OT - Copenhagen
Mike Brown
114 of thgem.
I wonder how much polution their air flights added to the atmosphere.
MJRB
> H.E. Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd Prime Minister
> H.E. Ms. Penelope Wong Minister, Climate Change and Water Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
> H.E. Ms. Louise Helen Hand Ambassador for Climate Change Department of Climate Change
> Mr. David Fredericks Deputy Chief of Staff Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
> Mr. Philip Green Oam Senior Policy Adviser, Foreign Affairs Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
> Mr. Andrew Charlton Senior Adviser Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
> Mr. Lachlan Harris Senior Press Secretary Prime Minister�s Office Office of Prime Minister
> Mr. Scott Dewar Senior Adviser Office of Prime Minister
> Ms. Clare Penrose Adviser Office of Prime Minister
> Ms. Fiona Sugden Media Adviser Office of Prime Minister
> Ms. Lisa French Office of the Prime Minister Office of Prime Minister
> Mr. Jeremy Hilman Adviser Office of Prime Minister
> Ms. Tarah Barzanji Adviser Office of Prime Minister
> Mr. Kate Shaw Executive Secretary Office of Prime Minister
> Ms. Gaile Barnes Executive Assistant Office of Prime Minister
> Ms. Gordon de Brouwer Deputy Secretary Prime Minister and Cabinet
> Mr. Patrick Suckling First Assistant Secretary, International Division Prime Minister and Cabinet
> Ms. Rebecca Christie Prime Minister�s Office
> Mr. Michael Jones Official Photographer Prime Minister and Cabinet
> Mr. Stephan Rudzki
> Mr. David Bell Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
> Ms. Kym Baillie Australian Federal Police
> Mr. David Champion Australian Federal Police
> Mr. Matt Jebb Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
> Mr. Craig Kendall Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
> Mr. Ian Lane Squadron Leader Staff, Officer VIP Operations
> Mr. John Olenich Media Adviser / Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
> Ms. Kristina Hickey Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
> Mr. Martin Parkinson Secretary Department of Climate Change
> Mr. Howard Bamsey Special Envoy for Climate Change Department of Climate Change
> Mr. Robert Owen-Jones Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Clare Walsh Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Elizabeth Mary Peak Principal Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Kristin Tilley Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
> Mr. Andrew Ure Acting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Annemarie Watt Director, Land Sector Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Kushla Munro Director, International Forest Carbon Section International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Kathleen Annette Rowley Director, Strategic and Technical Analysis Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Anitra Cowan Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Sally Truong Assisting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Jane Wilkinson Assistant Director Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Tracey Mackay Assistant Director International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Laura Brown Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Tracey-Anne Leahey Delegation Manager Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Nicola Loffler Senior Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Tamara Curll Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Jessica Allen Legal Support Officer Department of Climate Change
> Mr. Sanjiva de Silva Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Gaia Puleston Political Adviser Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Penelope Jane Morton Policy Adviser, Multilateral Negotiations (UNFCCC) International Division Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Claire Elizabeth Watt Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Amanda Walker Policy Officer, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change
> Mr. Alan David Lee Policy Adviser, Land Sector Negotiations Department of Climate Change
> Ms. Erika Kate Oord Australian Stakeholder Manager Department of Climate Change
> Mr. Jahda Kirian Swanborough Communications Manager Ministerial Communication Department of Climate Change
> H.E. Mr. Sharyn Minahan Ambassador DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Julia Feeney Director, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
> Mr. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham Second Secretary DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Germany
> Ms. Rachael Virginia Cooper Executive Officer, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
> Ms. Rachael Grivas Executive Officer, Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
> Moya Elyn Collett Desk officer, Climate Change and Environment Section Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
> Mr. Rob Law Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
> Mr. Robin Davies Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Group Australian Agency for International Development
> Ms. Deborah Fulton Director, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development
> Ms. Katherine Renee Ann Vaughn Policy Advisor, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development
> Mr. Brian Dawson Policy Adviser Australian Agency for International Development
> Mr. Andrew Leigh Clarke Deputy Secretary Department of Resources Development, Western Australia
> Mr. Bruce Wilson General Manager, Environment Energy and Environment Division Department of Resources Development, Western Australia
> Ms. Jill McCarthy Policy Adviser Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
> Mr. Simon French Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
> Mr. Ian Michael Ruscoe Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
> Mr. David Walland Acting Superintendent, National Climate Centre Bureau of Meteorology
> Mr. Damien Dunn Senior Policy Adviser The Australian Treasury
> Ms. Helen Hawka Fuhrman Policy Officer, Renewable Energy Policy and Partnerships
> Mr. Scott Vivian Davenport Chief Economics NSW Department of Industry and Investment
> Mr. Graham Julian Levitt Policy Manager, Climate Change NSW Department of Industry and Investment
> Ms. Kate Jennifer Jones Minister, Climate Change and Sustainability Queensland Government
> Mr. Michael William Dart Principal Policy Advisor Office of the Hon. Kate Jones MP Queensland Government
> Mr. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien Senior Director, Office of Climate Change Queensland Government
> Mr. Michael David Rann Premier, South Australia Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia
> Ms. Suzanne Kay Harter Adviser Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia
> Mr. Paul David Flanagan Manager, Communications Government of South Australia
> Mr. Timothy William O�Loughlin Deputy Chief Executive, Sustainability and Workforce Management Department of Premier and Cabinet South Australian Government
> Ms. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc student Linacre College University of Oxford
> Mr. Gavin Jennings Minister, Environment and Climate Change and Innovation, Victorian Government
> Ms. Sarah Broadbent Sustainability Adviser
> Ms. Rebecca Falkingham Senior Adviser Victoria Government/Office of Climate Change
> Mr. Simon Camroux Policy Adviser Energy Supply Association of Australia Limited
> Mr. Geoff Lake Adviser Australian Local Government Association Sridhar Ayyalaraju Post Visit Controller DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. Tegan Brink Deputy Visit Controller and Security Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Melissa Eu Suan Goh Transport Liaison Officer and Consul DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Lauren Henschke Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Maree Fay Accommodation Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Patricia McKinnon Communications Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Eugene Olim Paasport / Baggage Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Belinda Lee Adams
> Ms. Jacqui Ashworth Media Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Patricia Smith Media Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. Martin Bo Jensen Research and Public Diplomatic Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. Mauro Kolobaric Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Susan Flanagan Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. Stephen Kanaridis IT Support Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. George Reid Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Ashley Wright Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Jodie Littlewood Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. Thomas Millhouse Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. Timothy Whittley Support Staff Driver DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Ms. Julia Thomson Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. Donald Frater Chief of Staff to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
> Ms. Jacqui Smith Media Liaison DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
> Mr. Greg French Senior Legal Advisor, Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
> Mr. Jeremy Hillman Advisor PMO
>
nog
> This is a list of the Australian "delegation" to the meeting.
>
> 114 of thgem.
>
> I wonder how much polution their air flights added to the atmosphere.
>
-------------------8><
I suppose, if they all travelled together on a scheduled flight, it
wouldn't be much less if there had been only 14 of them.
What it does show is that the business to be in is conferencing ... ;-)
Mike Brown
Having seen the news reports it seems that many countries sent a similar
number of people.
That would be a lot of fairly large airoplanes.
The venues couldn't even handle the official attendees let alone the
sundry hangers on.
MJRB
Flammarion
So we should do nothing about climate change to save the 0.000000001%
of the
carbon caused by those flights?
Steve Hawkins
news:48ea746c-642e-444c...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
The issue being ignored by the media, politicians and a growing cult is
that climate change is a natural process. There has been no debate and
questioning of the so-called "data" is anathma to the cult followers. As
an engineer, all I've seen is the Green Movement using controversial
methods, yielding unverified results, while people like Al Gore attempt
to further their own political and personal power.
This is not the first time the Greenies have done this. They used the
EDA and the Spotted Owl to decimate logging in Oregon almost 30 years
ago. The Spotted Owl has continued its rapid march towards extinction
while our State's economy was devastated.
They are currently trying to use the EDA and Salmon to destroy the
greenest source of power we have, hydro-electric dams. They continue to
be okay with killing and eating the fish, but rail against farmed and
hatchery raised Salmon.
I'm all for getting off fossil fuel, but not because Al Gore is running
around like Chicken Little. Instead of killing our economy and giving
money to the third world to keep them in the Dark Ages, we should be
making a maximum effort towards Hydrogen/Fusion energy development.
What's going on in Denmark has nothing to do with Science, IMHO.
Steve Hawkins
Kevin Hall
KH
"Steve Hawkins" <res0...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE361EB76EB5r...@188.40.43.245...
Shy Picker
wrote:
Climate change is a natural process and has happened many times but
there is always a cause. Since this is the first time in this planet's
history that there are this many humans and this many humans using
fossil fuels and there are no other events going on that have caused
climate change in the past such as excessive volcanic activity or a
huge meteor blast, I think it is plausible to suggest that human
activity is the cause.
IMHO the real question is how it is going to effect different parts of
the world. There are plenty of suggestions but no one really knows.
Some are even saying that global warming will even more quickly bring
on another ice age.
I believe that, like now, many places on this planet will flourish
while other places will be devastated. Since what little I can do will
have very little effect on the outcome unless the whole world is ready
to get on board, I ain't gonna worry about it too much. I just hope to
say healthy enough to deal with it if things get nasty around here.
David
Steve Hawkins
news:aab8ff95-8514-4948...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 16, 12:37�pm, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> wrote:
>> Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:48ea746c-642e-444c-8067-e
> 11a45...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
The Sahara used to be lush and green. Human's had nothing to do with it
becoming a desert. Check this out.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
So, either man is creating conditions that existed 12,000 years ago or the
planet is naturally cycling back there. And, as usual, no one can agree on
why or prove it one way or another.
Steve Hawkins
hank alrich
> The issue being ignored by the media, politicians and a growing cult is
> that climate change is a natural process. There has been no debate and
> questioning of the so-called "data" is anathma to the cult followers. As
> an engineer, all I've seen is the Green Movement using controversial
> methods, yielding unverified results, while people like Al Gore attempt
> to further their own political and personal power.
