:38:38 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:51:09 -0800, Gunner Asch
>><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:08:27 -0800, John Larkin
>>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:23:35 -0800, Rich Grise <rich...@example.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:08:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill. Three
>>>>>> weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Problem is, they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>A little inconvenient fact that the Church of Antismokerism has hidden
>>>>>from public view.
>>>>
>>>>Any nonsoluble particulates that you dump into your lungs are bad.
>>>>Silica. Asbestos. Diesel fumes. Wood smoke. Tobacco smoke. Marijuana
>>>>smoke. All cause cancer.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>
>>>All MAY cause cancer in those suspeptable to cancer.
>>
>>Exectly. Everybody. Some more than others.
>>
>>John
>
>As I said...it MAY cause cancer in those suseptable to cancer.
>
There are certainly genetic characteristics that make some people more
suceptable to various cancers. I'm not aware of any human populations
that are immune to cancer. Some animals, like sharks, seem to be
nearly immune to cancer. That's probably a consequence of being
"perfectly evolved", which has its own dangers.
Are you one of those people like Rich who consider themselves immune
to cancer, because of your genetics or your attitude?
Do you smoke?
John
John Fields
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:>
>The second set of data is modern and comes from the US National
>Climatic Data Centre,
---
According to their web site it's the "National Climate Data Center".
JF
Hawke
At least you are thinking about the question. The deniers all just
accept the position of industry, period. They accept whatever industry
says, which is, don't blame us for global warming, which doesn't exist
anyway. They scientists will say whatever the data tells them. They
don't have a side. All they are supposed to do is collect data and
analyze it. If it says the temperature variations of the planet over the
last 150 years fall within the normal range then that is what they would
say. If the data says the temperature is rising faster than it should be
due to normal variation that is what they would say, and that is what
they have said.
All one needs to keep in mind is what are the corporate interests who
are producing large amounts of greenhouse gases saying. Because whatever
they say it needs to be questioned just because they have a conflict of
interest on the issue. If it is proven they are causing the planet to
heat up they will be penalized. They will want to avoid this. This is
their bias. Knowing this you can't just accept it as gospel when they
deny they have a role in global warming. That is unless you are the
blind follower type.
Hawke
Raveninghorde
And the scientists are funded by the politicians to a vastly greater
extent than industry funds denialists.
Knowing this you can't accept as gospel anything the scientists say.
And what do you make of industry funding climate research?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
Jamie
Tax write off?
Paul Keinanen
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>Paul Keinanen wrote:
>> Without a reliable (non IPPC/Mann) prof, I am not going to accept the
>> claims that human activity caused (100 %) the average temperature
>> change between 1850-2010.
>
>
>At least you are thinking about the question. The deniers all just
>accept the position of industry, period. They accept whatever industry
>says, which is, don't blame us for global warming, which doesn't exist
>anyway.
The dispute between enviromentalists and the heavy industry appears to
be US specific, since in Europe, even the heavy industry is using
quite green themes in their slogans in order to maintain
profitability.
>They scientists will say whatever the data tells them. They
>don't have a side. All they are supposed to do is collect data and
>analyze it. If it says the temperature variations of the planet over the
>last 150 years fall within the normal range then that is what they would
>say.
This would be the correct scientific approach, but based on the leaked
e-mails, quite significant manipulation of the data was used to fit
the initial assumptions.
>If the data says the temperature is rising faster than it should be
>due to normal variation that is what they would say, and that is what
>they have said.
A true scientist would do that, but unfortunately the IPCC
"scientists" did not (pre 1850).
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>The dispute between enviromentalists and the heavy industry appears to
>be US specific, since in Europe, even the heavy industry is using
>quite green themes in their slogans in order to maintain
>profitability.
Propaganda has always been more sucessful in Europe
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:48:34 +0000, John Devereux
>
> >Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> writes:
>
> SNIP
>
> >> It is worth looking at:
>
> >>http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>
> >> Pro AGW climate scientists in their own words.
