OT: Recent climate in your area?
mianileng
Usenet, so I hope I can be forgiven for making an OT post.
The climate in my part of the world is generally mild and
temperatures normally range from somewhat below 10 deg C on
winter nights to a little over 30 on summer afternoons (say 45-90
deg F). These are my own estimates of normal variations and not
official extremes.
Last summer and this winter have been particularly mild. The
thermometer on the porch of my unheated house never went below 12
deg C (53.6 F) when I read it in the small hours of the morning
on what felt like the coldest nights of this season. It was about
15 C (59 F) at 2:40 am last night. And it seldom touched 30 deg
(86 F) last summer.
It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has
been like over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some
inputs?
Rich
@news.motzarella.org:
In the Northeast U.S., freezing, temps in the 0-10F region for most of the
last three months with snow on the ground solid since late Nov.
eNo
good, because we've needed it badly. It's supposed to clear up by
day's end and warm up a bit -- I think.
HEMI-Powered
...
We suffer from severe global warming where I live. Interestingly,
it is NOT from humans spewing too much CO2 into the atmosphere
using those outrageous coal-fired electrical power plants or those
obscene gas-guzzling big cars. No, it is from MEAT cattle, pigs,
chickens and the like, known to be the BIGGEST emitters of damaging
greenhouse gases of ANY source currently known. In fact, PETA
estimates that just beef and pork producers emit MORE greenhouse
gas annually than ALL the world's transportation systems and ALL
the world's electrical generating plants using fossil fuels.
Aren't you glad you asked?
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
mianileng
> "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:gmkg27$6vd$1
> @news.motzarella.org:
>
>>
>> thermometer on the porch of my unheated house never went below
>> 12
>> deg C (53.6 F) when I read it in the small hours of the
>> morning
>> on what felt like the coldest nights of this season. It was
>> about
>> 15 C (59 F) at 2:40 am last night. And it seldom touched 30
>> deg
>> (86 F) last summer.
>>
>> It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has
>> been like over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide
>> some
>> inputs?
>>
>>
>
> In the Northeast U.S., freezing, temps in the 0-10F region for
> most
> of the last three months with snow on the ground solid since
> late Nov.
Brrrrrr. Makes me shiver just thinking about it. It's past
midnight here (eastern corner of India) now and I just had a look
at the thermometer outside. It reads 60 F but it's warmer inside
and I'm quite comfortable with pajamas and an old jacket. I've
never seen snow outside of a TV screen. Must be beautiful.
mianileng
What's the temperature like? It's been a very dry winter over
here. I don't remember if it rained in November, but I don't
think it did. It definitely didn't after Nov. Had a few fires in
the town, but nothing serious so far.
Pete D
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gmkg27$6vd$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Around 40 degrees celcius for last couple of days here, very effing
hot...........
mianileng
Ah, Australia. The hottest I've ever experienced is around 45 C
in some Indian cities. What are your winters like?
Pete D
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Half of Australia is on fire at the moment, 25 dead so far. The town we
stayed in last week has been completely destroyed, this is a town with 3,000
guest beds.
eNo
Sun just came out, with lovely blue skies adorned with puffy clouds.
mianileng
>
> Half of Australia is on fire at the moment, 25 dead so far. The
> town
> we stayed in last week has been completely destroyed, this is a
> town
> with 3,000 guest beds.
Heck, that's bad. I hope things start getting better soon.
ray
Actually been rather erratic in Idaho. We shot our monthly airgun Field
Target match outside in January - it was 25F but clear without wind. Was
near 50 yesterday and supposed to be in the 20's today - but then that's
not terribly unusual for the area.
Pete D
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Looks like being similar today, Bendigo has lost 100 homes, Kinglake is
completley gone, the list will be much longer by the end of today. Worse
than the fires we had locally in 2003 where over 500 homes were lost in a
suburban residential area.
David Ruether
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:gmkm5u$7fo$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Here (also US NE), we have had a few lows of -10 F and lower,
and highs in the mid 40's F, with light snows that are pretty for
a very short time, then turn grey, black, and then into mud (and cars
look bad with their coats of salt, rusting edges and holes, and paint
that is peeling due to acid rain). And then there are the road potholes.
Winter - YUCK! 8^( Summer brings 85+ degrees and 85+ percent
humidity - also YUCK! Spring is beautiful, but brief, and fall can be
nice - and about one in twelve years there is beautiful fall color (this
last one was a rare one, and I shot 2 hours of HD video with 423
clips of it to edit now on the computer). If it weren't for the wonderful
scenery (hundreds of waterfalls, many gorges and glens, rolling hills,
many forests, and mostly open land - with a major university here
with all that that brings), I would have moved away long ago...
--DR
mianileng
I don't think we ever have that much change in 24 hrs here,
especially in winter. One-way transitions of perhaps 10F usually
take place over 3-5 days, with a full cycle spread over 7-10
days. In the summer-monsoon season though, it sometimes happens
that we're in the high eighties at midday and then it rains and
the temp drops to low 70s within an hour or less.
Robert Sneddon
<498e006c$0$18796$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D
<n...@email.com> writes
>Looks like being similar today, Bendigo has lost 100 homes, Kinglake is
>completley gone, the list will be much longer by the end of today. Worse
>than the fires we had locally in 2003 where over 500 homes were lost in a
>suburban residential area.
I think it was the 2003 fire season that cost the astronomical world
the historic Mt Stromlo observatory (to bring this slightly back on
topic). There were several older telescopes lost which were doing good
work in the Southern Hemisphere, plus workshops building new instruments
for other observation sites elsewhere in the world.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Pete D
"Robert Sneddon" <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KBoVCPSr...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
That is correct, I used to take my Scout Troop up there for a visit each
year, the old telescopes were great.
Caesar Romano
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote Re OT: Recent climate in your area?:
>It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has
>been like over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some
>inputs?
This has been the coldest winter I've seen in 25 years here in North
West Alabama.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
Perfectly normal here in the US Midwest.
Yesterday morning it was maybe 10F, today it is about 55 F.
This is not unnusual, it fact, it is common, as is the
reverse.
Doug McDonald
Doug Jewell
coolest years in my memory. Our normal temps are minima of
around 0-5C in winter, maxima of around 15-18C, summer
minima of 15-20C maxima of around 30-35C. Snow here is about
a once in 25year event - this year it snowed on 2 completely
separate occassions. Last winter we had sleet and there were
some unconfirmed reports of snow. This year we set the
lowest maximum recorded for July.
So far summer has had a few hot days, but not as hot as
normal, and not the string of hot days we'd normally have.
Last summer was similar. While southern australia has been
roasting in 45C temps, we've been enjoying moderate days in
the low-mid 20s, unusually cool for this time of year.
The ongoing drought continues - we have missed out on the
wet monsoonal weather that north-queensland is receiving.