What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
How many automobiles on the planet? How many internal combustion
engines? What is the temperature of the intake gasses? What is the
temperature of the exhaust gasses?
How many square miles of asphalt on the planet now? What is the albedo
of asphalt? What is the thermal mass of the asphalt? Ever driven through
Phoenix in the summer at circa 2 AM? Drive under an overpass? Notice any
heat being radiated from the concerete and asphalt under which you pass?
Been there and done that, and I was amazed. The sunroof on the van was
open, and Lanis and I turned at once to each other and said, "Wow!"
I find the proposition that humans are not affecting the climate of this
planet absurd on its face. Our whole thing has been to affect the
climate, to heat ourselves and to cool ourselves and to transport our
selves where climate and terrain formerly were not conducive to such
travel, not to mention feeding ourselves via a massively mechanised
industry.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.html
http://hankalrich.com/
Misifus
Sadly, hydroelectric power, though green, probably isn't the solution to
our energy problems. When I lived in Tennessee, TVA reported that less
than 10% of their energy was produced by hydroelectric, the rest by
nuclear and fossil fuel plants. That is, after damming nearly every
sizable stream in the entire Tennessee River valley, it still wasn't
nearly enough to meet the needs of the 1970s.
I believe that the best solution would be nuclear power, and save the
fossil fuels for those things that can't be done in other ways.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
Steve Hawkins
news:7osub7F...@mid.individual.net:
The primary reasons for dams are usually flood control, navigation and
agriculture; power generation is a bonus. The issue in Oregon is removal
of existing dams, there isn't a snowball's chance that any new dams will
be built in this state and I don't think any new ones are needed for
their primary reasons.
Good luck getting any nuke plants. Obama closed Yucca Mountain before it
opened and Reprocessing won't be allowed here.
Steve Hawkins
Ed Edelenbos
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net...
>
> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>
The problem Hank, is that people have taken sides and they are no longer
analyzing data. Any data presented is obviously tainted by the greenies and
patently false. The funny thing is that no data is being presented by those
who oppose environmental action... only how it is bad for business.
>
> I find the proposition that humans are not affecting the climate of this
> planet absurd on its face. Our whole thing has been to affect the
> climate, to heat ourselves and to cool ourselves and to transport our
> selves where climate and terrain formerly were not conducive to such
> travel, not to mention feeding ourselves via a massively mechanised
> industry.
>
> --
> ha
Well said.
Ed
Madgamer
shouldn't this be on a need to know basis? Better keep an eye out for a
black SUV with flags on it and some sort of official seal on the door
just in case. LOL
Larry A
Steve Hawkins
news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net:
> Steve Hawkins <res0...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>> The issue being ignored by the media, politicians and a growing cult
>> is that climate change is a natural process. There has been no
>> debate and questioning of the so-called "data" is anathma to the cult
>> followers. As an engineer, all I've seen is the Green Movement using
>> controversial methods, yielding unverified results, while people like
>> Al Gore attempt to further their own political and personal power.
>
> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>
> How many automobiles on the planet? How many internal combustion
> engines? What is the temperature of the intake gasses? What is the
> temperature of the exhaust gasses?
>
> How many square miles of asphalt on the planet now? What is the albedo
> of asphalt? What is the thermal mass of the asphalt? Ever driven
> through Phoenix in the summer at circa 2 AM? Drive under an overpass?
> Notice any heat being radiated from the concerete and asphalt under
> which you pass? Been there and done that, and I was amazed. The
> sunroof on the van was open, and Lanis and I turned at once to each
> other and said, "Wow!"
Welcome to Physics 101. *Everything* on this planet stores and radiates
the Sun's energy. Try spending a few days in a desert or tropical rain
forest, downtown Phoenix would feel quite comfy.
> I find the proposition that humans are not affecting the climate of
> this planet absurd on its face. Our whole thing has been to affect the
> climate, to heat ourselves and to cool ourselves and to transport our
> selves where climate and terrain formerly were not conducive to such
> travel, not to mention feeding ourselves via a massively mechanised
> industry.
Unless you're hoping for another mass extintion event, I don't see how
that's going to change. Population growth is not going to stop or
shrink. I read in the paper today that India will soon pass China as the
most populated country on the planet. India is one third the size of
China, so I really can't see conservation being an effective way to
reduce emissions.
Half the power generated in the USA comes from burning coal. Let's say
you replace all the coal plants with nuke plants, good for greenhouse
emissions, but the amount of heat released is probably the same. We
still make power mostly by heating water, all we've done is make the
heating source more efficient.
Our technology is based on the conversion of energy to heat, that's Basic
Electronics. Superconductors will signifcantly lower that output, but
the technology is still a ways off, same thing with Hydrogen/Fusion.
Until then, we do our best to be as efficient as we can with what we
have.
I don't believe taxing the crap out of our economy and buying off the
third world, while enriching Al Gore with carbon credits, is going to
work.
I would also like to see a credible study of the human impact on our
climate with a real consensus of Scientists, based on verifiable data.
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
news:7ot1daF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net...
>>
>> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>>
>
> The problem Hank, is that people have taken sides and they are no
> longer analyzing data. Any data presented is obviously tainted by the
> greenies and patently false.
So, you're fine with the emails that support and prove that assertion?
> The funny thing is that no data is being
> presented by those who oppose environmental action...
It would have been more accurate to say "no data and opposing views are
being *reported*".
Steve Hawkins
John Sorell
>
>
How about if we just fix the F***ing pollution? Whether it's affecting
global warming or not, it causes respiratory issues for me and I'm sure
many others who are in worse shape.
John
Mike Brown
With modern technology most of the work should have been done with
teleconferences. Then only the signatories need have met.
On the subject of airoplanes, I believe that they are one of the worst
causes of polution, but that is rarely discussed.
If you consider the number of worldwide flights each day and the fuel
used, some of which is belched out unburned it must have a considerable
effect.
I must admit though, that I am not totally convinced about the human
contribution to climate change. Call me a doubter rather than a sceptic.
MJRB
Mike Brown
I agree.
MJRB
Ed Edelenbos
"John Sorell" <j.sorel...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE394A02CAF6...@130.133.1.18...
Greenie.
Ed
Mike Brown
> I would also like to see a credible study of the human impact on our
> climate with a real consensus of Scientists, based on verifiable data.
>
> Steve Hawkins
>
>
>
So would I, but it isn't going to happen. Too many people are making too
much money stiring up the present confusion.
MJRB
John Sorell
@mid.individual.net:
...and wheezie
John
persisten...@yahoo.com
Hmm...
The sight the other day of half the third world leaders asking us for
money to solve their problems was somewhat discombobulating. Surely,
if it's the industrial nations causing the global warming, we should
be spending as much as possible on solving our problems, thus, in the
process solving theirs.
Part of the problem is that we've only been keeping accurate records
for 160 years, which is about 75 years after the start of the
industrial revolution.
I am certain we are warming up the Earth. I can buy the argument that
the Earth has a natural warming/cooling cycle, but geologists will
tell you it takes centuries/millennia to run it's course. We've seen
significant rises over decades. To me, this indicates something
different from the natural cycle - an outside influence, ie, us.
Pete
Steve Hawkins
Huzzah!!!
Steve Hawkins
John Sorell
news:6erii5tb51am3c14c...@4ax.com:
I'm sorry, that argument doesn't wash with Steve Forbes. You'll have to
come up with something that doesn't put the blame on industry or
capitalism.
John
Steve Hawkins
@news.comindico.com.au:
Agreed, money and power as always.
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
Now, now, they only make what we want to buy at the price we're willing
to pay. :-)
Steve Hawkins
Ed Edelenbos
<persisten...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6erii5tb51am3c14c...@4ax.com...
>
> Hmm...
>
> The sight the other day of half the third world leaders asking us for
> money to solve their problems was somewhat discombobulating. Surely,
> if it's the industrial nations causing the global warming, we should
> be spending as much as possible on solving our problems, thus, in the
> process solving theirs.
>
> Part of the problem is that we've only been keeping accurate records
> for 160 years, which is about 75 years after the start of the
> industrial revolution.
>
> I am certain we are warming up the Earth. I can buy the argument that
> the Earth has a natural warming/cooling cycle, but geologists will
> tell you it takes centuries/millennia to run it's course. We've seen
> significant rises over decades. To me, this indicates something
> different from the natural cycle - an outside influence, ie, us.
>
> Pete
>
Shit... when Pete starts making sense, we obviously need to start worrying.
Ed
Wilbur Slice
<ed...@spookeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
>"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net...
>>
>> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>>
>
>The problem Hank, is that people have taken sides and they are no longer
>analyzing data. Any data presented is obviously tainted by the greenies and
>patently false. The funny thing is that no data is being presented by those
>who oppose environmental action... only how it is bad for business.
Well, that's not actually true. You apparently refer to the email
"scandal" of recent weeks. But, first of all, it turns out that is
nonsense. The Associate Press analyzed the stolen emails and found no
evidence of fraudulent data manipulation. This is all just nonsense
from the birthers, teabaggers, Palin supporters, "Mission
Accomplished" prevaricators and other low-IQ fanatics and liars.
Even if you assume the absolute worst about those emails, the fact
remains that there is ton after ton of other, independent evidence
that says the same thing - the earth is warming. There is no didpute
about this. Glaciers are receding or gone. In the summertime, there
is open water at the North Pole. This is not even disputable.
So now the deniers - those who used to claim that the atmosphere
wasn't even warming - have had to retreat from that and now they'
re feebly trying to claim that it's all natural and that humans have
nothing to do with it.
But it's only controversial for those birther-teabagger neanderthals.
The actual scientists who know about the subject and study it in depth
are overwhelmingly agreed that not only is the climtae changing, but
that humans are having a causal effect.
And a few emails from some English institution cannot possibly change
that, as much as the birth-baggers would like it to.