>
> >> For example:
>
> >> Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming
> >> and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
>
> >Real scientists engaged in healthy debate, trying to look at all sides?
>
> >The immediate reply appears to address that:
>
> >http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1051
>
> >(If you were unable to find such internal debates, no doubt you would
> >have criticised *that* as proof that they did not question their own
> >work...)
>
> Now you sound like an apologist for AGW.
>
> Emails which discuss criminal behaviour such as deleting data subject
> to a freedom of information request and physical assault show an
> immaturity level of an undergrad on drugs. Several of the emails
> discussing deleting emails and data are prima facie evidence of a
> criminal conspiracy.
The freedom of Information Act is a piece of US legislation (and one
that I happen to approve of).
U.K. scientists are entirely entitled to get around foreign
legislation - no matter how criminal their behaviour might have been
if they had be subject to the US legislation - so they weren't taking
part in any criminal conspiracy.
It could be argued that the freedom of information requests were
entirely frivolous, and purely intended to harrass. the researchers
involved. The UK statute book used to recognises the crime of barratry
and it is still an offsnse in some parts of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
> Such emails discovered in a business, even as small as mine, would
> lead to an escort with a black sack to help you clear your desk.
Only if the business were subject to US legislation.
> These "scientists" are so childish that they can not control what they
> write. Yet we are expected to accept their output without question?
Interesting question, coming from Ravinghorde.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:48:34 +0000, John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >It was just shorthand. Perhaps for "people who deny that anthropogenic
> >global warming is real"".
>
> Because
> 1. its not real
And your evidnece is?
> 2. Its nowhere close to being even suggested, based on data
Not the conclusion of the majority of the world's climatologists.
> 3. Except by those who make money from it.
Who'd make just as - or as little - money from their academic
speciality if anthropogenic global warming wasn't happening.
> "First Law of Leftist Debate
> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
> homophobe approaches infinity.
The current terms of abuse are ill-informed and ignorant, but theses
are more or less unavoidable, granting the intellectual content (or
more precsiely the lack of it) in the arguments coming from the
denialist side.
> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
> the subject." Grey Ghost
Granting that you are a rightist, Grey Ghost seems to have got it the
wrong way around.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:38:38 -0800, John Larkin
>
> >On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:51:09 -0800, Gunner Asch
> ><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:08:27 -0800, John Larkin
>
> >>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:23:35 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:08:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>>>> I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill. Three
> >>>>> weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
>
> >>>>Problem is, they don't.
>
> >>>>A little inconvenient fact that the Church of Antismokerism has hidden
> >>>>from public view.
>
> >>>Any nonsoluble particulates that you dump into your lungs are bad.
> >>>Silica. Asbestos. Diesel fumes. Wood smoke. Tobacco smoke. Marijuana
> >>>smoke. All cause cancer.
>
> >>>John
>
>
> >Exectly. Everybody. Some more than others.
>
> As I said...it MAY cause cancer in those suseptable to cancer.
>
> There are many millions of people in many industries which have high
> risks, who never got cancer. And a smaller number who did.
Which must be a great comfort to every one of that smaller number.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:08:27 -0800, John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:23:35 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:08:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>> I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill. Three
> >>> weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
>
> >>Problem is, they don't.
>
> >>A little inconvenient fact that the Church of Antismokerism has hidden
> >>from public view.
>
> >Any nonsoluble particulates that you dump into your lungs are bad.
> >Silica. Asbestos. Diesel fumes. Wood smoke. Tobacco smoke. Marijuana
> >smoke. All cause cancer.
>
> >John
>
> All MAY cause cancer in those susceptible to cancer.
