global sea ice levels now same as levels in 1979
bule...@columbus.rr.com
starts coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" -
(backed by science, of course)
Jamie
cbarn...@aol.com
I'm not sure what point your trying to make is. The item staes that
the ice is thinner than before and also fails to point out the huge
loss of land based ice thickness.
Jonathan Bromley
wrote:
Any of you numpties tried running a 1/yr notch filter
on those graphs, then? Nope, thought not, it would
make you look as asinine as you really are.
Now I recall why I gave up on s.e.d. a few years ago.
Cheerio, folks.
--
Jonathan Bromley, Consultant
DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services
Doulos Ltd., 22 Market Place, Ringwood, BH24 1AW, UK
jonathan...@MYCOMPANY.com
http://www.MYCOMPANY.com
The contents of this message may contain personal views which
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.
Jim Thompson
<jonathan...@MYCOMPANY.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:09:51 -0800 (PST), bule...@columbus.rr.com
>wrote:
>
>>I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community
>>starts coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" -
>>(backed by science, of course)
>>
>>
>>http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
>
>Any of you numpties tried running a 1/yr notch filter
>on those graphs, then? Nope, thought not, it would
>make you look as asinine as you really are.
>
>Now I recall why I gave up on s.e.d. a few years ago.
>Cheerio, folks.
Do you promise to stay away? Or do I need to add your name to the
filtration system?
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Postings via gmail, yahoo, hotmail, aioe, uar or googlegroups, and
wild-cross-posts are now automatically kill-filed using Agent v5.0
To be white-listed, send request via the E-mail icon on my website
bule...@columbus.rr.com
Site.com> wrote:
Must have hit a nerve. Of all the assinine, OT, posts here, this is
the one he chooses to let us know why he is "quiting" the group?
bill....@ieee.org
Well, your original post was pretty stupid, comparable with Eeyore's
idiotic claims that this year's cold winter represents a definitive
reversal of the warming trend over the last hundred years.
The year by year figures over the last century do show several short
term reversals of the long term trend, and you might have looked less
like a nitwit if you'd kept your mouth shut long enough to see whether
the trend was sustained for any appreciable period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Don Klipstein
bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
I take a close look at the graph, and see 2 things:
1. The article mentions how 2008 is ending with the same sea ice anomaly
as 1979 did. However, the endpoint of 2008 was an above-average-point of
2008, and the endpoint of 1979 was a below-average-point of 1979.
2. Even with the late 2008 surge, there remains a general downward trend
in sea ice after 2,000. For one thing, the third lowest dip on the graph
for sea ice anomaly happened in the second half of 2008, and 1st and 2nd
place were both in the second half of 2008.
The 2 whole years with most downward sea ice anomaly were 2006 and 2007.
The spike of late 2007 and the other one in the first half of 2008 were
due to the most intense La Nina in 20 years. What happened in the
only several months since were largely from other weather pattern shifts -
but less global. Expect the late 2008 spike to only slightly negative sea
ice anomaly to last mere months.
The article did mention how there were forcasts for the Arctic Ocean to
clear of ice at the North Pole. However, the NSIDC - often mentioned in
this newsgroup as being in my words "warmingist" - only predicted a little
less than 50-50 chance that this would indeed occur. It was noted that a
regional weather pattern shift (change of current status of the "Arctic
Oscillation") was largely responsible for 2008 to have second-greatest
Arctic sea ice melting on record (after 2007), despite global temperatures
hitting about an 8 year low due to the La Nina.
The surge in Arctic ice cover after the summer melt season ended appears
to me to be a sign that deviation in Arctic sea ice area from normal, at
least downward, has some tendency to be a summertime/late-summer
phenomenon. A summer with extreme dip in Arctic ice cover tends to be
followed by a winter with lesser downward deviation from normal ice cover
- and faster increase of Arctic sea ice cover during the fall. NSIDC did
note that the past October had especially fast increase of Arctic sea ice
- from second-lowest-on-record to an amount less than normal by a smaller
margin.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Martin Riddle
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrnglqv...@manx.misty.com...
Nice overview. Too bad its only 30 years worth of data. Not enough to
say sea ice loss is man made.
it would have been helpful to super impose sunspot numbers on that
graph. it would have enlightened some.
Cheers
Jim Thompson
The good news... your dick is going to increase in size.