Ed Edelenbos
"Wilbur Slice" <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote in message
news:v4uii551bn0atbeqj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:22:48 -0500, "Ed Edelenbos"
> <ed...@spookeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>>news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net...
>>>
>>> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>>>
>>
>>The problem Hank, is that people have taken sides and they are no longer
>>analyzing data. Any data presented is obviously tainted by the greenies
>>and
>>patently false. The funny thing is that no data is being presented by
>>those
>>who oppose environmental action... only how it is bad for business.
>
>
> Well, that's not actually true. You apparently refer to the email
> "scandal" of recent weeks. But, first of all, it turns out that is
> nonsense. The Associate Press analyzed the stolen emails and found no
> evidence of fraudulent data manipulation. This is all just nonsense
> from the birthers, teabaggers, Palin supporters, "Mission
> Accomplished" prevaricators and other low-IQ fanatics and liars.
My comment was meant as sarcasm.
Ed
Steve Hawkins
Ah, the AP is the final arbiter of truth. For those with a lot of free
time you can decide for yourself.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%
2C_models%2C_1996-2009
It's a 60MB zip file, I took a look at a "how to sell climate change"
doc, but that's all. There's over a thousand emails plus the files.
There's also plenty of analysis in Google, biased both ways. The bottom
line for me is it creates doubt and a need for credibility to be
independantly established.
Steve Hawkins
Wilbur Slice
It doesn't "create doubt", except amongst birth-baggers who will never
accept anything that a "libbrul" might say, no matter what the
scientific evidence.
Credibility has been hugely independently established - the scientific
consensus about climate change is as overwhelming as, say...
evolution.
But folks like you aren't actually interested in facts and truth and
science. You have your agenda, and you're sticking to it.
Wilbur Slice
<ed...@spookeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Wilbur Slice" <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote in message
>news:v4uii551bn0atbeqj...@4ax.com...
>>>"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net...
>>>>
>>>> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The problem Hank, is that people have taken sides and they are no longer
>>>analyzing data. Any data presented is obviously tainted by the greenies
>>>and
>>>patently false. The funny thing is that no data is being presented by
>>>those
>>>who oppose environmental action... only how it is bad for business.
>>
>>
>> Well, that's not actually true. You apparently refer to the email
>> "scandal" of recent weeks. But, first of all, it turns out that is
>> nonsense. The Associate Press analyzed the stolen emails and found no
>> evidence of fraudulent data manipulation. This is all just nonsense
>> from the birthers, teabaggers, Palin supporters, "Mission
>> Accomplished" prevaricators and other low-IQ fanatics and liars.
>
>My comment was meant as sarcasm.
>
>Ed
>
Sorry if I missed the sarcasm. The problem is, there are people who
spew the nonsense (see this very thread) who actually either believe
it or don't care about the truth anyway, and it's hard sometimes to
detect the subtlety of sarcasm or irony.
Shy Picker
wrote:
> Shy Picker <ShyPic...@aol.com> wrote innews:aab8ff95-8514-4948...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 12:37 pm, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> > wrote:
> >> Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:48ea746c-642e-444c-8067-e
I saw a special last night on the Sahara Desert. According to them, it
used to be a shallow sea and parts of it was like an everglades type
environment. Seems that continental drift is the cause for the change.
But it was scientists that came up with that scenario so who can
believe them.
Anyway, things happen for a reason. And the population explosion of
humans and the use of fossil fuels is as good as any until someone
comes up with a better explanation.
David
Misifus
Never the less, the Sahara was a lot greener as recently the first
century. Continental Drift has been pretty close to negligible since then.
Misifus
I would have said, "No data or opposing views are being permitted to be
presented." That was the point of the emails. If it doesn't agree,
discredit it, or suppress it. Splendid science - stifle opposing views!
Misifus
> walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote in
> news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net:
>
>> Steve Hawkins <res0...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue being ignored by the media, politicians and a growing cult
>>> is that climate change is a natural process. There has been no
>>> debate and questioning of the so-called "data" is anathma to the cult
>>> followers. As an engineer, all I've seen is the Green Movement using
>>> controversial methods, yielding unverified results, while people like
>>> Al Gore attempt to further their own political and personal power.
>> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>>
>> How many automobiles on the planet? How many internal combustion
>> engines? What is the temperature of the intake gasses? What is the
>> temperature of the exhaust gasses?
>>
>> How many square miles of asphalt on the planet now? What is the albedo
>> of asphalt? What is the thermal mass of the asphalt? Ever driven
>> through Phoenix in the summer at circa 2 AM? Drive under an overpass?
>> Notice any heat being radiated from the concerete and asphalt under
>> which you pass? Been there and done that, and I was amazed. The
>> sunroof on the van was open, and Lanis and I turned at once to each
>> other and said, "Wow!"
>
> Welcome to Physics 101. *Everything* on this planet stores and radiates
> the Sun's energy. Try spending a few days in a desert or tropical rain
> forest, downtown Phoenix would feel quite comfy.
>
>
The number of square miles of asphalt is minuscule as is the area of
concrete. Actually, these materials are having a perceived effect.
They are creating "heat islands" around our cities. These create the
impression that mean temperatures are increasing, when it's merely the
concrete and asphalt that are increasing. That's the reason satellite
measurements of the Earth's temperature don't agree with terrestrial
measurements.
Misifus
You know what Whooping Crane tastes like? A little like Spotted Owl,
but not so gamey.
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>Steve Hawkins wrote:
>> "Ed Edelenbos" <ed...@spookeasy.net> wrote in
>> news:7ot1daF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net...
>>>> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>>>>
>>> The problem Hank, is that people have taken sides and they are no
>>> longer analyzing data. Any data presented is obviously tainted by the
>>> greenies and patently false.
>>
>> So, you're fine with the emails that support and prove that assertion?
>>
>>> The funny thing is that no data is being
>>> presented by those who oppose environmental action...
>>
>> It would have been more accurate to say "no data and opposing views are
>> being *reported*".
>>
>> Steve Hawkins
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>I would have said, "No data or opposing views are being permitted to be
>presented." That was the point of the emails. If it doesn't agree,
>discredit it, or suppress it. Splendid science - stifle opposing views!
>
You make it sound like the folks at that English institute are in
total control of all the scientific literature that gets published and
can not "permit" opposing presentations. That is, of course,
ridiculous. They can't prevent or stifle any opposing views. They
might be able to prevent their own institute from publishing them, but
there are plenty of other scientific avenues for publishing.
And arguing for your position (or hypothesis or theory) is NOT
"stifling opposing views". It is, in fact, exactly what you WANT
scientists to do. And if there are opposing views, we want them to be
argued as well. And there is nothing preventing that in environmental
sciences. The fact that the climate change deniers simply don't have
a scientific argument to make is NOT evidence that they are somehow
being denied the opportunity to make their case.
hank alrich
It already has happened and the confusion is the same stuff that has us
looking for weapons of mass destruction where none exist. That confusion
turns out to put lots of money in some pockets, and not su much in
others.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.html
http://hankalrich.com/
hank alrich
> I took a look at a "how to sell climate change"
> doc, but that's all.
Anybody paying the slightest bit of attention needs not to have climate
change *sold* to them. All I have to do is observe the orchard and
compare its behavior against that of twenty years ago.
Here's the catch in our stupidity: when the climate enters a period of
instability it swings wildy above and below its former level of stasis.
Heating takes a while, but the swing the other direction can happen very
quickly, as in one year the snow isn't gone when it starts snowing
again, and by the next "summer" a very serious game for survival is on.
We are possibly already beyond a tipping point previous to which we
might have had some beneficial influence, from the standpoint of
survival.
Steve Hawkins
Grape or Cherry?
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
news:fa20c5e0-c518-4eb7...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> Anyway, things happen for a reason. And the population explosion of
> humans and the use of fossil fuels is as good as any until someone
> comes up with a better explanation.
>
> David
>
Well, based on that scientific analysis, you should stop exhaling until
someone comes up with a better explanation.
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
walk...@nv.net:
> We are possibly already beyond a tipping point previous to which we
> might have had some beneficial influence, from the standpoint of
> survival.
Dude, you're starting to sound hysterical. If you really want to flip out
about something check out the South Atlantic Anomaly.
It's a fluctuation in the earth's magnetic field. Scientists are
theorizing that the earth's magnetic poles are going to reverse. It's
happened many times with the most recent being 780,000 years ago.
They speculate the field might weaken or temporarily collapse to the point
of allowing a dangerous increase in the amount of Cosmic Radiation reaching
the surface. Or, it may not show up as anything but confused birds and
broken GPS units.
Anyway, don't worry, I'll save you a seat on the Mothership.
Steve Hawkins
Flammarion
wrote:
> Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > So we should do nothing about climate change to save the 0.000000001%
> > of the
> > carbon caused by those flights?
>
> The issue being ignored by the media, politicians and a growing cult is
> that climate change is a natural process.
It has been. The current CC is not.
> There has been no debate
False.
> Instead of killing our economy
hysteria
Flammarion
wrote:
> It would have been more accurate to say "no data and opposing views are
> being *reported*".
Except endlessly in the internet. Like this.
John Sorell
news:Xns9CE3A52EC69F2r...@188.40.43.245:
That's their story. Drink the Kool-Aid.
John
Larry Brown
wrote:
> Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:48ea746c-642e-444c...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Dec, 13:12, Mike Brown <rocko...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
> >> nog wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:33:06 GMT, Mike Brown wrote:
>
> >> >>This is a list of the Australian "delegation" to the meeting.
>
> >> >>114 of thgem.
>
> >> >>I wonder how much polution their air flights added to the
> >> >>atmosphere.
>
> >> > -------------------8><
>
> >> > I suppose, if they all travelled together on a scheduled flight, it
> >> > wouldn't be much less if there had been only 14 of them.
>
> >> > What it does show is that the business to be in is conferencing ...
> >> > ;-)
>
> >> Having seen the news reports it seems that many countries sent a
> >> similar number of people.
>
> >> That would be a lot of fairly large airoplanes.