But more people seem to be susceptible to lung cancer if they have
been exposed to asbestos - they get lung cancer five times more
frequently than the general population, which isn't actually as bad as
being exposed to tobacco smoke (11 times worse) or being a smoker who
has been eexposed to asbestos (16 times worse).
http://www.medicinenet.com/asbestos-related_disorders/page5.htm
And since we don't yet know in advance who is - or isn't - going to be
susceptible to lung cancer, it probably isn't a good idea to assume
that you are one of the lucky ones who aren't.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
For the obvious reason that scientists are being funded to do
research, and the denialists are being funded to produce propaganda.
> Knowing this you can't accept as gospel anything the scientists say.
Climate research isn't actually all that expensive - give or take the
occasional satellite launch, but the politicians have also funded the
Hubble space telescope and a couple of other satellite observatories,
and you don't accuse astronomers of faking their results
> And what do you make of industry funding climate research?
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oi...
Not everybody in industry is quite as crazily unrealistic as the guy
that used to run Exxon-Mobil.
King Canute was consciously making a point when he told the tide to
turn back. Exxon-Mobil clearly failed to get that particular message.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:36:46 +0000, John Devereux
>
>
>
>
>
> <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
>
> >The graph for the last 2000 years is
>
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png>
>
> >There are large historical changes shown. A quick skimming of the recent
> >IPCC report mentions changes in solar and volcanic inputs. It does not
> >appear to be news to the IPCC that non man-made effects occur.
>
> >> activities, one must prove that no _natural_ climate change would
> >> occur in 1850-2010 to cause this change.
>
> >> The easiest way to prove this is assuming that there were no global
> >> temperature changes between 1000 and 1850 AD or -10,000 BC and 1850
> >> AD.
>
> >> Regardless how hard Mann et al. tried to convince that no changes
> >> occurred, there are strong evidence to the opposite view.
>
> >> Thus, it is very hard to measure the human effect due to human
> >> activities.
>
> >> Without a reliable (non IPPC/Mann) prof, I am not going to accept the
> >> claims that human activity caused (100 %) the average temperature
> >> change between 1850-2010.
>
> >climatologists, you have set yourself a criteria impossible almost by
> >definition.
>
> >prima-facie case - based on well established physics - that CO2 would be
> >expected to cause a temperature rise. There is strong historical
> >evidence that it has done so in the past (or amplified external
> >forcing). We know the concentration of CO2 is increasing rapidly and we
> >know we are burning lots of stuff. Any burden of "proof" is now on the
> >other side.
>
>
> As far as I am concerned the burden of proof that the AGW camp has to
> produce increases with the cost of implementing "corrective" actions.
> A billion dollars is small change and the precautionary principle
> applies. A hundred billion here and another hundred billion there and
> you are soon talking real money and that needs more proof than
> currently available.
The level of proof that is currently available is more than enough to
convince anybody who understands the evidence. Your problem isn't
scepticism, but ignorance, coupled with a slightly irrational
enthusiasm for conspiracy theories.
> Note that I believe there may be other reasons for reducing oil use
> for example. If only there is no point wasting a limited resource. But
> AGW does not, yet, warrant the proposed expenditure.
So how much of a disaster will you need before you are convinced?
One of the more depressing things about the science is that we haven't
yet got the fiull benefit of the CO2 we have already injected into the
atmosphere. 30% of it has gone into the oceans, which are warming up
rather more slowly than the dry land.
The ice core data tells us that it takes the oceans about 800 years to
move to a new equilibrium, so at some point the oceans are going to
give us back that 30% and a little bit more besides, and we may get
the benefit of the descomposition of a whole lot of methane hydrates
as a bonus. The methane hydrates don't seem to have cut loose for the
past 55 million years, but when they did cut loose they pushed up the
global temeprature by some 6 °C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
krw
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
There certainly are families where cancer is unknown. It's not wild
speculation to think that the immune system has something to do with
this and that there is a strong genetic component. I think the
correlation between smoking and disease, without the strong genetic
component, is clearer with emphysema.
>Are you one of those people like Rich who consider themselves immune
>to cancer, because of your genetics or your attitude?
Not immune, but it would be a first in the family (my mother did have
some cancerous skin lesions removed when she was in her '80s and
'90s).