Summer is supposed to be our wet season, but we had one of
the dryest January's on record.
Ron Hunter
Temperature variations of over 50 degrees are very common in the winter
months. This winter has been pretty much average, as far as lows, but
more wind, and a bit less precipitation.
The last couple of summers have been rather mild.
Neil Harrington
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has been like
> over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some inputs?
Bitterly cold here in Connecticut (southern New England, or the southern
part of the northeast if you're not familiar with the U.S.) through January
and early February, temps mostly in the 20s F and sometimes in the single
digits. It's just now turned much warmer, temp 48 F just before noon and
supposed to get up to 53 this afternoon. Highs forecast for the next 10 days
mostly around the 40s, pretty warm for February which is often our coldest
month.
It's warmer near the shore and colder inland.
Neil Harrington
"HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BAB8F4A3AD...@216.168.3.30...
>>
> We suffer from severe global warming where I live. Interestingly,
> it is NOT from humans spewing too much CO2 into the atmosphere
> using those outrageous coal-fired electrical power plants or those
> obscene gas-guzzling big cars. No, it is from MEAT cattle, pigs,
> chickens and the like, known to be the BIGGEST emitters of damaging
> greenhouse gases of ANY source currently known. In fact, PETA
> estimates that just beef and pork producers emit MORE greenhouse
> gas annually than ALL the world's transportation systems and ALL
> the world's electrical generating plants using fossil fuels.
That's interesting.
I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact all right,
it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse gases that
environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with
solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global warming. Published
graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with anything
else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar actvity goes through
cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has been high
in recent years but at present appears to be going lower, resulting in
global cooling.
I'm sure this makes Al Gore very unhappy.
SMS
> I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact all right,
> it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse gases that
> environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with
> solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global warming. Published
> graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with anything
> else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar actvity goes through
> cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has been high
> in recent years but at present appears to be going lower, resulting in
> global cooling.
>
> I'm sure this makes Al Gore very unhappy.
You being an idiot doesn't make Al Gore happy or unhappy.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> We suffer from severe global warming where I live.
In case you think I'm nuts, take a look at these two links or
simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057
I've chewed my cud on the myth/hoax of global warming a number of
times but the essence is that changes in the mean temperature of
our planet are tri-cyclic meaning they rise and fall in cycles of
100-150 years, 800-1,200 years, and 10,000 to 20,000 years. The
last time we had a drop was in the mid-1970s and idiots of that day
actually wanted to explode nuclear bombs under the polar ice cap to
warm things up!
There was a so-called Little Ice Age in Northern Europe that began
in about 900 AD and first caused the Vikings to abandon Greenland.
A few hundred years later, there was MASSIVE starvation from
climate-caused famine, especially in the early 17th Century which
had several "years with no summer." And, the last time temps really
rose was about 10,000 years ago when mean temps rose a staggering
29 deg C. Exactly how much Methane or CO2 from humans caused THOSE
changes?
The gist of the REAL reason for fluctuating mean temperatures was
shown more than 100 years ago by astronomers and astro-physicists
who noticed that the elipical orbit of the Earth around the Sun
precesses as it moves through time so that the mean distance from
the Earth to the Sun changes dramatically on about a 10,000 year
timetable.
You are right about RECENT mean temps actually dropping. Russia
just published a major study report showing that temps have dropped
about 2 deg C in the last 30 years, almost EXACTLY coinciding with
the NEXT minor cycle on the 100-150 year end of the scale. What
frightens me the most is that should the world succeed in adopting
Der Fuhrer of Der Green Nazi Al Gore's recommendations and cutting
greenhouse gases by 2020, we MAY actually accelerate the next
Little Ice Age. If that were to happen, WHAT would the Far Left
Loons say we should do then?!
Incidently, when temps rose so much 10,000 years ago, the really
large mega mammals were all killed off. But, mankind benefited by
their extinction because they were no longer in fear of being
attacked and killed and could change from being primative hunter-
gatherers into farmers and ranchers, setting up the rise of what is
now considered modern civilizations in places such as what is now
the Middle East and even southern Europe.
I do NOT say that the entire notion of man damaging the planet is
nonsense, I just think that in our rush to fix something we really
don't understand, we MAY cause more damage than we fix, at such
stupendous cost it make wreck the world's economy. Climate experts
who buy into the Gore plan estimate that the MINIMUM cost of
turning greenhouse gas emissions around will be nearly 30 TRILLION
dollars, but the all-up expense over say, the next 50-75 years MAY
be in the range of $150 TRILLION. Now, since the developming
countries actually do more damage than us dumb ass Americans, how
do you suppose THEY will cough up their fair share?
HEMI-Powered
Ah, yes, YOU must be one of those Green Nazi Loons. Why don't YOU
explain why YOU think Der Fuhrer is right and why YOU think we should
all drive shit bucket itty bitty cars?
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:gmkg27$6vd$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Although I don't post very often, rpd is my most regular stop on Usenet,
> so I hope I can be forgiven for making an OT post.
>
> The climate in my part of the world is generally mild and temperatures
> normally range from somewhat below 10 deg C on winter nights to a little
> over 30 on summer afternoons (say 45-90 deg F). These are my own estimates
> of normal variations and not official extremes.
>
> Last summer and this winter have been particularly mild. The thermometer
> on the porch of my unheated house never went below 12 deg C (53.6 F) when
> I read it in the small hours of the morning on what felt like the coldest
> nights of this season. It was about 15 C (59 F) at 2:40 am last night. And
> it seldom touched 30 deg (86 F) last summer.
>
> over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some inputs?
>
>
and the lowest is, maybe, 8 deg C. Little rain but a lot of snow on the
mountains (Psiloritis-tallest mountain of Crete).Little rain, which we
desperately need, and no snow, which is a 25 year event in Iraklion. In
south prefecture of Iraklion, where my holiday home is, temp went to 6 deg C
at night, which makes good heating compulsory. Here, we hardly fired our
wood stoves at all, we normally need 2 tons of logs every winter, this
winter we hardly used half a dozen of sacks of logs, up till now.
Just my 2 cents....
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Ray Fischer
>I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact all right,
>it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse gases that
>environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with
>solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global warming. Published
>graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with anything
>else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar actvity goes through
>cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has been high
>in recent years but at present appears to be going lower, resulting in
>global cooling.
The 11-year cyle has been known about for a long time. It has had
almost no effect on the climate. It really is humans dumping gasses
into the atmosphere.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
You're nuts.
> take a look at these two links or
>simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":
>
>http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
>http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057
WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of people
who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
>I've chewed my cud on the myth/hoax of global warming a number of
It's not a myth. Its fact.
>times but the essence is that changes in the mean temperature of
>our planet are tri-cyclic meaning they rise and fall in cycles of
>100-150 years, 800-1,200 years, and 10,000 to 20,000 years.