The bad news... it's going to freeze, turn black and fall off ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
Richard Henry
Are we supposed to be surprised that the Arctic Ocean freezes in the
winter?
bule...@columbus.rr.com
No. I am surprised that political policy is rammed down our throats
with junk science.
cbarn...@aol.com
Why do you think it's junk? Are you expert enough to make that
judgement?
bule...@columbus.rr.com
No, I am not expert enough to make the call. However, I do not allow
other so called "experts" to claim the right to make the call, and
then start telling me I need to pay more taxes , start apologizing for
everything the USA stands for, etc etc, ... or else the whole world
will be destroyed by global warming.
That is hucksterism. I do not like hucksterism. I am expert enough
to fight hucksterism.
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On 1 jan, 20:55, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2:50 pm, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Must have hit a nerve. Of all the assinine, OT, posts here, this is
> > the one he chooses to let us know why he is "quiting" the group?
>
> Well, your original post was pretty stupid, comparable with Eeyore's
> idiotic claims that this year's cold winter represents a definitive
> reversal of the warming trend over the last hundred years.
I have never made any such claim.
Graham
Eeyore
Don Klipstein wrote:
> bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> >I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community
> >starts coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" -
> >(backed by science, of course).
> >
> >http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
>
> I take a close look at the graph, and see 2 things:
>
> 1. The article mentions how 2008 is ending with the same sea ice anomaly
It's those damn 'anomalies' again. They just don't count as data do they ?
Graham
Eeyore
Martin Riddle wrote:
> it would have been helpful to super impose sunspot numbers on that
> graph. it would have enlightened some.
:-)
Graham
Eeyore
Richard Henry wrote:
It's certainly news to the AGWists.
Graham
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
How a warmingist proves that all odd numbers are prime:
1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is an anomaly, 11 is
prime, 13 is prime, 15 is an anomaly, 17 is prime, ...
Cheers!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
They've been doing it _at least_ since the upsurge in the religion of
antismokerism. Interestingly, the antismokerists are really laying it on
thick these days - I surmise that they're in fear of being displaced by
warmingism as the national religion.
Cheers!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> On Jan 2, 5:09pm, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 11:59am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> > Are we supposed to be surprised that the Arctic Ocean freezes in the
>> > winter?
>>
>> No. I am surprised that political policy is rammed down our throats
>> with junk science.
>
> Why do you think it's junk? Are you expert enough to make that judgement?
Garbage in -> Garbage model -> Garbage Squared out.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
krw
nu...@example.net says...>
19 is prime, 21 is pi times 7, 23 is prime, ...
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Technically speaking you may be right. In fact you've been making a
fuss about the last two points on the graph below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
which is just as idiotic, but harder to squeeze into a pithy sentence.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Don Klipstein wrote:
Not if they don't last.
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:42:02 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>
> >> >I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community starts
> >> >coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" - (backed by
> >> >science, of course).
>
> >> >http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
>
> >> I take a close look at the graph, and see 2 things:
>
> >> 1. The article mentions how 2008 is ending with the same sea ice
> >> anomaly
>
> > It's those damn 'anomalies' again. They just don't count as data do they ?
>
> How a warmingist proves that all odd numbers are prime:
>
> 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is an anomaly, 11 is
> prime, 13 is prime, 15 is an anomaly, 17 is prime, ...
A prime example of how a denialist argues against the scientific case
for global warming. No facts, no data, just as far-fetched analogy.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen.
bill....@ieee.org
Sadly, the junk science is all yours. If you went to the trouble of
looking at a graph of the average global temperature over the last
century - like this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
you'd notice that while the long term trend is up, the year on year
progression is erratic, and even the five year averages fall short of
a monotonic increase.
Getting excited about the short term noise on the data isn't the sort
of behaviour you'd expect from somebody who knew anything about the
science involved.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
Sadly, you've just proved that you are not. You've just proved
yourself gullible enough to fall for some common-or-garden anti-global-
warming propaganda, probably paid for by someone who has a vested
interest in keeping on selling fossil carbon for fuel for a few more
years, which is to say you have been suckered by a huckster, and have
gone to the trouble of advertising your gullibility to the whole
world.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Pity about that Rich. Smoking is still bad for you, and global warming
is still real.
You might not know enough about either subject to know that both
conclusions are based on sound scientific research - you don't
understand any of it, so it might as well be relgious mumbo-jumbo to
you - but it still happens to be true.