>
> >> The venues couldn't even handle the official attendees let alone the
> >> sundry hangers on.
>
> >> MJRB
>
> > of the
> > carbon caused by those flights?
>
> that climate change is a natural process. There has been no debate and
> questioning of the so-called "data" is anathma to the cult followers. As
> an engineer, all I've seen is the Green Movement using controversial
> methods, yielding unverified results, while people like Al Gore attempt
> to further their own political and personal power.
>
> EDA and the Spotted Owl to decimate logging in Oregon almost 30 years
> ago. The Spotted Owl has continued its rapid march towards extinction
> while our State's economy was devastated.
>
> They are currently trying to use the EDA and Salmon to destroy the
> greenest source of power we have, hydro-electric dams. They continue to
> be okay with killing and eating the fish, but rail against farmed and
> hatchery raised Salmon.
>
> I'm all for getting off fossil fuel, but not because Al Gore is running
> around like Chicken Little. Instead of killing our economy and giving
> money to the third world to keep them in the Dark Ages, we should be
> making a maximum effort towards Hydrogen/Fusion energy development.
>
> What's going on in Denmark has nothing to do with Science, IMHO.
>
> Steve Hawkins
Your use of the word "cult" and your regular use of Al Gore as evil-
librul face of those you disagree with make your opinion on the
subject pretty hard to take seriously. Thousands of scientists think
global warming is caused(at least partially) by man. Al Gore is just
the most recognizable guy pointing that out. And no, I don't agree
that all scientists are "just like politicians". Becoming a scientist
seems like a pretty stupid path to power and prestige. Maybe *some* of
them, even the ones you and the rest of the right disagree with, are
just interested in science. Of course there is the usual politicking
and power-playing in the science community that there is in academia
and business and...., but all of them are in collusion on this?
I'm not a scientist so I can only say this on the subject what makes
sense to me. Considering that in our lifetimes human beings were
demonstrably responsible for rivers being on fire in Ohio and water
pollution so bad that we weren't supposed to swim in the bays and
creeks off of Lake Ontario that I grew up next to, why is it so hard
to swallow that maybe, just maybe, we are screwing up the atmosphere?
Now I guess is where we all line up on our respective right/left sides
of the fence and start hurling shit at each other, eh? :-)
Oh gosh, how many of the thin-skinned puritans will we "run off" this
time?
Larry Brown
wrote:
> Wilbur Slice <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote innews:v4uii551bn0atbeqj...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:22:48 -0500, "Ed Edelenbos"
>
> >>"hank alrich" <walki...@nv.net> wrote in message
Ah, the ol' "I disagree with that, so the source is to be sneered at
and dismissed" argument. So compelling.
Why is it that with terrorism we only have to see a 1% chance to treat
a threat with certainty, "It's not about our analysis ... It's about
our response." but with climate change we must have no doubt before
doing anything? What's wrong with creating a clean-energy industry in
the U.S.? What *are* we going to manufacture, cars?
Larry Brown
Yeah, tell us more, professor!
Steve Hawkins
09cffe...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
What's the Lotto numbers for Saturday please?
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
673fef...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Yeah, kind of a shame, isn't it?
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
Too many carbs.
Steve Hawkins
Misifus
In explaining reversals to my physics students, I always said I would
prefer not to experience one. Might not have any choice in the matter. <g>
Steve Hawkins
news:af999646-ef3e-411b...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> Your use of the word "cult" and your regular use of Al Gore as evil-
> librul face of those you disagree with make your opinion on the
> subject pretty hard to take seriously.
Would you prefer "faith" instead of "cult"? The religious overtones
could be a problem, but the result is the same. My fellow Tennesseean is
a narcissist of the worst kind, is making money off Climate Change and
stands to make even more off of cap and trade.
Did you miss his most recent claim about the polar ice pack? He claimed
the ice pack would be gone in 5 years, based on a climate scientist's
research. The Scientist said his data showed no such thing and Gore had
to admit he didn't even look at the numbers.
> Thousands of scientists think
> global warming is caused(at least partially) by man.
Just as many say the opposite, should we flip a coin or insist on a
reasonable consensus before we run around screaming?
> Al Gore is just
> the most recognizable guy pointing that out. And no, I don't agree
> that all scientists are "just like politicians". Becoming a scientist
> seems like a pretty stupid path to power and prestige. Maybe *some* of
> them, even the ones you and the rest of the right disagree with, are
> just interested in science.
Larry, a Scientist is no different than anyone else. They don't stop
being human and turn into a analytical machine when they graduate. If
so, believing in God would be impossible for a Scientist.
> Of course there is the usual politicking
> and power-playing in the science community that there is in academia
> and business and...., but all of them are in collusion on this?
Again, you believe there is a consensus in the scientific community and
it ain't so.
> I'm not a scientist so I can only say this on the subject what makes
> sense to me. Considering that in our lifetimes human beings were
> demonstrably responsible for rivers being on fire in Ohio and water
> pollution so bad that we weren't supposed to swim in the bays and
> creeks off of Lake Ontario that I grew up next to, why is it so hard
> to swallow that maybe, just maybe, we are screwing up the atmosphere?
As I have already said many times, I'm all for getting rid of fossil
fuels and being as green as possible. None of the current "solutions"
will do that or have any impact on climate change, IMHO.
> Now I guess is where we all line up on our respective right/left sides
> of the fence and start hurling shit at each other, eh? :-)
I think you'd be surprised that this is not a left/right issue; anymore
than the health care debate has turned out to be. It's about what is the
proper thing to do. You have the right to make that leap of "faith", I
have the right to not follow you.
> Oh gosh, how many of the thin-skinned puritans will we "run off" this
> time?
I see you're okay with the number of folks who do not come here anymore.
I've been here since 97/98 and know most of these folks; they're my
friends and I can't think of one of them that woud come close to being a
Puritan.
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
> On Dec 16, 7:42�pm, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> wrote:
>> Wilbur Slice <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote
>> innews:v4uii551bn0atbeqjg
> 0624ic0p...@4ax.com:
LOL! The "source" was the people who wrote the emails. What did you
think they would say? Oh, I'm sure some of it was taken out of context,
but it's still troubling as a whole.
> Why is it that with terrorism we only have to see a 1% chance to treat
> a threat with certainty, "It's not about our analysis ... It's about
> our response." but with climate change we must have no doubt before
> doing anything? What's wrong with creating a clean-energy industry in
> the U.S.? What *are* we going to manufacture, cars?
Larry, what is "clean" energy, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.
I don't believe cars will be disappearing anytime soon, so yes.
Steve Hawkins
Alan D.
>I see you're okay with the number of folks who do not come here anymore.
>I've been here since 97/98 and know most of these folks; they're my
>friends and I can't think of one of them that woud come close to being a
>Puritan.
>
>Steve Hawkins
Steve, I'm wounded! And what about Tom from Tx? We do try so hard...
Alan (holeier than thou) D.
"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you
realize that what you heard is not what I meant." Anonymous
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...[repeat as above]
hans
wrote:
> Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:48ea746c-642e-444c...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Dec, 13:12, Mike Brown <rocko...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
> >> nog wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:33:06 GMT, Mike Brown wrote:
>
> >> >>This is a list of the Australian "delegation" to the meeting.
>
> >> >>114 of thgem.
>
> >> >>I wonder how much polution their air flights added to the
> >> >>atmosphere.
>
> >> > -------------------8><
>
> >> > I suppose, if they all travelled together on a scheduled flight, it
> >> > wouldn't be much less if there had been only 14 of them.
>
> >> > What it does show is that the business to be in is conferencing ...
> >> > ;-)
>
> >> Having seen the news reports it seems that many countries sent a
> >> similar number of people.
>
> >> That would be a lot of fairly large airoplanes.
>
> >> The venues couldn't even handle the official attendees let alone the
> >> sundry hangers on.
>
> >> MJRB
>
> > of the
> > carbon caused by those flights?
>
> that climate change is a natural process. There has been no debate and
> questioning of the so-called "data" is anathma to the cult followers. As
> an engineer, all I've seen is the Green Movement using controversial
> methods, yielding unverified results, while people like Al Gore attempt
> to further their own political and personal power.
>
> EDA and the Spotted Owl to decimate logging in Oregon almost 30 years
> ago. The Spotted Owl has continued its rapid march towards extinction
> while our State's economy was devastated.
>
> They are currently trying to use the EDA and Salmon to destroy the
> greenest source of power we have, hydro-electric dams. They continue to
> be okay with killing and eating the fish, but rail against farmed and
> hatchery raised Salmon.
>
> I'm all for getting off fossil fuel, but not because Al Gore is running
> around like Chicken Little. Instead of killing our economy and giving
> money to the third world to keep them in the Dark Ages, we should be
> making a maximum effort towards Hydrogen/Fusion energy development.
>
> What's going on in Denmark has nothing to do with Science, IMHO.
>
> Steve Hawkins
such vitriol, Steve. So surprised to hear this from you. I thought you
were into a quiet and guitar-oriented usenet. Are you a hypocrit??
I have friends who work in this area and are knowledgeable about this,
no axes to grind. They would shoot your speculative uninformed
opinions down.
Why do you feel knowledgeable to speak out against the extensive
number of scientific experts (not the politicians) who have clearly
observed and documented the changes in CO2 and ocean concentrations
which can be linked to biological effects? What is the expertise that
you bring to the discussion??
hans
Steve Hawkins
news:part1of1.1.c...@ue.ph:
> Steve Hawkins <res0...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>>I see you're okay with the number of folks who do not come here
>>anymore. I've been here since 97/98 and know most of these folks;
>>they're my friends and I can't think of one of them that woud come
>>close to being a Puritan.
>>
>>Steve Hawkins
>
> Steve, I'm wounded! And what about Tom from Tx? We do try so hard...
>
> Alan (holeier than thou) D.
LOL! I forgot, you wear a white hat!
Steve Hawkins
hans
> Larry, what is "clean" energy, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.