Oooo! Biorythms circa 2009!
LOL!
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
SMS
> WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of people
> who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
"Rush said it, I believe it, that settles it."
HEMI-Powered
Ray is confused by facts, which is why he accuses me of being
gullible when he is the one swallowing the bilge thrown out by the
Far Left Loons. Besides which, I documented enough of where my ideas
come from that anyone truly interested can look for themselves. I
have NO time or energy to reason with fools nor to do research for
others too stupid or lazy to do their own.
As for true scientists, I cite Der Fuhrer himself and his merry band
of stooges, ahem, scientists who just happen to support his short-
sighted and piss poor science view of reality.
HEMI-Powered
discussion du jour ...
> It's been a very mild winter here, 20 deg C while normally we
> have 15 deg C and the lowest is, maybe, 8 deg C. Little rain but
> a lot of snow on the mountains (Psiloritis-tallest mountain of
> Crete).Little rain, which we desperately need, and no snow,
> which is a 25 year event in Iraklion. In south prefecture of
> Iraklion, where my holiday home is, temp went to 6 deg C at
> night, which makes good heating compulsory. Here, we hardly
> fired our wood stoves at all, we normally need 2 tons of logs
> every winter, this winter we hardly used half a dozen of sacks
> of logs, up till now.
>
> Just my 2 cents....
>
Hmm, wood logs? And you reduce the pollution how? As to whatever the
OP's real agenda is, they could easily answer their own question by
some adroid Internet research so I rather think they have something
else in mind than people giving them a weather report.
J. Clarke
The 11 year cycle is not the only source of variation in solar
intensity you know. Google "Maunder Minimum". We only have actual
intensity data going back 40 years or so, which is not enough to make
any kind of estimate.
Which humans dumping gases into the atmosphere caused the PETM and the
Elmo thermal maximum?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
Tell that to my driveway.
>> times but the essence is that changes in the mean temperature of
>> our planet are tri-cyclic meaning they rise and fall in cycles of
>> 100-150 years, 800-1,200 years, and 10,000 to 20,000 years.
>
> Oooo! Biorythms circa 2009!
There's also the 120,000 year glaciation cycle, which ends with a
rapid temperature rise, which rise we are in the middle of, and which
the politicoclimatologists conveniently ignore.
mianileng
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios added these comments in the current
> discussion du jour ...
>
>> It's been a very mild winter here, 20 deg C while normally we
>> have 15 deg C and the lowest is, maybe, 8 deg C. Little rain
>> but
>> a lot of snow on the mountains (Psiloritis-tallest mountain of
>> Crete).Little rain, which we desperately need, and no snow,
>> which is a 25 year event in Iraklion. In south prefecture of
>> Iraklion, where my holiday home is, temp went to 6 deg C at
>> night, which makes good heating compulsory. Here, we hardly
>> fired our wood stoves at all, we normally need 2 tons of logs
>> every winter, this winter we hardly used half a dozen of sacks
>> of logs, up till now.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents....
>>
> Hmm, wood logs? And you reduce the pollution how? As to
> whatever the
> OP's real agenda is, they could easily answer their own
> question by
> some adroid Internet research so I rather think they have
> something
> else in mind than people giving them a weather report.
???!!! Whatever gave you the idea that I have a hidden agenda?
You're paranoid, man. What's wrong with a little OT chat now and
then about something we all experience? Doing a search on the
Internet is not a substitute for everything. It lacks that
personal touch and the information gained can sometimes be
misleading. For example, Yahoo Weather often gives temp readings
for my town that disagree with mine by several degrees. Oh yes,
I've checked my weather thermometer against standard lab units
and it's fairly accurate.
mianileng
Most people here use either an electric heater or a charcoal
burner. My family uses kerosene. The stove is flimsy and crudely
made (probably Chinese) but it's very effective and more
economical than the other two. It's smokeless and gives off
practically no odor.
mianileng
way. But I tend to be skeptical about alarmist predictions. As
far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on the cause or the
fact of global warming.
Ron Hunter
Why not? Haven't you ever heard that misery loves company? I would
thing that Al would rejoice in more idiots being around for his to
commiserate with.
mianileng
IIRC, the most extreme variations here within my own lifetime
were in the late 80s and early 90s. It probably dropped to
mid-single figures (Celsius) at night in winter and rose to the
mid-thirties in summer.
jaf
250000 years ago there was an ice sheet over 10 miles thick covering most of North America, Asia & Europe.
125000 years ago "The Scientists" said the ice age ended. (they were there collecting temperature samples with 1/1000 degree
calibrated thermometers)
Da! It's been getting warmer for 250000 years.
It aint stopping any time soon.
Al Gores $2500.00 a month electric bill constitutes proof of a world wide conspiracy to force it to happen.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888
John
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:gmni6l$rhi$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Neil Harrington
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:BhFjl.12040$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Idiots make Al Gore very happy. They give him nice things like the Nobel
Prize for his bullshit on global warming. He would probably like you too.
You could put on a big white fur suit, stand in a pond and make unhappy
polar bear noises for his next global warming movie.
Neil Harrington
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:498f3037$0$1622$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>
>> take a look at these two links or
>>simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":
>>
>>http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
>>http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057
>
> WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of people
> who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
WHICH scientists? There are scientists on both sides of this issue, and the
notion that global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases is pretty
effectively debunked.
>
>>I've chewed my cud on the myth/hoax of global warming a number of
>
> It's not a myth. Its fact.
It's a fact that there is global warming. Then there is global cooling. Then
there is global warming again. And so on.
The idea that any significant amount of this has something to do with
man-made greenhouse gases is a myth.
Read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming." You can get it on
Amazon. Look at the graphs showing the relationship of global warming to
various other factors. The only factor which has a definite positive
correlation to global warming is solar activity. Solar activity goes up, so
does average global temperature. Solar activity goes down, so does average
global temperature. This has been going on since long before there were any
man-made greenhouse gases.
Now if you or Algore have some neat scheme for controlling solar activity,
let's hear it.
Neil Harrington
> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact all
>>right,
>>it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse gases
>>that
>>environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with
>>solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global warming.
>>Published
>>graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with anything
>>else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar actvity goes
>>through
>>cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has been
>>high
>>in recent years but at present appears to be going lower, resulting in
>>global cooling.
>
> The 11-year cyle has been known about for a long time.
That's the sunspot cycle. Not what I'm talking about. Read the book, "The
Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming."
> It has had
> almost no effect on the climate. It really is humans dumping gasses
> into the atmosphere.
You mean, that's the position that you choose to believe in, and have taken
it to your heart and love it and will be faithful to it forever.
Your religious belief in the climate effects of evil greenhouse gases do
not, however, make it so.