>Do you smoke?
No, it's a filthy (and expensive) habit. What makes it worse, as that
it's highly addictive.
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:53:34 +0000, John Devereux
>
Actually, it is all about science. The right-wing contribution to the
debate has been largely concentrated on devaluing the science.
Dubbya's administration went to considerable lengths to prevent
scientific opinion from being widely heard.
If you really think that it is so politically important to minimise
government intervention in the economy that it right to ignore early
warnings of a developing situation that could well destroy both the
economy and civilisation as we know it, you are taking your
ideological commitment beyond the bounds of common sense.
> And that is the point AGW is a
> political debate.
Not exactly. The debate about anthropogenic global warming was
scientific, and it is now over. Anthropogenic global warming is real,
and we need to start doing something about it now, while we still can.
The politicians are now debating what to do. The right wing doesn't
want to do anything, and one of their debating tricks in support of
this position is to deny that what the the science is telling them is
true.
There is a well-established armoury of tricks for devaluing a
scientific case. Creationists have have been using them for many years
now, and the tobacco industry took them over, polished them up and
spent quite a lot of money on setting up an infra-structure that could
saturate the media.
Unsurprisingly, Exxon-Mobil (amongst other interested parties) took
advantage of this infra-structure to launch a similar attack on the
science behind anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
It is all boringly well documented, and thoroughly plausible, in
contrast to your frequent - if fatuous - claim that the IPCC has been
got at.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:48:34 +0000, John Devereux
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you saying that they sound like conservatives?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> writes:
>
> - Show quoted text -
My opinion also.
And note the timing of the "expose".
Strange how no conservative is interested in who funded those who
stole these emails.
That is the real crime.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tell us....do the postings of Gunner represent all conservatives?
If so, they better start building larger prisons and mental
institutions.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:28:25 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keina...@sci.fi>
Propaganda has always been more sucessful with conservative sheeple.
TMT
Gunner Asch
It would appear that they entered an industry that they were "allergic"
to. No more, no less.
Pysiolically unsuited for. (spelling..sorry)
Larry Jaques
<ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> scrawled the following:
>
>"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote in message
>news:ur6jh5tnoscphtjgo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:50:57 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 4, 9:26 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:04:48 +0000, John Devereux
>>>>
>>>> <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SNIP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >I don't have the time to go deeply enough into AGW to have an
>>>> >independently informed opinion. What I do note is that it is the
>>>> >"supporters" that tend keep coming back with numbers, detailed
>>>> >evidence,
>>>> >rational arguments. And it is the "deniers" who tend to keep coming
>>>> >back
>>>> >with nothing but name calling and the same empty arguments - the same
>>>> >ones refuted here again and again.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously don't read SED.
>>>>
>>>> 570+ posts in ping bil slowman and half of them are Slowman calling
>>>> all non believers various forms of idiots.
>>>
>>>Ravinghorde has a funny point of view. My main mode of response to non-
>>>believers is to point out that they have got their facts wrong. This
>>>isn't actually calling them idiots, though getting your facts wrong
>>>does make you look a bit dim.
>>>
>>>Ravinghorde himself doesn't actually get his facts wrong - he just
>>>fails to understand what they mean.
>>
>> Explain this.
>>
>> Link 1 has a graph of US temps from 1902 to 1949 published in 1950.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yawg4dm
>>
>> Link 2 is source of US temp data
>>
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
>>
>> Link 3 is a plot of the 10 year moving average from link 2 to compare
>> with the graph in link 1
>>
>> http://www.zen88234.zen.co.uk/ustemp/ustemp1.png
>>
>> The 1950 graph shows a temp range from 52.6F to 53.8F
>>
>> My graph shows a temp range from 52F to 53.4F.
>>
>> So looking at the min and max of data downloaded today shows the 1920s
>> to 1940s 0.5F cooler than they thought at the time. The shapes aren't
>> identical either.