My father was sceptical about the dangers of smoking, and didn't give
up until his cardiologist refused to treat him as long as he continued
to smoke. Because he lived in Australia, at a time when air pollution
wasn't too bad, he didn't die of lung cancer as such - Australian
smokers were about twenty times more likely to die of lung cancer than
Australian non-smokers, but the clean air meant that smoking and
living in Australia gave you about the same risk of lung cancer as not
smoking and living in the U.K.
He did die of cancer secondaries on the outside of his lungs that
eventually compressed the lungs enough to overload his failing heart,
and the primary cancer was on his kidney. Kidney cancer is only about
twice as likely in heavy smokers than it is in non-smokers, so there
is still an even chance that his smoking didn't kill him. He was 82
when he died, so something else would probably have got him before too
long even if he'd never smoked in his life.
But then again, he might have missed the claudication of the arteries
in his legs - 80% of patients who suffer from this disease are smokers
or ex-smokers.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_03_020804/nor10045_fm.html
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
James Arthur
a) Because it's theory, not confirmed by experiment.
b) To the extent that experiments are tried, the
theory doesn't predict the results.
c) The main public relations device, modeling, is
laughably simplistic, biased and flawed.
1. Try skimming the source code. I have.
2. Outputs of IPCC-approved models vary 6:1 from
each other. 600%. That's speculation, not
science.
The charge and mass of an electron are known
to many decimal places--that's science.
But is the earth warming? Sure, probably. Has
been for 18,000 years. Is it our fault?
Unknowable with current info, AFAICT.
> Are you expert enough to make that
> judgement?
Aren't we all?
Besides, I know one of the modelers. (S)he says
they're crap.
Cheers,
James Arthur
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> Sadly, you've just proved that you are not. You've just proved
> yourself gullible enough to fall for some common-or-garden anti-global-
> warming propaganda, probably paid for by someone who has a vested
> interest in keeping on selling fossil carbon for fuel for a few more
> years, which is to say you have been suckered by a huckster, and have
> gone to the trouble of advertising your gullibility to the whole
> world.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hope the oil companies can keep selling their gasoline to me.
Hopefully at $1.65 as it is right now. Funny thing, for all these
years that I have been driving to work, driving to vacation, flying in
airplanes on business trips, riding in a pontoon boat on a beautiful
lake in northern Michigan, mowing my lawn.....
well, I have never felt like I was getting hustled buying that
beautiful comodity (oil) that has made my life so much richer to
live. I love the cheap food it has provided, and all the wonderful
freedoms that it provides the average man. I never felt like the oil
companies were hucksters for selling me this most wonderful product.
I feel like the people that want to take this away from me are the
hucksters.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
In Slowman's case it's "fuckster" == can't hold a job "expert"
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The difference between a horse's asshole & Bill Sloman's mouth?
Lipstick!
Eeyore
Brilliant ! Is Slowman an anomaly too ?
Graham
Eeyore
Eeyore
Jim Thompson wrote:
> bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> >
> >I hope the oil companies can keep selling their gasoline to me.
> >Hopefully at $1.65 as it is right now. Funny thing, for all these
> >years that I have been driving to work, driving to vacation, flying in
> >airplanes on business trips, riding in a pontoon boat on a beautiful
> >lake in northern Michigan, mowing my lawn.....
> >well, I have never felt like I was getting hustled buying that
> >beautiful comodity (oil) that has made my life so much richer to
> >live. I love the cheap food it has provided, and all the wonderful
> >freedoms that it provides the average man. I never felt like the oil
> >companies were hucksters for selling me this most wonderful product.
> >
> >I feel like the people that want to take this away from me are the
> >hucksters.
>
> In Slowman's case it's "fuckster" == can't hold a job "expert"
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Hold ? He can't even GET one !
Graham
Eeyore
James Arthur wrote:
> cbarn...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Why do you think it's junk?
>
> a) Because it's theory, not confirmed by experiment.
Hypothesis actually. It doesn't even merit the title of theory.
Graham
Jim Thompson
Anomaly isn't a vile enough descriptor ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Labor Unions Cause Global Warming
krw
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 7:29 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>> Sadly, you've just proved that you are not. You've just proved
>> yourself gullible enough to fall for some common-or-garden anti-global-
>> warming propaganda, probably paid for by someone who has a vested
>> interest in keeping on selling fossil carbon for fuel for a few more
>> years, which is to say you have been suckered by a huckster, and have
>> gone to the trouble of advertising your gullibility to the whole
>> world.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I hope the oil companies can keep selling their gasoline to me.