SMS
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:498f3037$0$1622$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>
>
>>> take a look at these two links or
>>> simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":
>>>
>>> http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
>>> http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057
>> WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of people
>> who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
>
> WHICH scientists? There are scientists on both sides of this issue
No there are not. There are people promoting junk science using all
sorts of ridiculous and easily disproved propaganda. There are several
ways of discerning. First, if anyone mentions a cold spell of weather as
"proof." Second, if they bring up animal waste products. Third if they
bring up solar activity. Warning bells should go off at once.
The "scientists" that are disputing global warming are the same ones
promoting things like "intelligent design" the latest phrase for
creationism.
Ray Fischer
>
>Idiots make Al Gore very happy. They give him nice things like the Nobel
>Prize for his bullshit on global warming.
WHat kind of moron rejects the scientific consensus of thousands of
researches and, instead, clings to fringe lunacy from an anti-sience
cult?
Really, why do you rightards seem to latch onto these irrational
cults?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>SMS added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>> WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of
>>> people who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
>>
>> "Rush said it, I believe it, that settles it."
>>
>Ray is confused by facts, which is why he accuses me of being
>gullible when he is the one swallowing the bilge thrown out by the
>Far Left Loons.
Like all rightards you resort to lying your ass off whenever the facts
don't happen to agree with your cult mania.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Why are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of people
>> who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
>>
>>> I've chewed my cud on the myth/hoax of global warming a number of
>>
>> It's not a myth. Its fact.
>
>Tell that to my driveway.
"I keep turning up the thermostat but it's still freezing in my
refrigerator so the heater really _cannot_ be broken."
>>> times but the essence is that changes in the mean temperature of
>>> our planet are tri-cyclic meaning they rise and fall in cycles of
>>> 100-150 years, 800-1,200 years, and 10,000 to 20,000 years.
>>
>> Oooo! Biorythms circa 2009!
>
>There's also the 120,000 year glaciation cycle, which ends with a
You don't believe in climate research.
Did you forget?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>> take a look at these two links or
>>>simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":
>>>
>>>http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
>>>http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057
>>
>> WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of people
>> who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
>
>WHICH scientists? There are scientists on both sides of this issue,
You really are an idiot. The overwhelming consensus is that climate
change is real, is happening, and is caused by humans. That you're
stupid enough to latch onto the lunatic fringe doesn't make you right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact all
>>>right,
>>>it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse gases
>>>that
>>>environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with
>>>solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global warming.
>>>Published
>>>graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with anything
>>>else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar actvity goes
>>>through
>>>cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has been
>>>high
>>>in recent years but at present appears to be going lower, resulting in
>>>global cooling.
>>
>> The 11-year cyle has been known about for a long time.
>
>That's the sunspot cycle. Not what I'm talking about. Read the book, "The
>Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming."
LOL! There are always hucksters looking to scam gulible idiots like
you.
>> It has had
>> almost no effect on the climate. It really is humans dumping gasses
>> into the atmosphere.
>
>You mean, that's the position that you choose to believe in,
I choose to listen to the experts in the field, and the overwhelming
consensus is that climate change is real, is happening, and is caused
by humans.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>> You being an idiot doesn't make Al Gore happy or unhappy.
>>
>> Idiots make Al Gore very happy. They give him nice things like the
>> Nobel Prize for his bullshit on global warming.
>
> WHat kind of moron rejects the scientific consensus of thousands of
> researches
Name even a hundred of these "researches".
> and, instead, clings to fringe lunacy from an anti-sience
> cult?
>
> Really, why do you rightards seem to latch onto these irrational
> cults?
--
J. Clarke
> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
>>>> I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact
>>>> all right,
>>>> it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse
>>>> gases that
>>>> environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to
>>>> do with solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global
>>>> warming. Published
>>>> graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with
>>>> anything else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar
>>>> actvity goes through
>>>> cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has
>>>> been high
>>>> in recent years but at present appears to be going lower,
>>>> resulting in global cooling.
>>>
>>> The 11-year cyle has been known about for a long time.
>>
>> That's the sunspot cycle. Not what I'm talking about. Read the
>> book,
>> "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming."
>
> LOL! There are always hucksters looking to scam gulible idiots like
> you.
So do you have specific criticisms of the book or is it that anything
that disagrees with your preconceptions automatically MUST be wrong?
>
>>> It has had
>>> almost no effect on the climate. It really is humans dumping
>>> gasses
>>> into the atmosphere.
>>
>> You mean, that's the position that you choose to believe in,
>
> I choose to listen to the experts in the field, and the overwhelming
> consensus is that climate change is real, is happening, and is
> caused
> by humans.
Which experts? Name them and tell us where and when you listened to
them.
J. Clarke
So are you lobbying for 200 new nuclear plant starts this year?
Because that's what's going to be needed, this year and every year
through 2050, to do what those scientists you trust so much say needs
to be done.
And what are you proposing to do about China?
You're big on bashing others views but you don't seem very big on
actually lobbying for action on matters that you are telling us are of
vast importance.
Twibil
> >> Idiots make Al Gore very happy. They give him nice things like the
> >> Nobel Prize for his bullshit on global warming.
>
> > What kind of moron rejects the scientific consensus of thousands of
> > researches
>
> Name even a hundred of these "researches".
And if he doesn't fulfill your homework assignment it isn't true? Heh.
But at least now we *know* what sort of idiot rejects a scientific
consensus: you.
~Pete
C J Campbell
> Although I don't post very often, rpd is my most regular stop on
> Usenet, so I hope I can be forgiven for making an OT post.
>
> The climate in my part of the world is generally mild and
> temperatures normally range from somewhat below 10 deg C on
> winter nights to a little over 30 on summer afternoons (say 45-90
> deg F). These are my own estimates of normal variations and not
> official extremes.
>
> Last summer and this winter have been particularly mild. The
> thermometer on the porch of my unheated house never went below 12
> deg C (53.6 F) when I read it in the small hours of the morning
> on what felt like the coldest nights of this season. It was about
> 15 C (59 F) at 2:40 am last night. And it seldom touched 30 deg
> (86 F) last summer.
>
> It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has
> been like over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some
> inputs?
Colder and drier than usual in the Puget Sound area, though we have had
serious flooding for two years in a row, now. We are expecting more
snow in the next couple days.
Las Vegas experienced record snowfall in December. Even the airport was
closed. St. George, Utah got snow. We had snow in Sedona, Arizona and
we also saw snow in Tucson and Tombstone. All very unusual in the high
mountain desert. Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
cloud has been following me all winter long.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
tn...@mucks.net
>We suffer from severe global warming where I live. Interestingly,
>it is NOT from humans spewing too much CO2 into the atmosphere
>using those outrageous coal-fired electrical power plants or those
>obscene gas-guzzling big cars. No, it is from MEAT cattle, pigs,
>chickens and the like, known to be the BIGGEST emitters of damaging
>greenhouse gases of ANY source currently known. In fact, PETA
>estimates that just beef and pork producers emit MORE greenhouse
>gas annually than ALL the world's transportation systems and ALL
>the world's electrical generating plants using fossil fuels.