>>
>> As I fail to understand what the facts mean perhaps you can explain?
>
>2 minutes of research reveals a likely explanation. See the top of the page
>of your link #2:
>
>"These data are primarily intended for the study of climate variability and
>change. Whenever possible, observations have been adjusted to account for
>the artificial effects introduced into the climate record by factors such as
>instrument changes, station relocations, observer practice changes and
>urbanization. As a result, some values available on this site differ from
>the official observations."
"But, of course, we've tossed all that irreplaceable raw data when
moving to a different building. We didn't need it any more." <thud>
--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson
Bill Sloman
Cancer takes a while to develop; it is a multistage disease, and the
cells involved have to accumulate all the right mutations before they
can kill you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=dyncan&part=A781
> >Which must be a great comfort to every one of that smaller number.
>
> It would appear that they entered an industry that they were "allergic"
> to. No more, no less.
>
> Physiologically unsuited for.
But since there is no way of knowing whether you are "physiologically
suited to the industry" until after you've got cancer and proved that
you weren't, this isn't any kind of useful observation.
And an allergy is a pretty specific problem, and you don't get cancers
from being exposed to stuff to which you are allergic.
If the people who got cancer from being eposed to asbestos were
allergic to the stuff, they wouldn't have lasted long enough in the
business to build up the particle load needed to get a good chance of
developing a cancer.
In fact, since it seems likely that everybody would get cancer if they
lived long enough, it is probably better to look at exposure to
asbestos as playing Russian roulette with two cartridges in the
chamber (unless you have a heritable susceptility, in which case it
would be three). Just being alive is playing Russian roultette with
one cartridge in the chamber - something is going to kill you
eventually.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:57:16 -0800, John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:27:38 -0800, Gunner Asch
> ><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:38:38 -0800, John Larkin
> >><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:51:09 -0800, Gunner Asch
> >>><gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:08:27 -0800, John Larkin
>
> >>>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:23:35 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net>
> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:08:31 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> I always thought it a shame that cigarettes take so long to kill. Three
> >>>>>>> weeks would be a great improvement over 30 years.
>
> >>>>>>Problem is, they don't.
>
> >>>>>>A little inconvenient fact that the Church of Antismokerism has hidden
> >>>>>>from public view.
>
> >>>>>Any nonsoluble particulates that you dump into your lungs are bad.
> >>>>>Silica. Asbestos. Diesel fumes. Wood smoke. Tobacco smoke. Marijuana
> >>>>>smoke. All cause cancer.
>
> >>>>>John
>
> >>>>All MAY cause cancer in those suspeptable to cancer.
>
> >>>Exectly. Everybody. Some more than others.
>
> >>>John
>
> >>As I said...it MAY cause cancer in those suseptable to cancer.
>
> >There are certainly genetic characteristics that make some people more
> >suceptable to various cancers. I'm not aware of any human populations
> >that are immune to cancer. Some animals, like sharks, seem to be
> >nearly immune to cancer. That's probably a consequence of being
> >"perfectly evolved", which has its own dangers.
>
> There certainly are families where cancer is unknown.
Or hasn't happened yet.
> It's not wild
> speculation to think that the immune system has something to do with
> this and that there is a strong genetic component.
Not wild, but superficial and irrelevant. Cancer is a fairly
complicated disease, and it depends on the successive occurence of a
sequence of mutations before it develops into a detectable and
dangerous condition
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=dyncan&part=A781
If you are born with one of these mutations already present, you are
more likely to develop cancer early in life, but then your risk of
cancer doesn't rise as fast with age. People with no known
predisposition to cancer still get cancers
The immune system is one of the areas that could be messed up by such
a mutation, but there are plenty of others
> I think the correlation between smoking and disease, without the strong genetic
> component, is clearer with emphysema.
There can be an inherited predisposition to develop emphysema
> >Are you one of those people like Rich who consider themselves immune
> >to cancer, because of your genetics or your attitude?