> I don't believe cars will be disappearing anytime soon, so yes.
>
> Steve Hawkins
Now, there's an informed opinion. There is no "clean" energy so we
shouldn't expend anti-industrial efforts to that end.
Steve, you are so smart about so many things!!! Fusion/wind/solar/
water... you are so smart.
hans
Steve Hawkins
news:0c0c124c-8595-47d0...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 16, 11:37�am, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> wrote:
>> Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:48ea746c-642e-444c-8067-e
> 11a45...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
I don't start these threads, but I don't have a problem joining them,
you?
> I have friends who work in this area and are knowledgeable about this,
> no axes to grind. They would shoot your speculative uninformed
> opinions down.
Cool, who do they work for? Do they have a website detailiing their
research?
> Why do you feel knowledgeable to speak out against the extensive
> number of scientific experts (not the politicians) who have clearly
> observed and documented the changes in CO2 and ocean concentrations
> which can be linked to biological effects? What is the expertise that
> you bring to the discussion??
>
> hans
Why do you and others ignore the fact that the scientific community is
not one big happy camp on this subject? BTW, the "solutions" I see being
debated are pretty much driven by politicians.
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
news:95962779-9789-44fb...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Larry, what is "clean" energy, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't
>> exist.
> �
>> I don't believe cars will be disappearing anytime soon, so yes.
>>
>> Steve Hawkins
>
> Now, there's an informed opinion. There is no "clean" energy so we
> shouldn't expend anti-industrial efforts to that end.
Care to explain how energy magically appears, ready for use? "anti-
industrial", what does that mean?
> Steve, you are so smart about so many things!!! Fusion/wind/solar/
> water... you are so smart.
>
> hans
Hans, I question, I always have and always will. "Becasue I said so,
trust me and so forth....." has never been an accpetable answer to me.
Before we turn our lives and world upside-down and inside-out, I'd like
some reasonable assurance that we're doing the right thing and that it
will work. What I think and want will have no bearing on what happens,
so I'm puzzled why you and otehrs get so upset about it. I'm just
expressing my opinions the same as you.
Steve Hawkins
Larry Brown
wrote:
> Larry Brown <larrybro...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:95f47b36-d371-4c19...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 7:42 pm, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> > wrote:
> >> Wilbur Slice <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote
> >> innews:v4uii551bn0atbeqjg
I was referring to your sarcastic line about the AP. They went through
the "gotcha'" emails and analyzed them to see whether or not they were
really the smoking gun the right wants them to be. They found that the
claim that these emails prove that man made climate change is a hoax,
which Fox and company would have you believe, is just not true. I've
never heard one news source cited, if you disagreed with what it said,
that you didn't scoff at, but of course you have always been quick to
defend Fox news as "no more biased than any of the others."
The "clean" energy I refer to is wind, solar, etc.. Germany and China
(yes I know they also still use lots of coal) lead the way in research
and development of these products while in the U.S. we continue to
bicker about wether or not the status quo is just fine.
I'm sure cars aren't disappearing, but jobs building them in the U.S.
certainly are. If the mighty librul scoundrel Al Gore is going to
attain so much wealth and power convincing the world that climate
change makes new technology a good idea anyway, why not let some U.S.
companies and workers cash in too?
Misifus
The trouble with fusion is that the nearest reliable reactor is 93
million miles away, and we're already using most of what we can from
that source.
Btw, I live in the middle of thousands of wind generators. When I drive
by them, often as not, most are motionless. There was a major crisis
about a year or so ago, when the wind dropped during peak usage hours
and the grid had to cut off many major manufacturing plants. That's not
what I would call reliable.
Larry Brown
wrote:
The only place where there isn't a broad consensus among the
scientific community on the subject of climate change is in the
American right-wing media. There is not an equal number of scientists
(who actually work in the field) who dispute that climate change is
happening and that human activity is contributing to/speeding it up.
The loudest doubters I've heard tend to have degrees from Chapman
University and/or work in unrelated fields.
I misused "puritans". I guess I meant "purists" as in "You people
should stop talking about anything other than guitars, pets, or the
weather because the arguing upsets me and makes me want to leave." You
continue to worry about those "folks who do not come here anymore" but
you don't hesitate to contribute to the discussions that "drive them
away" do you? And I'm not saying you shouldn't participate. But there
is no "they" that drives anyone out. They leave because they
apparently don't have the discipline to not read threads about
subjects other than guitars. Plus, I think it's as much a vanity/ego
thing as arguing is. One can get on the soapbox about a subject that
he or she cares about, or one can storm off in a huff and "show 'em
what damage they've done." Just another opinion being expressed,
either way.
I can think of more than one "It's a shame he doesn't come here
anymore" but I'll be damned if I'll feel guilty for what someone else
freely chooses to do.
I imagine the very first club of whatever sort that cavemen started
had some members break off after awhile complaining about how some
neanderthals had "just RUINED it for everyone else!" and it's been
going on in church groups, AA groups, and any other "club" you can
name ever since.
Whew.
So I guess we've had our dose of pointless round and round for the
day, eh? :-)
hans
oh, great, Raf. Then just discard wind power.Those unreliable wind
turbines must just be too difficult to fix so the technology doesn;t
work. Your comment is an utterly lame criticism of wind power.
And that's what I read in this thread. Lots of pompous posts from
folks like Steve who jump to the first and easiest conclusion instead
of recognizing the importance of finding alternatives to fossil fuel,
if only because t is a limited and admittedly dirty source of energy.
Call em Greenies and talk about broken wind turbines. It's all about
party lines here.
Not getting into it with you about this. Many of you obviously do not
care to find solutions. Long live your mythologies and half-truths
hans
hans
wrote:
I didn;t express any opinions, Steve, unlike you who pontificated
about various alleged problems of which I don;t believe you know
anything. Rush-isms are what you have been digesting and then giving
me shit about vitriol. Oh my, Steve.
hans
hans
wrote:
> hans <anybutb...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0c0c124c-8595-47d0...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 11:37 am, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> > wrote:
> >> Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:48ea746c-642e-444c-8067-e
As a scientist, let me clue you in on one big fact, Steve, which you
seem to have missed: most of science is controversial and conclusions
are arrived at by slow methodical and rational analysis. Happy
camps?? You obviously don;t have lots of experience using your words
precisely but science is not about happy camps. It's about data. If
you prefer to rely on Rush and Glenn to provide you with your belief
systems, that's your choice.
I am out of this now. Have great time fomenting disquiet and
identifying evils. See you in the healthcare debate thread next.
hans
hans
wrote:
> hans <anybutb...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0c0c124c-8595-47d0...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 11:37 am, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> > wrote:
> >> Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:48ea746c-642e-444c-8067-e
I did not ignore anything. I did not draw any conclusions. YOU are the
one who out-of-hand rejected any possible truth to the concerns about
climate changes. I have considerable doubts about many things which
does not cause me discard their truth as within the realm of
possiblity. Maybe that sort of complexity isn;t comfortable for you.
Many possibilities remain in the climate concerns but you are clearly
on record as finding them false based on your revealed knowledge.
Science, about which you have demonstrated no understanding, discards
no idea until is found to be untrue. Many lines of evidence suggest
that fossil fuels are responsible for increasing CO2 levels and CO2 in
the atmosphere may chemically alter acid-base balance in the ocean and
in other biological systems. The effect of ostrich-like behaviors
(such as your opinions and those of Rush and the other saviors) is to
close the minds of people who might want to consider facts. I get it
from Rush cuz he's an entertainer but you should hold yourself to a
higher standard. These issues have not been resolved and there is
plenty of cause for concern. So, shouting people down, as you have
done, is at least unpatriotic and mostly foolhardy.
hans
hans
Steve Hawkins
news:ad19297e-9dc4-4506...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 17, 11:40�am, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> wrote:
>> hans <anybutb...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:0c0c124c-8595-47d0-9da9-6dea6c
> 0c8...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
LOL! The Cartman defense! Okay, but I think the Dems are doing a great
job all by themselves with that debate.
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
news:62d35245-3d85-446f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 17, 11:40�am, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> wrote:
>> hans <anybutb...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:0c0c124c-8595-47d0-9da9-6dea6c
> 0c8...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I'm "shouting" people down? So, it's not okay for me to doubt, question
and state an opinion? Would you care to explain why? I'm curious as to
why you're so threatened by a different opinion, especially mine.
You do understand my Mothership shtick is for fun, right?
Steve Hawkins
hans
wrote:
look up "bait and switch"
give me 500 words on the topic by Monday
hans
("just for fun")
BobN
remember from last year.
I just dipped in to see what was up musically and see that nothing has
changed.
Steve, I can't believe you still talk to these clowns, but good on you for
keeping your head up. Why you do it remains a mystery. No amount of facts or
logic can sway them from their Leftist delusions. I guess that's why the
psychologists call them delusions.
hans
Hi Bob, Fuck you too. You might need to learn what delusional really
means since I have been quite on the topic which obviously doesn;t
interest you except to come piss on it. Every dog...... (no mystery
there)
hans
Steve Hawkins
news:fc7005c1-96b3-4121...@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> I didn;t express any opinions, Steve, unlike you who pontificated
> about various alleged problems of which I don;t believe you know
> anything. Rush-isms are what you have been digesting and then giving
> me shit about vitriol. Oh my, Steve.
>
> hans
Well, here I'll let someone else "pontificate". Now I know you and
others will commence to have a cow merely because of it's source and I
agree it's condescendingly written and he's not a "Scientist", but the
info he's rounded up to support his argument is part of why I'm not ready
to jump on the GW bandwagon. This guy thinks it's good enough to say
pooh, all it does for me is to want to hear how the GW crowd factored in
this and other info with their data. Convince me, don't tell me.
It's an op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal.
Steve Hawkins
<begin>
By HOWARD BLOOM
Climate change activists are right. We are in for walloping shifts in the
planet's climate. Catastrophic shifts. But the activists are wrong about
the reason. Very wrong. And the prescription for a solution�a $27
trillion solution�is likely to be even more wrong. Why?