>
Maybe someone should invent a new cattlelytic converter?
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>> You being an idiot doesn't make Al Gore happy or unhappy.
>>>
>>> Idiots make Al Gore very happy. They give him nice things like the
>>> Nobel Prize for his bullshit on global warming.
>>
>> WHat kind of moron rejects the scientific consensus of thousands of
>> researches
>
>Name even a hundred of these "researches".
This will get you started. Look at the research papers (and not cult
propaganda) that they cite in their various reports.
>> and, instead, clings to fringe lunacy from an anti-sience
>> cult?
>>
>> Really, why do you rightards seem to latch onto these irrational
>> cults?
No answer?
Do you even know?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>>
>>>>> take a look at these two links or
>>>>> simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
>>>>> http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057
>>>>
>>>> WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of
>>>> people
>>>> who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
>>>
>>> WHICH scientists? There are scientists on both sides of this issue,
>>
>> You really are an idiot. The overwhelming consensus is that climate
>> change is real, is happening, and is caused by humans. That you're
>> stupid enough to latch onto the lunatic fringe doesn't make you
>> right.
>
>So are you lobbying for 200 new nuclear plant starts this year?
Are you changing the subject?
Yes indeedy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
That's not the way it works.
First you establish that your cite has some credibilty. Unlike you,
I'm not a gullible idiot who latches onto any huckster that tellsme
what I want to hear.
>>>> It has had
>>>> almost no effect on the climate. It really is humans dumping
>>>> gasses
>>>> into the atmosphere.
>>>
>>> You mean, that's the position that you choose to believe in,
>>
>> I choose to listen to the experts in the field, and the overwhelming
>> consensus is that climate change is real, is happening, and is
>> caused
>> by humans.
>
>Which experts?
Don't play stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
with LPG (Liguified Petroleum Gas), stoves with gas bottles, kerosene
stoves, stoves with some charcoal made from the olive core, oil stoves with
pipes, electric radiators, halogen stoves, whatever suits everybody...
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
ASAAR
> Idiots make Al Gore very happy. They give him nice things like the Nobel
> Prize for his bullshit on global warming. He would probably like you too.
> You could put on a big white fur suit, stand in a pond and make unhappy
> polar bear noises for his next global warming movie.
If the election had ended differently it would have given Sarah P.
(who makes idiots very happy) the opportunity to be the second
consecutive V.P. to bag a human with a phallic thunderstick.
ASAAR
Not needed, but I'm glad you asked, bovine breath. :)
The original manually operated meat grinders used no electricity
and produced no fumes. Very green, but they've faded from the scene.
ASAAR
> Las Vegas experienced record snowfall in December. Even the airport was
> closed. St. George, Utah got snow. We had snow in Sedona, Arizona and
> we also saw snow in Tucson and Tombstone. All very unusual in the high
> mountain desert. Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
> cloud has been following me all winter long.
Do you have a relative named "Pig-Pen"?
HEMI-Powered
...
> So are you lobbying for 200 new nuclear plant starts this year?
> Because that's what's going to be needed, this year and every
> year through 2050, to do what those scientists you trust so much
> say needs to be done.
Since a) it takes almost 20 years to get a nuke plant approved and
built and b) it'll be about 20 years OR MORE to get wind and/or
solar going in any meaningful way, I would advocate loosening up
the approval process for nuclear and GET STARTED. We can look to
countries such as France for a proven track record on the
technology.
> And what are you proposing to do about China?
My view: China needs to worry about China, the United States has
WAY more than enough problems of it's own. BUT, China, India, and
all of the developing countries ARE responsible for FAR more
greenhouse gases already and will dwarf that of the current
developed countries BEFORE ANY alternative energy plans can be
implemented and fully scaled up, including both transportation and
electrical power. Emergine economies don't much give a shit about
pollution, and China is especially egegious in that regard. It
majorly pains me that the US might have to suffer with draconian
and onerous regulations and restrictions and FAR higher prices for
anything that uses fossil fuels today while OTHER countries will
get a pass.
> You're big on bashing others views but you don't seem very big
> on actually lobbying for action on matters that you are telling
> us are of vast importance.
>
Again, MY view: I am more than willing to LISTEN, but up until now,
ALL I hear is the views of the Green Nazis, NONE of whom have a
clue as to WHERE the technology will come from, WHAT it will be or
WHO will pay for it. It would SEEM that environmentalists would
WANT to promote wind, solar and nuclear AND clean coal, shale oil,
ANYTHING which can be PROVEN to be both economically viable and
environmentally friendly - and they ALL are. Yet, the Green Nazis
seem bent on STOPPING virtually ALL forms of energy in some
perverted power grab for themselves, the ultimate nanny state -
Fascist if you prefer.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
HEMI-Powered
...
>> Hmm, wood logs? And you reduce the pollution how? As to
>> whatever the
>> OP's real agenda is, they could easily answer their own
>> question by
>> some adroid Internet research so I rather think they have
>> something else in mind than people giving them a weather
>> report.
>
> ???!!! Whatever gave you the idea that I have a hidden agenda?
> You're paranoid, man. What's wrong with a little OT chat now and
> then about something we all experience? Doing a search on the
> Internet is not a substitute for everything. It lacks that
> personal touch and the information gained can sometimes be
> misleading. For example, Yahoo Weather often gives temp readings
> for my town that disagree with mine by several degrees. Oh yes,
> I've checked my weather thermometer against standard lab units
> and it's fairly accurate.
>
I am fine with OT discussions, I engage in them myself. What I'm
railing against is the use of WOOD as a heat source since it is an
outrageous polluter that NO ONE with any brains would want to use
consistently unless they like to SEE the air they breathe. The Green
Nazis insist on smoke scrubbers on coal-fired power plants and want
some bullshit initiative called "cap and trade" to control CO2
emissions in future, so what would YOU do to control both the obvious
air pollution including particulates and the greenhouse gases that
result from all that wood? Ever hear of natual gas?
whisky-dave
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gmkg27$6vd$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has been like
> over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some inputs?
Coldest spell in London UK for 20 years.
Brass monkey population plumets :)
jaf
"HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns9BAB8F4A3AD...@216.168.3.30...
> mianileng added these comments in the current discussion du jour
"PETA estimates that just beef and pork producers emit MORE greenhouse
gas annually than ALL the world's transportation systems and ALL
the world's electrical generating plants using fossil fuels."
So, have they proposed a solution?
Maybe we should stop killing & eating the animals.
Let them propagate. (make baby animals)
How does that reduce greenhouse gasses?
Wouldn't there be more animals emitting more gasses?
PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
John
tony cooper
> Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
>cloud has been following me all winter long.
So you are the Joe Btfsplk of the weather set?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
C J Campbell
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:09:13 -0800, C J Campbell
> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
>> cloud has been following me all winter long.
>
> So you are the Joe Btfsplk of the weather set?
Possibly. That specific accusation has come up before.
However, we had record snowfall in the Hood Canal area while we were
Arizona, so apparently at least part of my storm cloud stayed home.
HEMI-Powered
> "PETA estimates that just beef and pork producers emit MORE
> greenhouse gas annually than ALL the world's transportation
> systems and ALL
> the world's electrical generating plants using fossil fuels."
>
> So, have they proposed a solution?
First, do you understand that PETA does NOT give a shit about
global warming?
But, YES, they do have a solution: 1) start by TAXING beef, pork,
and poultry production using a VAT scheme so that taxes are
assessed during the growing phase, again when they are slaughtered
for food, again when the food is sold, and yet again when land is
converted from fallow to grazing, and 2) eventually OUTLAW any and
ALL growing of animals, or fish for that matter, expressly for
food.
Look, these crazy people don't give a shit about the Methane that
cows fart, they ONLY want to stop people from eating animals or
using their hide for shoes and clothes.
> Maybe we should stop killing & eating the animals.
> Let them propagate. (make baby animals)
> How does that reduce greenhouse gasses?
> Wouldn't there be more animals emitting more gasses?
>
> PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
>
John, do you really propose going to a vegan environment, really?
I'm sorry for the poor animals, but that's how things are. Cows,
pigs, and chickens WERE bred and slaughtered for food almost from
when they were discovered as food sources millenia ago and the
world has hardly stopped turning since. But, it is only recently
with the Far Left Loons taking over every aspect of our lives and
hijacking our local, state, and federal governments do we see the
absurdity of disadvantaging PEOPLE in favor of animals!
Matt Ion
> Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
> cloud has been following me all winter long.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you...!
mianileng
I watch the EPL games and sometimes see it snowing quite heavily
during a game (I'm a Liverpool fan). Must be difficult to keep
global warming in mind. What are your temp readings?
mianileng
It was not I who mentioned using wood stoves for heating. No one
uses them in towns and cities anymore even here.
GregS
About 7 degrees cooler than last year according to gas co.
About a couple degrees F below zero minimum.
Not as cold as the 1994 - 14 degrees F.
Damm gas co jacked the price up 20% over the summer.
Brought it back down 10% starting this month.
$135 max gas bill last winter. $195 this year.
greg
GregS
I would not hesitate using a wood stove. If I had a fireplace I would
definately be using that. Had a fireplace in the old house, but
got tired of making fires. Had different wood stoves shoved
in the two fireplaces, but didn't work out well. Due to the price of
energy I will be burning wood.
Remember my grandmothers coal kitchen stove/oven and coal furnace.
Good ol days. Everythings clean now.
greg
George Kerby
On 2/8/09 1:15 PM, in article 498f2f6d$0$1622$742e...@news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>> I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact all right,
>> it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse gases that
>> environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with
>> solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global warming. Published
>> graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with anything
>> else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar actvity goes through
>> cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has been high
>> in recent years but at present appears to be going lower, resulting in
>> global cooling.
>
> The 11-year cyle has been known about for a long time. It has had
> almost no effect on the climate. It really is humans dumping gasses
> into the atmosphere.
Well, Fish-Breath, you just need to stop blowing all that hot air.
I would surmise that would cut the problem by 25% or more...
George Kerby
On 2/9/09 2:51 AM, in article 498feea3$0$1678$742e...@news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> I'm a gullible idiot who latches onto any huckster that tellsme
> what I want to hear.
>
Well, I'm not gonna argue with you on that point, Fish-Rot-Head!
Neil Harrington
>>> HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> take a look at these two links or
>>>> simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":
>>>>
>>>> http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
>>>> http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057
>>> WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of people
>>> who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
>>
>> WHICH scientists? There are scientists on both sides of this issue
>
> of ridiculous and easily disproved propaganda. There are several ways of
> discerning. First, if anyone mentions a cold spell of weather as "proof."
> Second, if they bring up animal waste products. Third if they bring up
> solar activity. Warning bells should go off at once.
In other words, whenever anyone offers any of the plentiful evidence that
the global warming story is a lot of hooey, all you hear is "warning bells."
I suppose you're right in a way. Those warning bells are for the imminent
collapse of the global warming mythology.
>
> The "scientists" that are disputing global warming are the same ones
> promoting things like "intelligent design" the latest phrase for
> creationism.
The "scientists" that are now promoting global warming are the same ones who
30 years ago were warning us of the coming ICE AGE. We were supposed to be
mostly under glaciers by now.
How much of that bullshit do you have to swallow before you realize it's
bullshit?
Neil Harrington
How do you do that without even looking at the book? Which you never have
done, of course.
> Unlike you,
> I'm not a gullible idiot who latches onto any huckster that tellsme
> what I want to hear.
That's exactly what you obviously are: a gullible idiot who swallows a line
of horseshit because it's politically correct and currently fashionable,
believes it with a religious fervor, and can't stand the thought of any
evidence that might upset his closed mind.
What will do you when your scientists reverse themselves *again* and tell us
forget the global warming, we're in for a terrible new ice age? That's what
these same climate experts were telling us 30 years ago.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>> WHICH scientists? There are scientists on both sides of this
>>> issue
>>
>> No there are not. There are people promoting junk science using
>> all sorts of ridiculous and easily disproved propaganda. There
>> are several ways of discerning. First, if anyone mentions a
>> cold spell of weather as "proof." Second, if they bring up
>> animal waste products. Third if they bring up solar activity.
>> Warning bells should go off at once.
>
> In other words, whenever anyone offers any of the plentiful
> evidence that the global warming story is a lot of hooey, all
> you hear is "warning bells."
>
> I suppose you're right in a way. Those warning bells are for the
> imminent collapse of the global warming mythology.
>
>>
>> The "scientists" that are disputing global warming are the same
>> ones promoting things like "intelligent design" the latest
>> phrase for creationism.
>
> The "scientists" that are now promoting global warming are the
> same ones who 30 years ago were warning us of the coming ICE
> AGE. We were supposed to be mostly under glaciers by now.
>
> How much of that bullshit do you have to swallow before you
> realize it's bullshit?
>
Liberals who have progressively made the jump from having a
reasoned approach to problems to Far Left Loons and then to full
Green Nazis are simply NOT at all interested in facts or good
science. Their gig is NOT to actually save the planet, it is to
inject THEIR view of the world in some perverted power struggle on
others by sneaking in more and more and more government control of
our lives while at the same time reducing our freedom of choice in
buying what we want and using the technology we think is best and
most cost effective. And, what this crowd can NEVER seem to do is
make a solid BUSINESS case for HOW they propose to accomplish their
lofty goals and WHO will pay for it.
jaf
Ya, That's why I singed off with "PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals"
Get it!