>
> Not immune, but it would be a first in the family (my mother did have
> some cancerous skin lesions removed when she was in her '80s and
> '90s).
You could be the first, if you live long enough. Heart and circulatory
disease kills a lot of people before they have gotten around to
developing a cancer, but as the medical profession gets better at
looking after our hearts and arteries, more of us survive to die of
cancer.
> >Do you smoke?
>
> No, it's a filthy (and expensive) habit. What makes it worse, as that
> it's highly addictive.
Too true.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:23:59 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> >The second set of data is modern and comes from the US National
> >Climatic Data Centre,
>
> ---
> According to their web site it's the "National Climate Data Center".
Where would I be without my personal spelling checker? But you should
note that Center is an Americanism - the word is spelled Centre in
English-speaking countries.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
A tolerably eccentric professional meterologist, whose work seems to
be published by the Heartland Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
> So I am willing to believe he
> knows how to measure temperature. When you see working climate
> stations measuring in parking lots and on the roof near air
> conditioners you know that current measurements are inaccurate. You
> don't have to go further than the home page to see there is a problem
> in the US with the source data for temperature measurement.
But when the study is published by the Heartland Institute, you do
have to wonder how reliable it is. For someone who believes that the
IPCC climatologists will fudge therir results to increase theri
chances of research grants, it is a bit odd that you aren't more
sceptical about a study that appears to be supported by a group that
has made a business of misleading the public about the validity of
scientific evidence.
> And not just the US. There is a related survey project over here in
> the UK.
Published by Viscount Christopher Monckton?
> And I know how to measure temperature, I've been designing and
> manufacturing temperature and humidity measuring kit since 1981 and I
> know how to use it and how it used and installed.
Is it used in weather stations? Or to control central heating systems?
> So just because you
> don't understand something doesn't mean every one else is the same.
Any you claiming specific expertise in the design an installation of
the measuring systems used in weather monitoring stations, or just
assuming that your expertise in a different area generalises to
weather stations?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 9:13�pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:48:34 +0000, John Devereux
SNIP
>>
>> Emails which discuss criminal behaviour such as deleting data subject
>> to a freedom of information request and physical assault show an
>> immaturity level of an undergrad on drugs. Several of the emails
>> discussing deleting emails and data are prima facie evidence of a
>> criminal conspiracy.
>
>The freedom of Information Act is a piece of US legislation (and one
>that I happen to approve of).
The UK has a Freedom of Information Act:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1
SNIP
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 10:10�pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 12:20:21 -0800, "anorton"
>>
>>
SNIP
>>
>> You clearly didn't bother to look at the link I posted. �It is for a
>> site run by a professional meterologist.
>
>A tolerably eccentric professional meterologist, whose work seems to
>be published by the Heartland Institute
>
>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
>
>> So I am willing to believe he
>> knows how to measure temperature. When you see working climate
>> stations measuring in parking lots and on the roof near air
>> conditioners you know that current measurements are inaccurate. You
>> don't have to go further than the home page to see there is a problem
>> in the US with the source data for temperature measurement.
>
>But when the study is published by the Heartland Institute, you do
>have to wonder how reliable it is. For someone who believes that the
>IPCC climatologists will fudge therir results to increase theri
>chances of research grants, it is a bit odd that you aren't more
>sceptical about a study that appears to be supported by a group that
>has made a business of misleading the public about the validity of
>scientific evidence.
Funnily enough surfacestations,org publishes enough source data for
anyone to cross check the results. If you know of a critique, valid or
otherwise, of those results then link to it.
I don't know if the climeatologists fudged the results, are bad at
their job or as pure as fresh snow. They resist publishing data so
others can replicate their work. That stinks.
Funny how the Met Office is going to start publishing data right after
climategate.
>
>> And not just the US. There is a related survey project over here in
>> the UK.
>
>Published by Viscount Christopher Monckton?
Not that I am aware.