Climate change is not the fault of man. It's Mother Nature's way. And
sucking greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is too limited a solution.
We have to be prepared for fire or ice, for fry or freeze. We have to be
prepared for change.
We've been deceived by a stroke of luck. In the two million years during
which we climbed from stone-tool wielding Homo erectus with sloping brows
to high-foreheaded Homo urbanis, man the inventor of the city, we
underwent 60 glaciations, 60 ice ages. And in the 120,000 years since we
emerged in our current physiological shape as Homo sapiens, we've lived
through 20 sudden global warmings. In most of those, temperatures have
shot up by as much as 18 degrees within a mere 20 years.
All this took place without smokestacks and tailpipes. All this took
place without the desecration of nature by modern man.
The stroke of luck that's misled us? The sheets of ice in whose shadow we
made a living for two million years peeled back 12,000 years ago leaving
a lush new Garden of Eden. In that Eden we invented agriculture, money,
electronics and our current way of life. But that weather standstill has
held on for an abnormally long amount of time. And it's very likely that
this atypical weather truce shall someday pass.
Why? What's the real cause of the Earth's norm, a climate that rocks back
and forth from steamy tropical heat to icy freeze? A climate that
deposits fossilized seashells on mountaintops and makes dry land into
seas and swamps?
The Earth is a traveler. Its angle as it sweeps around the sun produces
the massive weather flips we call seasons�the dance from summer to winter
and back again. But there's more. Our planet has a peculiar wobble, its
precession. And that precession produces upheavals in our weather,
weather alterations we cycle through every 22,000, 41,000 and 100,000
years. This is called the Milankovich cycle, named for the Serbian
engineer and geophysicist who discovered it.
But the wobbles in our trip around the sun are just a start. The sun is a
traveler, too. It circles the black hole at the galaxy's core every 226
million years. And it takes its tiny flock of planets with it. That means
us. The result?
The journey around the galactic core is fraught with dangers. For
example, every 143 million years we pass through a spiral arm of the
galaxy, an arm that tosses tsunamis of cosmic rays our way. Those rays
produce massive climate change. Then there's the innocent-sounding stuff
astronomers call galactic "fluff," massive clouds of cosmic dust lurking
in our solar system's path that also cause dramatic climate change.
Meanwhile, the sun itself is going through a cycle from birth to death.
As a result of its maturation, good old reliable sol is 43% warmer today
than it was when the Earth first gathered itself into a globe of
planetesimals 4.5 billion years ago.
The bottom line? Weather changes and the occasional meteor have tossed
this planet through roughly 142 mass extinctions since life began 3.85
billion years ago. That's an average of one mass extinction every 26.5
million years. Where did these mass die-offs come from? Nature. There
were no human capitalists, industrialists or cultures of consumerism to
blame.
We do not want to be the victims of one of these extinctions. Nor do we
want to see whales, elephants and pandas go the way of trilobites and
dinosaurs. We need to prepare for far more than just the changes we think
we make. We need to prepare for the challenge that forced us to evolve
into our modern, highly adaptable form. We have to realize that nature
tosses us tests, and that we grow by outwitting her. We have to prepare
for fire and ice. And we have to realize that Mother Nature is not nice.
Steve Hawkins
news:edxWm.68736$de6....@newsfe21.iad:
Just me I guess, there's always at least two sides to a discussion, if only
one side is ever heard how in the world can you make an informed decision?
Steve Hawkins
Mike Brown
> On Dec 16, 11:37 am, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
> wrote:
>
> librul face of those you disagree with make your opinion on the
> global warming is caused(at least partially) by man. Al Gore is just
> the most recognizable guy pointing that out. And no, I don't agree
> that all scientists are "just like politicians". Becoming a scientist
> seems like a pretty stupid path to power and prestige. Maybe *some* of
> them, even the ones you and the rest of the right disagree with, are
> and power-playing in the science community that there is in academia
> and business and...., but all of them are in collusion on this?
> sense to me.
> Considering that in our lifetimes human beings were
> demonstrably responsible for rivers being on fire in Ohio and water
> pollution so bad that we weren't supposed to swim in the bays and
> creeks off of Lake Ontario that I grew up next to, why is it so hard
> to swallow that maybe, just maybe, we are screwing up the atmosphere?
The water polution is not necessarily connected with climate change
(though it probably is). I certainly agree that we are causing
atmospheric polution, I'm just not convinced that CO2 makes much of a
contribution to it. Neither am I convinced that the temperature rises
are not mostly part of the natural cycle.
And I'm not right wing, I'm totally convinced that big business is
largely responsible for most of the worlds problems.
> Now I guess is where we all line up on our respective right/left sides
> of the fence and start hurling shit at each other, eh? :-)
> Oh gosh, how many of the thin-skinned puritans will we "run off" this
> time?
No shit, just a sensible discussion.
MJ (lefty) RB
Mike Brown
I'm just starting to reread Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" (I have
all of his books) and find that I have a cutting in the front reporting
his death. Many of his forecasts have been proved correct even though
scienticts at the time abused him. He writes quite a bit about the
reversals, and presents some pretty convincing evidence.
Interesting quote from the cutting.
"Worlds in Collision was first published by Macmillansand rapidly
became a best seller. After a few weeks however, publishinf rights were
transferred to Doubleday, and the commisioning editor at Macmillans who
had approved the book was summarily dismissed. This sudden retreat was
due to pressures brought to bear on Macmillans by a number of academics
and scientists, prominent among whom were the late Harlow Shapley, then
director of the Harvard Observatory and Otto Struve, director of the
Yerkes Observatory."
So much for the open minded attitudes of science.
MJRB
Mike Brown
What about the equally extensive number of scientific experts who disagree.
I can bring no personal expertise, but I do try to read about both sides
of the situation. Many people only seem to read the sensational stuff
published in the media.
There is considerable scientific support for the idea that once there is
a layer of CO2 (which ther always has been), any additional thickness
makes very little difference.
MJRB
Mike Brown
Raf was simply pointing out that the turbines rely on wind. I'm a big
fan of the wind turbines, I even think that they are quite attractive,
but if the wind stops . . . .
I'd like to see more done with tidal and wave generation.
MJRB
Mike Brown
Pot - kettle again.
MJRB
hans
Bullshit Mike Brown. I did not offer any opinions on the subject. Just
called out the guy who offered stupid anti-industry, Rushisms. So you
are the one with black on your nose not me. Go look for some other
easy target but use a brain cell next time.
hans
hans
Mike, maybe you should read it again without rose-colored glasses .
Raf said wind energy is unreliable based on the broken turbines. I
believe you just said that was not your view. You and Raf do not agree
on this issue and you are defending him to me.
The sky is red and gravity moves sideways on this board.
hans
Mike Brown
> hans <anybu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:fc7005c1-96b3-4121...@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>I didn;t express any opinions, Steve, unlike you who pontificated
>>about various alleged problems of which I don;t believe you know
>>anything. Rush-isms are what you have been digesting and then giving
>>me shit about vitriol. Oh my, Steve.
>>
>>hans
>
>
> Well, here I'll let someone else "pontificate". Now I know you and
> others will commence to have a cow merely because of it's source and I
> agree it's condescendingly written and he's not a "Scientist", but the
> info he's rounded up to support his argument is part of why I'm not ready
> to jump on the GW bandwagon. This guy thinks it's good enough to say
> pooh, all it does for me is to want to hear how the GW crowd factored in
> this and other info with their data. Convince me, don't tell me.
>
> It's an op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal.
>
> Steve Hawkins
>
> <begin>
> By HOWARD BLOOM
> Climate change activists are right. We are in for walloping shifts in the
> planet's climate. Catastrophic shifts. But the activists are wrong about
> the reason. Very wrong. And the prescription for a solution�a $27
> trillion solution�is likely to be even more wrong. Why?
>
> Climate change is not the fault of man. It's Mother Nature's way. And
> sucking greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is too limited a solution.
> We have to be prepared for fire or ice, for fry or freeze. We have to be
> prepared for change.
>
> We've been deceived by a stroke of luck. In the two million years during
> which we climbed from stone-tool wielding Homo erectus with sloping brows
> to high-foreheaded Homo urbanis, man the inventor of the city, we
> underwent 60 glaciations, 60 ice ages. And in the 120,000 years since we
> emerged in our current physiological shape as Homo sapiens, we've lived
> through 20 sudden global warmings. In most of those, temperatures have
> shot up by as much as 18 degrees within a mere 20 years.
>
> All this took place without smokestacks and tailpipes. All this took
> place without the desecration of nature by modern man.
>
> The stroke of luck that's misled us? The sheets of ice in whose shadow we
> made a living for two million years peeled back 12,000 years ago leaving
> a lush new Garden of Eden. In that Eden we invented agriculture, money,
> electronics and our current way of life. But that weather standstill has
> held on for an abnormally long amount of time. And it's very likely that
> this atypical weather truce shall someday pass.
>
> Why? What's the real cause of the Earth's norm, a climate that rocks back
> and forth from steamy tropical heat to icy freeze? A climate that
> deposits fossilized seashells on mountaintops and makes dry land into
> seas and swamps?
>
> The Earth is a traveler. Its angle as it sweeps around the sun produces
> the massive weather flips we call seasons�the dance from summer to winter
This is just another view, not my opinion. There are a lot of links if
you can be bothered to follow them.
MJRB
All Life On Planet Depends On CO2.
Carbon is not causing global warming or climate change.
A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses: it is an idea that
possesses the mind. Robert Bolton.
The Possessive Belief
CO2 (CARBON) IS NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE. I can�t
say it more boldly but it doesn�t seem to matter; the belief persists
that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by
government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the
opportunities they create.
A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of
political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence
continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental
Panel on HYPERLINK "http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10987"
Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most don�t understand.