John
Neil Harrington
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
news:ja50p4lh9vurp37da...@4ax.com...
Nah, you hunt moose with a rifle. A single projectile, carefully placed, and
I would trust Sarah to do that just right every time.
Besides, unlike quail, moose never fly low. That's what makes quail hunting
uniquely dangerous if there are more than one of you in the field.
I'm sorry Sarah lost. I'll admit she doesn't have enough mileage on her yet
for the Oval Office, but could she possibly be any worse than the
high-mileage "Plugs" Biden, if it came to that? She has a lot of promise and
I'm hoping to see a lot of her between now and '12.
ASAAR
> Besides, unlike quail, moose never fly low. That's what makes quail hunting
> uniquely dangerous if there are more than one of you in the field.
Try telling that to one Rocket "Rocky" J. Squirrel and his high
flying co-pilot, Bullwinkle J. Moose.
> I'm sorry Sarah lost. I'll admit she doesn't have enough mileage on her yet
> for the Oval Office, but could she possibly be any worse than the
> high-mileage "Plugs" Biden, if it came to that? She has a lot of promise and
> I'm hoping to see a lot of her between now and '12.
Of course she'd be worse than Biden. She can't seem to get her
stories straight, flipping more than a salmon flops. McCain's team
kept her muzzled, then it didn't, then it did. Didn't. Did. So many
of those fractured fairy tales will come back to haunt her. But
that's not what makes her truly dangerous. If you hear her refer to
you as a turkey ya better run, or you too may end up on eBay!
Apteryx
Burning wood doesn't change the amount of greenhouse gases. It simply
returns to the atmosphere the carbon that the tree took from it in
historical times.
Of course, if wood is burnt at an unsustainable rate (ie, the tree that
was cut down to be burnt is not replaced) then it does add to greenhouse
gases. But that is just an instance of deforestation, which always adds
to greenhouse gases whether the cut trees are burnt, left to rot, or
converted to wood or paper goods which gradually rot.
Particulate pollution from wood fires has predominately local effect,
and the extent of that local effect depends on local geography, climate,
and population. So it's control is best left to local authorities. The
poster who referred to a wood fires also said he was from Crete, where I
would imagine that local authorities could afford to be more tolerant of
particulate pollution than would be the case in much of the
North-Eastern US or North Western Europe.
Apteryx
George Kerby
On 2/9/09 4:29 PM, in article ofa1p4l3fdh5shjcp...@4ax.com,
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote:
She scares the shit right out of chicken-shits! She'd whip your ass
arm-wrestling, I would bet. Joe "Tipsy" Biden is more your type:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ>
Fuckin' liberal idiots - as someone we know once said about America: "The
chickens have come home to roost" with the Anointed One and his
inexperience.
Neil Harrington
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:31:19 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> Besides, unlike quail, moose never fly low. That's what makes quail
>> hunting
>> uniquely dangerous if there are more than one of you in the field.
>
> Try telling that to one Rocket "Rocky" J. Squirrel and his high
> flying co-pilot, Bullwinkle J. Moose.
I don't remember Bullwinkle doing the co-pilot thing. But then it's been a
while.
>
>
>> I'm sorry Sarah lost. I'll admit she doesn't have enough mileage on her
>> yet
>> for the Oval Office, but could she possibly be any worse than the
>> high-mileage "Plugs" Biden, if it came to that? She has a lot of promise
>> and
>> I'm hoping to see a lot of her between now and '12.
>
> Of course she'd be worse than Biden. She can't seem to get her
> stories straight, flipping more than a salmon flops.
Worse than BIDEN? We're talking about the Biden whose helo was "forced down"
right "where Al Qaeda lives," right there on the "superhighway of terror"?
The Biden who remembers FDR on TV in 1929 reassuring the nation when the
stock market crashed? THAT Biden? And that's not even touching on all his
misstatements of fact in the debate.
> McCain's team
> kept her muzzled, then it didn't, then it did. Didn't. Did. So many
> of those fractured fairy tales will come back to haunt her.
I don't know what "stories" you think she "can't seem to get straight," but
surely they must be trivial compared to Joe Biden's Fractured Fairy
Tales(tm).
> But
> that's not what makes her truly dangerous. If you hear her refer to
> you as a turkey ya better run, or you too may end up on eBay!
Sarah's great. She brought life back into the hapless McCain's campaign,
arguably the most amazing act of resurrection in political history. In that
overwhelmingly anti-Republican year, McCain actually edged Obama for a short
while, even though The Bama had the adoring left-wing press solidly
supporting him (on the cover of TIME 13 times!) and more money, both legal
and illegal, than Croesus. It was close enough that if not for that last
devastating stock market plunge in September and October, which of course
was blamed on Republicans, McCain might actually have pulled it off.
Thus did the Democrats (actual authors of the economy collapse) profit from
their own mischief.
HEMI-Powered
>> I am fine with OT discussions, I engage in them myself. What
>> I'm railing against is the use of WOOD as a heat source since
>> it is an outrageous polluter that NO ONE with any brains would
>> want to use consistently unless they like to SEE the air they
>> breathe. The Green Nazis insist on smoke scrubbers on
>> coal-fired power plants and want some bullshit initiative
>> called "cap and trade" to control CO2 emissions in future, so
>> what would YOU do to control both the obvious air pollution
>> including particulates and the greenhouse gases that result
>> from all that wood? Ever hear of natual gas?
>
> Burning wood doesn't change the amount of greenhouse gases. It
> simply returns to the atmosphere the carbon that the tree took
> from it in historical times.
Horse puckey! I'm not at all convinced that all this crap about
greenhouse gases is even real, but burning wood is in NO way
different than burning oil or natural gas or coal - it RELEASES CO2
and some methane trapped in the wood itself into the atmosphere in
gaseous form. But, unlike modern cars and electrical power plants
BOTH of which are VERY clean burning, wood is demonstrably DIRTY,
as anyone who watches a wood fire can readily attest to.
> Of course, if wood is burnt at an unsustainable rate (ie, the
> tree that was cut down to be burnt is not replaced) then it does
> add to greenhouse gases. But that is just an instance of
> deforestation, which always adds to greenhouse gases whether the
> cut trees are burnt, left to rot, or converted to wood or paper
> goods which gradually rot.
>
> Particulate pollution from wood fires has predominately local
> effect, and the extent of that local effect depends on local
> geography, climate, and population. So it's control is best left
> to local authorities. The poster who referred to a wood fires
> also said he was from Crete, where I would imagine that local
> authorities could afford to be more tolerant of particulate
> pollution than would be the case in much of the North-Eastern US
> or North Western Europe.