>
>> And I know how to measure temperature, I've been designing and
>> manufacturing temperature and humidity measuring kit since 1981 and I
>> know how to use it and how it used and installed.
>
>Is it used in weather stations? Or to control central heating systems?
Outdoor temperature, humidity and enthalpy monitoring.
>
>> So just because you
>> don't understand something doesn't mean every one else is the same.
>
>Any you claiming specific expertise in the design an installation of
>the measuring systems used in weather monitoring stations, or just
>assuming that your expertise in a different area generalises to
>weather stations?
I make no claim about the design and installation of weather stations.
I design and make the electronics. However I have visited enough sites
to know how that electronics is used and abused.
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:14:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
But you have your suspicions, as you have repeatedly let us know.
>They resist publishing data so
> others can replicate their work. That stinks.
You don't like it, but it is extra work, for which they don't have a
budget, and won't get any benefit from, since the people who want to
see the data published aren't exactly exhibiting a constructive
interest in the subject.
> Funny how the Met Office is going to start publishing data right after
> climategate.
You can rely on the politicians to make the money available to support
the extra work after the public relations disaster. Despite all the
denialist protestations, there still no smoking gun in the e-mails,
just occasional stuff which - when taken out of context - can be
construed as suspect.
> >> And not just the US. There is a related survey project over here in
> >> the UK.
>
> >Published by Viscount Christopher Monckton?
>
> Not that I am aware.
>
> >> And I know how to measure temperature, I've been designing and
> >> manufacturing temperature and humidity measuring kit since 1981 and I
> >> know how to use it and how it used and installed.
>
> >Is it used in weather stations? Or to control central heating systems?
>
> Outdoor temperature, humidity and enthalpy monitoring.
For what purpose?
> >> So just because you
> >> don't understand something doesn't mean every one else is the same.
>
> >Any you claiming specific expertise in the design an installation of
> >the measuring systems used in weather monitoring stations, or just
> >assuming that your expertise in a different area generalises to
> >weather stations?
>
> I make no claim about the design and installation of weather stations.
> I design and make the electronics. However I have visited enough sites
> to know how that electronics is used and abused.
Is this an insight worth publishing? Here's another - if you look at
somebody else's design, it always looks stupid and irrational until
you've understood it well enough to understand what the original
designers though that they had to deal with.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 17:25:38 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
But it hasn't been used to harrass U.K. climate researchers, and in
any event it seems to post-date the e-mails that you are getting
excited about. In this context, only the US legislation was relevant
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Fields
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 10:58�pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:23:59 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:>
>> >The second set of data is modern and comes from the US National
>> >Climatic Data Centre,
>>
>> ---
>> According to their web site it's the "National Climate Data Center".
>
>Where would I be without my personal spelling checker?
---
A little more ignorant than you are right now.
---
>But you should note that Center is an Americanism - the word is spelled Centre in
>English-speaking countries.
---
That's irrelevant.
Since it's an American institution, the _proper_ spelling is 'center'.
JF
John Fields
---
I don't think that's true for most of us.
In my case, when I come across a design that I don't understand, I don't
attribute my ignorance as being caused by the designer's stupidity, I
consider that some work has to be done in order overcome my ignorance.
That is, climbing the learning curve.
In your case, however, I suspect you often take only a cursory glance at
someone's work and then, because you don't understand it, damn the
designer as being stupid and his work as being worthless.
However, once you've been given a clue by the designer or you study it
long enough to understand it and realize it has merit, you still cling
to your first position and try to fabricate a scenario where it was the
designer's fault that you didn't understand the work in the first place.
All of that just to keep from having to own up to an error?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
JF
Raveninghorde
;-)
Raveninghorde
Bill you are WRONG!
CRU is a UK institution at the University of East ANglia. Phil Jones
is British. He is subject to British law. He asked people to delete
emails and threatened to destroy data.
/quote
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK,
I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your
similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20
days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request
will test it.
/end quote
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt
krw
I hear Slowman digging up the goal posts now.