The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is
disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always
wrong doesn�t require understanding of the science is completely
unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence
The 2007 IPCC Report claimed with over 90% certainty that human produced
CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence shows
this can�t be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of
any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate
with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric
CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th
century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2
was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940
but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures
declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens
plant life, oxygen production and therefore all life on the planet.
Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi provided the most recent scientific argument
against CO2 as the cause of temperature change. HYPERLINK
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykgg9m-7FK4&feature=channel_page%20%20"
Here is an explanation by Dr Miklos Zagoni.
It illustrates why the scientific arguments that CO2 is not the problem
are not making much headway � they�re very complicated. Basically,
Miskolczi is saying that the Greenhouse Effect is present but
essentially constant over time, therefore temperature variations are due
to some other cause. He is extending the idea of saturation, already
known about CO2, to all greenhouse gases. I refer to this as the black
paint condition. If you want to block light coming through a window a
single coat of black paint will stop almost all of it. Second and third
coats reduce the light but by decreasing fractions. The amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere is like the first coat of paint � doubling and tripling
the amount reduces heat going to space by decreasing fractions. The IPCC
got around this problem by incorrectly claiming a positive feedback.
This says increased CO2 raises global temperature that increases
evaporation of water vapor to the atmosphere. This supposedly enhances
the warming due to increased CO2, but the idea is now discredited.
Miskkolczi�s argument means any variations in global temperature are
almost all due to changes in solar and geothermal energy. Inclusion of
geothermal is unusual. This energy from within the earth, especially
into the oceans is essentially and as I have long argued, HYPERLINK
"http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-climatically-saturated-greenhouse-effect/"
incorrectly ignored.
Failed Predictions
The IPCC claim they do not make predictions but produce what they call
scenarios. This is a deception: they are predictions and understood as
such by the public. More important IPCC urge politicians to use them as
the basis for policy through The Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The
scenarios are a range of possible future global temperatures determined
from a combination of climate and economic conditions. HYPERLINK
"http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=318" Ian Castles and HYPERLINK
"http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/275.pdf" David Henderson have
roundly criticized them. MIT professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen
referred to them as HYPERLINK
"http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000482.html" children�s
exercises.
The 2007 IPCC HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf"
report says:
�For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2�C per decade is
projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the
concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year
2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1�C per decade would be
expected. (SRES is Special Report on Emissions Scenario)�
That simply hasn�t happened. What is happening cannot happen according
to the IPCC. Their 2007 Report painted them into a corner. It claimed
with over 90% certainty that CO2 was increasing because of human
economic activities and was almost the sole cause of temperature
increase. Notice the quote says temperature will rise even if greenhouse
gases don�t increase. The problem is CO2 has increased yet the
temperature has declined.
Equally important the recent economic downturn was not anticipated,
which is a measure of the failure of the entire IPCC approach. They
claim that economic activity is the key to human production of CO2,
which causes warming. Over the last 18 months the dramatic increase in
gasoline prices and then the serious recession should have caused a
measurable drop in CO2 levels. It didn�t! There is no evidence of a
decline as the NOAA graph illustrates.
INCLUDEPICTURE
"http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/NOAA%20Graph.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET
Ignoring the Obvious
At what point does misrepresentation of facts become lies? A general
definition of the word lie is �an intentionally false statement�, but
this applies to a single statement and the key word is �intentional�. A
single misunderstanding or a misstatement can occur, but what if there
are a series of misstatements from an individual or group? What happens
when many statements are proved incorrect, but they continue to repeat
them or fail to acknowledge they were false?
There is a long and growing list of statements by promoters of human CO2
induced global warming that have proven incorrect. Yet they continue to
push their claim by ignoring the evidence and diverting attention with
new specious and spurious claims. Most politicians and mainstream media
continue to believe because they don�t understand or don�t want to
understand for political reasons. However, even they must understand
when the predictions are consistently wrong. Science is simply defined
as the ability to predict, so the failure invalidates the science even
if you don�t understand the science. People who persist only have a
blind belief and as the adage says, there are none so blind as those who
will not see. What a terrifying basis for devastating and totally
unnecessary energy and economic policies.
Tim Ball, Senior Fellow, has an extensive science background in
climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the
impact of climate change on human history and the human condition with
additional experience in water resources and areas of sustainable
development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact
of government policy on business and economics. He is a regular
contributing writer for Country Guide Magazine and a researcher/author
of numerous papers on climate, long range weather patterns, impacts of
climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical
climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and
flooding problems. He had a long academic career at the University of
Winnipeg until he moved to Victoria in 1996. He has a BA from the
University of Winnipeg, an MA from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D
(Doctor of Science) from the University of London England.
MKR
wrote:
> Larry Brown <larrybro...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:af999646-ef3e-411b...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > librul face of those you disagree with make your opinion on the
> > subject pretty hard to take seriously.
>
Both are lies.
> The religious overtones
> could be a problem, but the result is the same. My fellow Tennesseean is
> a narcissist of the worst kind, is making money off Climate Change and
> stands to make even more off of cap and trade.
>
> Did you miss his most recent claim about the polar ice pack? He claimed
> the ice pack would be gone in 5 years, based on a climate scientist's
> research. The Scientist said his data showed no such thing and Gore had
> to admit he didn't even look at the numbers.
And so you take from that incident that global warming is a hoax?
Jeeze... here's what "The Scientist" said about it:
*****************************************************************************
Dr Maslowki said that his latest results give a six-year projection
for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some
ice to remain beyond 2020.
He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-
free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern
ocean.”
******************************************************************************
See? Only 80 percent of the ice - and "some" ice may remain "beyond
2020". So therefore global warming is false and Al Gore is
discredited? Sheesh! You should explore beyond Faux News, and maybe
you wouldn't be so poorly informed.
>
> > Thousands of scientists think
> > global warming is caused(at least partially) by man.
>
> Just as many say the opposite,
Total bullshit.
>should we flip a coin or insist on a
> reasonable consensus before we run around screaming?
There is FAR more than a reasonable consensus - it is, in fact,
overwhelming.
>
> > Al Gore is just
> > the most recognizable guy pointing that out. And no, I don't agree
> > that all scientists are "just like politicians". Becoming a scientist
> > seems like a pretty stupid path to power and prestige. Maybe *some* of
> > them, even the ones you and the rest of the right disagree with, are
> > just interested in science.
>
> Larry, a Scientist is no different than anyone else.
Sure they are. They are scientists. That alone makes them
"different". They study these fields scientifically. If you think
that makes their opinions about their specialty areas no more valuable
than, say, Sarah Palin's, then you're even further gone than I
thought. <chuckle>
Besides, we're not talking about one scientist here or even a few
spread thinly around. We're talking about the overwhelming majority
of scientists whose fields of study involve climatology.
> They don't stop
> being human and turn into a analytical machine when they graduate. If
> so, believing in God would be impossible for a Scientist.
>
> > Of course there is the usual politicking
> > and power-playing in the science community that there is in academia
> > and business and...., but all of them are in collusion on this?
>
> Again, you believe there is a consensus in the scientific community and
> it ain't so.
It *is* so. Get your head out of Faux News' hole and pay attention.
Just as you do with the nonsense you wrote above about how global
warming is discredited because Al Gore loosely mis-quoted a scientist
- in spite of the fact that the scientist *still* unequivocally backs
the global warming research and is decidedly *not* on your side - you
seem to think that there is no scientific consensus that global
warming is happening and is at least partly caused by human activity
simply because there are arguments amongst scientists about the fine
points of the issues.
That's like the people who claim that evolution is "just a theory" and
is false because there are competing blocs of scientists who disagree
over minor points about *how* evolution has happened. But they pretty
much all agree that it *did* happen (and *is* happening). Same with
global warming. Climatologists may argue with each other about the
details, but there is overwhelming agreement that it *is* happening,
and that mankind is at least partly responsible.
Zeke Skarland
wrote:
> Shy Picker <ShyPic...@aol.com> wrote innews:fa20c5e0-c518-4eb7...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Anyway, things happen for a reason. And the population explosion of
> > humans and the use of fossil fuels is as good as any until someone
> > comes up with a better explanation.
>
> > David
>
> Well, based on that scientific analysis, you should stop exhaling until
> someone comes up with a better explanation.
>
> Steve Hawkins
profound
Zeke Skarland
wrote:
> Wilbur Slice <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote innews:405ji5pcbamfjoio1...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:42:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Hawkins> >>news:v4uii551bn0atbeqj...@4ax.com:
> > accept anything that a "libbrul" might say, no matter what the
> > scientific evidence.
>
> > Credibility has been hugely independently established - the scientific
> > consensus about climate change is as overwhelming as, say...
> > evolution.
>
> > But folks like you aren't actually interested in facts and truth and
> > science. You have your agenda, and you're sticking to it.
>
> Grape or Cherry?
>
> Steve Hawkins
profound
persisten...@yahoo.com
Wha? You mean...the Mothership is...fantasy...?
OMG! There I was thinking it was going to save me from global
warming..
Pete
Geezer51
<persisten...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v8ili5hp4g4h49787...@4ax.com...
Nope,
All you're going to get is Global Pissing and Moaning...
Geezer
Misifus
That's great, Hans, misapprehend my post. I didn't say it was too
difficult to fix wind turbines. I said when I see a flock (grove,
forest, whatever one calls a gaggle of the things) which I know weren't
there three years ago, and most of them aren't working on a day when
there is wind blowing, that is not a reliable source of energy.
When an oil well is drilled usually the first three years of its
production goes to paying off the costs of drilling and producing the
well. After that, the well makes money for the investors. If we apply
the same rate of return to wind generators, only to find that 50% of
them aren't producing after three years, that sounds like a poor
investment to me.
In addition, I referred to an incident which occurred and caused a large
disturbance here, when the wind stopped just when we needed it most. It
was a major disruption of the power grid, and it won't be the last. I
know that wind farms are subsidized and that most wouldn't exist if it
weren't for the subsidies.
T. Boone Pickins is touting them largely because he cornered the leases
for "Air rights", the aerial equivalent of mineral rights, over vast
tracts of the Western US. He gets paid if they build them whether the
farms meet our needs or earn any money or not.