>
BTW, you are right about one thing, Mother Nature is the one that
emits the most carbon into the atmosphere, NOT mankind, and mainly
through DECAY of vegetation. But, to suggest that it is OK for
Crete to pollute but not North America or Europe is ludicrous!
Ron Hunter
though. The office seems to force a recognition of reality very quickly.
Ray Fischer
>>>>> take a look at these two links or
>>>>> simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
>>>>> http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057
>>>> WHy are you so gullible? Why do you believe the opinions of people
>>>> who don't know the science and ignore trhe scientists?
>>>
>>> WHICH scientists? There are scientists on both sides of this issue
>>
>> No there are not. There are people promoting junk science using all sorts
>> of ridiculous and easily disproved propaganda. There are several ways of
>> discerning. First, if anyone mentions a cold spell of weather as "proof."
>> Second, if they bring up animal waste products. Third if they bring up
>> solar activity. Warning bells should go off at once.
>
>In other words, whenever anyone offers any of the plentiful evidence that
>the global warming story is a lot of hooey, all you hear is "warning bells."
LOL!
The Holocaust never happened, climate change is hooey, evolution is a
ahtiest plot, 9/11 was executed by the US government, Kennedy was
killed by the KGB/CIa, ...
You gullible idiots will believe in anything.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
If you haven't even read the book then what's your justification for
citing it?
>> Unlike you,
>> I'm not a gullible idiot who latches onto any huckster that tellsme
>> what I want to hear.
>
>That's exactly what you obviously are:
Grow up, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Twibil
> Sarah's great. She brought life back into the hapless McCain's campaign,
> arguably the most amazing act of resurrection in political history.
Er, then perhaps you can explain why McCain's numbers dropped the most
steeply *after* he chose her?
The only Republicans still yearning for Palin are the ones who haven't
yet figured out why they lost.
~Pete
Apteryx
I'd reply to your points - only I already did, before you made them. So
I can only suggest that you reread my post, only this time, really read it.
Apteryx
Don Stauffer
Robert Sneddon
<no...@none.sn> writes
>Horse puckey! I'm not at all convinced that all this crap about
>greenhouse gases is even real, but burning wood is in NO way
>different than burning oil or natural gas or coal - it RELEASES CO2
>and some methane trapped in the wood itself into the atmosphere in
>gaseous form.
That wood was atmospheric CO2. As it burns or rots, it turns back into
CO2 in a regular loop, meaning that atmospheric CO2 levels remain
roughly even (in equilibrium). The problem is that coal, natural gas and
oil was atmospheric CO2 hundreds of millions of years ago. Vegetation
such as grasses and trees were trapped by geological processes
(mudslides and such) and buried deep underground. This is what is called
sequestration, where something is removed and locked away, inaccessible.
Wood and other vegetation burning and rotting today is not sequestrated
like these fossil fuels.
Nowadays we dig up coal and pump up oil and gas and burn it, allowing
the CO2 produced to escape to the atmosphere and increasing the total
amount of CO2. That extra fossil-fuel CO2 absorbs and retains more of
the sun's energy, hence global warming. The "anthropic" part of the
problem is human beings digging up carbon that was locked away and
returning it to the atmosphere by burning it. Measurements show that
atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled in the past fifty years or so, and
virtually all of that can be ascribed to human beings burning fossil
fuels.
Planting more trees helps, but we burn billions of tonnes of fossil
carbon each year and we don't have enough land to grow enough trees to
balance out our existing carbon burn never mind making up for the
cumulative effects of the last couple of centuries of industrialisation.
The better (and probably the only) solution is to cut down on fossil
fuel burning and move to non-CO2 energy sources -- I'm partial to
nuclear power, myself.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
mianileng
> Are we talking recent WEATHER or recent climate? There is a
> difference!
Both, really. The present winter and some recent ones here have
been very mild, but then so were some recent summers. I started
the thread out of curiosity about what the rest of the world has
been like this winter *and* the past one year *and* in recent
years. Throw in some tidbits about rainfall, storms, etc if you
like.
~^ beancounter ~^
up....again.......
Douglas Johnson
>Horse puckey! I'm not at all convinced that all this crap about
>greenhouse gases is even real, but burning wood is in NO way
>different than burning oil or natural gas or coal - it RELEASES CO2
>and some methane trapped in the wood itself into the atmosphere in
>gaseous form.
It's quite different. The CO2 emitted by oil, gas, and coal have been out of
the atmosphere for millions of years and, in most cases, would never have
re-entered the atmosphere if they hadn't been burned. The CO2 emitted by burning
wood was taken out of the atmosphere in the last hundred years or so and, in
most cases, would have re-entered the atmosphere anyway as the wood decayed.
-- Doug
F Hansen
>
>
> Perfectly normal here in the US Midwest.
>
> Yesterday morning it was maybe 10F, today it is about 55 F.
> This is not unnusual, it fact, it is common, as is the
> reverse.
>
Norway here, about between 20 and 10 below zero ( Celsius not
Flintstones) and quite normal this last week. The news told us that this
January was hotter than normal, just a few below zero on average. This
is anecdotical of course, scientists tell us the warming is a fact, but
the causes can be disputed.
Neil Harrington
> On Feb 9, 3:27 pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
>> Sarah's great. She brought life back into the hapless McCain's
>> campaign, arguably the most amazing act of resurrection in political
>> history.
>
> Er, then perhaps you can explain why McCain's numbers dropped the most
> steeply *after* he chose her?
On the contrary, McCain's numbers soared after he chose her. His numbers
plunged after the September/October stock market collapse, which people
blamed on Republicans in general, although it was the Democrats from Bill
Clinton to Barney Frank who had set the stage for the economic debacle. Such
things are too complicated for the average voter to understand, and the
party in the Oval Office is the one that gets blamed.
>
> The only Republicans still yearning for Palin are the ones who haven't
> yet figured out why they lost.
I told you why they lost.
Incidentally, (in the interests of full disclosure as they say) I was a
lifelong registered Democrat until last year, when I switched to
unaffiliated. I voted for McCain not because I thought he was a good
candidate or would have made a great president -- I didn't -- but because
Obama is obviously much, much worse.
Wait and see. If you voted for the Bama, I hope you like what you're going
to get.
Ray Fischer
>Twibil wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 3:27 pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah's great. She brought life back into the hapless McCain's
>>> campaign, arguably the most amazing act of resurrection in political
>>> history.
>>
>> Er, then perhaps you can explain why McCain's numbers dropped the most
>> steeply *after* he chose her?
>
>On the contrary, McCain's numbers soared after he chose her. His numbers
>plunged after the September/October stock market collapse, which people
>blamed on Republicans in general, although it was the Democrats from Bill
>Clinton to Barney Frank who had set the stage for the economic debacle.
You rightards are always trying to blame somebody else. Blaming
Clinton eight years after he left office is typically stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net