I realize that references to investors and their return on investment
won't resonate with you, but that how things get done, here in America.
Mike Brown
Quote from Raf
"There was a major crisis about a year or so ago, when the wind dropped
during peak usage hours and the grid had to cut off many major
manufacturing plants."
MJRB
Misifus
I certainly agree that geothermal, tidal and wave energy are much more
reliable sources than the wind. Wind is just plain fickle.
While on the subject of alternative sources of energy, several means of
solar power tend to be extremely power greedy in their production. That
is, they are extremely power intensive to produce.
That's right up there with the gasoline, here in Texas, which is
labelled "Ethanol enriched". "Enriched"? Hunh? Ethanol produces less
power than the gasoline it's replacing, and it costs more. In addition,
it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of lower
power ethanol. And, this "enrichment" (somebody's getting enriched) is
taking place in Texas, where we don't grow corn or produce ethanol, but
we make more than a little gasoline.
persisten...@yahoo.com
So, Bob, is global warming a political issue or an environmental one?
I'm not at all sure that the behaviour of the Earth's climate is left
or right wing. Nor am I sure that the Earth gives a damn about whether
we as a species survives or fails.
Do you know what Kool-Aid was?
The Kool-Aid tells me that the cosmos just is, and it will swipe us
away with a brush of the back of it's hand, irrelevant,
inconsequential, a blip on the cosmic radar..bleep bleep ping ping....
S'cuse me..the Vogons are coming...
Pete
Larry Pattis
<persisten...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Kool-Aid tells me that the cosmos just is, and it will swipe us
> away with a brush of the back of it's hand, irrelevant,
> inconsequential, a blip on the cosmic radar..bleep bleep ping ping....
>
> S'cuse me..the Vogons are coming...
>
> Pete
Grab your towels, mates...
--
Larry Pattis
email: LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
http://www.LarryPattis.com
Steve Hawkins
news:v8ili5hp4g4h49787...@4ax.com:
psssst....we have to keep up appearances otherwise the USAF and RAF keep
hassling us. Didja notice we got the UFO Report line disconnected in the
UK? Those who are worthy will be saved!
Steve Hawkins
Steve Hawkins
news:4ljli515nrt16v35h...@4ax.com:
Vogon poetry!!!!!! lalalalalalalalalalalala.............
Steve "have towel, will travel" Hawkins
persisten...@yahoo.com
<zeke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 10:07�ｿｽpm, Steve Hawkins <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS>
>wrote:
>> Wilbur Slice <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote innews:405ji5pcbamfjoio1...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:42:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Hawkins
>> > <res0p...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>
>> >>Wilbur Slice <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote in
>> >>news:v4uii551bn0atbeqj...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:22:48 -0500, "Ed Edelenbos"
>> >>> <e...@spookeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>"hank alrich" <walki...@nv.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:1jatj15.c2lzihvzgi80N%walk...@nv.net...
>>
>> >>>>> What amazes me is that even engineers will fail to apply sense.
>>
>> >>>>The problem Hank, is that people have taken sides and they are no
>> >>>>longer analyzing data. �ｿｽAny data presented is obviously tainted by
>> the
>> >>>>greenies and patently false. �ｿｽThe funny thing is that no data is
>> being
>> >>>>presented by those who oppose environmental action... �ｿｽonly how it is
>> >>>>bad for business.
>>
>> >>> Well, that's not actually true. �ｿｽYou apparently refer to the email
>> >>> "scandal" of recent weeks. �ｿｽBut, first of all, it turns out that is
>> >>> nonsense. �ｿｽThe Associate Press analyzed the stolen emails and found
>> no
>> >>> evidence of fraudulent data manipulation. �ｿｽThis is all just nonsense
>> >>> from the birthers, teabaggers, Palin supporters, "Mission
>> >>> Accomplished" prevaricators and other low-IQ fanatics and liars.
>>
>> >>> Even if you assume the absolute worst about those emails, the fact
>> >>> remains that there is ton after ton of other, independent evidence
>> >>> that says the same thing - the earth is warming. �ｿｽThere is no didpute
>> >>> about this. �ｿｽGlaciers are receding or gone. �ｿｽIn the summertime, there
>> >>> is open water at the North Pole. �ｿｽThis is not even disputable.
>>
>> >>> So now the deniers - those who used to claim that the atmosphere
>> >>> wasn't even warming - have had to retreat from that and now they'
>> >>> re feebly trying to claim that it's all natural and that humans have
>> >>> nothing to do with it.
>>
>> >>> But it's only controversial for those birther-teabagger neanderthals.
>> >>> The actual scientists who know about the subject and study it in
>> depth
>> >>> are overwhelmingly agreed that not only is the climtae changing, but
>> >>> that humans are having a causal effect.
>>
>> >>> And a few emails from some English institution cannot possibly change
>> >>> that, as much as the birth-baggers would like it to.
>>
>> >>Ah, the AP is the final arbiter of truth. �ｿｽFor those with a lot of free
>> >>time you can decide for yourself.
>>
>> >>http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%
>> >>2C_models%2C_1996-2009
>>
>> >>It's a 60MB zip file, I took a look at a "how to sell climate change"
>> >>doc, but that's all. �ｿｽThere's over a thousand emails plus the files. �ｿｽ
>> >>There's also plenty of analysis in Google, biased both ways. �ｿｽThe
>> bottom
>> >>line for me is it creates doubt and a need for credibility to be
>> >>independantly established.
>>
>> >>Steve Hawkins
>>
>> > It doesn't "create doubt", except amongst birth-baggers who will never
>> > accept anything that a "libbrul" might say, no matter what the
>> > scientific evidence.
>>
>> > Credibility has been hugely independently established - the scientific
>> > consensus about climate change is as overwhelming as, say...
>> > evolution.
>>
>> > But folks like you aren't actually interested in facts and truth and
>> > science. �ｿｽYou have your agenda, and you're sticking to it.
>>
>> Grape or Cherry?
>>
>> Steve Hawkins
>
>profound
There's a very simple answer to this whole thread, and that is that
since the advent of industrialisation we have been trashing the planet
more or less at will. I'm far more concerned with the ecosystem than
global warming and rising sea levels.
Madagascar is losing rosewood at a terrifying rate (and being
replanted with non-sustainable palms), the Amazon Basin is losing
areas the size of Wales every day (just goes to show how big the
Earth's lungs are, eh?).
If we save the forests (which eat CO2) we can pump as much carbon into
the atmosphere as we like - the trees will just drink it. Cut down the
forests (and they really are disappearing at an alarming rate in
return for very short-term profit) and we'll eventually boil ourselves
to death. Venus here we come...
When it comes to deforestation - that really makes me want to walk
into the woods with an Uzi.
I disagree completely with Hawkins recidivism on this subject. I know
he's trying to be objective but there's a feeling of 'I can't admit to
global warming - everything will change if I do'.
Change is a challenge, not something to be afraid of. There's money in
fighting it. I agree about the idea that the conservationists are
causing as much trouble as anyone else - there's plenty of river
systems which support very healthy salmon populations which are not
dammed. The wierd thing is that there are no sub-species of humans -
we're either human or not, there is no bio-diversity in the human
race.
But..the human race is the only species on the planet with the means
of communication to save it or destroy it. I would rather lean towards
saving it (just in case) than risk destroying it (on a wing and a
prayer).
Pete
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>
>I'm just starting to reread Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" (I have
>all of his books) and find that I have a cutting in the front reporting
>his death. Many of his forecasts have been proved correct even though
>scienticts at the time abused him. He writes quite a bit about the
>reversals, and presents some pretty convincing evidence.
>
>Interesting quote from the cutting.
>
> "Worlds in Collision was first published by Macmillansand rapidly
>became a best seller. After a few weeks however, publishinf rights were
>transferred to Doubleday, and the commisioning editor at Macmillans who
>had approved the book was summarily dismissed. This sudden retreat was
>due to pressures brought to bear on Macmillans by a number of academics
>and scientists, prominent among whom were the late Harlow Shapley, then
>director of the Harvard Observatory and Otto Struve, director of the
>Yerkes Observatory."
>
>So much for the open minded attitudes of science.
There's a difference between an open mind and an empty one. Velikovsky
was a laughable nutcase. Science is no more closed-minded for
rejecting him than it is for rejecting flat-earthers or people who
believe that disease is caused by homunculi living in our stomachs.
Steve Hawkins
news:tblli51ha6vb5hcte...@4ax.com:
> I disagree completely with Hawkins recidivism on this subject. I know
> he's trying to be objective but there's a feeling of 'I can't admit to
> global warming - everything will change if I do'.
>
>
> Pete
I've lost track, are we warming or cooling? The debate going on about
that seems to have morphed global warming into climate change. So, how
can we make decisions if they can't even agree on that?
I'm fairly sure that giving billions of dollars to China and India will
not change the climate.
As for change, I attended six elementary schools, three middle schools
and two high schools, all across the USA nad half-way around the world.
I do know all about change. :-)
I also have "faith" that common sense solutions will eventually prevail
after the political solutions fail and the news agencies drop climate
change as the lead story due to the discovery of Tiger Woods' 30th
mistress. :-)
We must have some pints together again sometime!
Steve Hawkins
Shy Picker
> In article <4ljli515nrt16v35hiicjf7esu1899v...@4ax.com>,
>
> <persistent_offen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The Kool-Aid tells me that the cosmos just is, and it will swipe us
> > away with a brush of the back of it's hand, irrelevant,
> > inconsequential, a blip on the cosmic radar..bleep bleep ping ping....
>
> > S'cuse me..the Vogons are coming...
>
> > Pete
>
> Grab your towels, mates...
>
> --
> Larry Pattis
> email: LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" comhttp://www.LarryPattis.com
Don't Panic!
Mike Brown
That is a matter of opinion. Many of his theories have been proved
correct now that we are able to check on the behaviour of the planets.
MJRB