>Hopefully at $1.65 as it is right now.
Just paid $1.36.9. Back to $20 for a full tank. ;-)
> Funny thing, for all these
>years that I have been driving to work, driving to vacation, flying in
>airplanes on business trips, riding in a pontoon boat on a beautiful
>lake in northern Michigan, mowing my lawn.....
>well, I have never felt like I was getting hustled buying that
>beautiful comodity (oil) that has made my life so much richer to
>live. I love the cheap food it has provided, and all the wonderful
>freedoms that it provides the average man. I never felt like the oil
>companies were hucksters for selling me this most wonderful product.
Shame on you. You're not a good little socialist.
>I feel like the people that want to take this away from me are the
>hucksters.
Shame on you. I hope you voted for Osama bin Biden, anyway.
Bill Sloman
"James Arthur" <bogus...@verizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:KHy7l.3020$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> cbarn...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 5:09?pm, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 11:59?am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 1, 10:09?am, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>>>>> I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community
>>>>> starts coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" -
>>>>> (backed by science, of course)
>>>>> http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
>>>> Are we supposed to be surprised that the Arctic Ocean freezes in the
>>>> winter?
>>> with junk science.
>>
>> Why do you think it's junk?
>
> a) Because it's theory, not confirmed by experiment.
Like paleontology?
> b) To the extent that experiments are tried, the
> theory doesn't predict the results.
Do make up your mind. Either it is an observational science where experiment
is impossible, or it is an experimental science.
What experiments can you identify where theoretical predictions didn't agree
with experimental observation?
Since this is how science advances - unexpected results do to tend to test
and improve theory - why would such a failure condemn the whole field as
junk?
> c) The main public relations device, modeling, is
> laughably simplistic, biased and flawed.
Why do you think that modelling and simulation are "public relations
devices"?
How would you try to make sense of the behaviour of a complicated system
other than by trying to set up a mathematical model? It's been a popular
strategy since Galileo and Newton, and while you may not like it, yours
would be a minority opinion
> 1. Try skimming the source code. I have.
What did it tell you?
> 2. Outputs of IPCC-approved models vary 6:1 from
> each other. 600%. That's speculation, not
> science.
The IPCC doesn't approve anything. It exists to report on the scientific
research published in peer-reviewed journal, in a form that politicians can
digest.
There are a lot of different approaches to simulating the climate of the
earth, and the IPCC job is pull the results of these numerous approaches
together and give the politicians a feel for what is going on.
The range of predictions is broad, but that doesn't make it speculation -
there's no argument that global warming is going on and getting worse, but
there's a lot of uncertainty about how fast the earth is going to warm up.
Rough initial estimates can be quite useful (and thoroughly scientific).
Check out the history of the intial estimates of the explosive force of the
first nuclear devices - the Bethe-Feynman equation wasn't developed until
1944, a long time after the Manhattan Project got under way.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/lanl1_a/lib-www/la-pubs/00795708.pdf
> The charge and mass of an electron are known
> to many decimal places--that's science.
They are now. A hundred years ago Ernst Mach was still arguing that
electrons and atoms were merely computational conveniences and didn't really
exist,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach
Back then Millikan's oil-drop experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-drop_experiment
was the first to measure the charge on the electron, and he claimed an
accuracy of of +/-0.5% (though he seems to have editied his data to make the
results look good).
Once other physicists had narrowed down the possibilities enough, Millikan
was in a position to make an experiment that would look "scientific" to you,
but your attititude writes off all the work that was done to get to that
point as effecitvely unscientific, which isn't really rational.
The earth's climate represents a rather more complicated system than a
single electron (which is - after all - an elementary particle), and in fact
it is appreciably more complcated than the genetic code (which we've finally
cracked, though we still really don't know what the proteins that it
produces actually do on a case by case basis). You should really be willing
to live with a rather higher level of uncertainty for the moment.
> But is the earth warming? Sure, probably. Has
> been for 18,000 years. Is it our fault?
> Unknowable with current info, AFAICT.
As far as I can tell, you don't know enough have a useful opinion.
> > Are you expert enough to make that
>> judgement?
>
> Aren't we all?
Obviously not.
> Besides, I know one of the modellers. (S)he says
> they're crap.
Sturgeon's Law says that 90% of everything is crap. My experience suggests
that he may have been a trifle opitimistic. On the other hand, the
scientific method is a scheme for getting through a lot of research of
uncertain quality and winnowing out the good stuff. It is a pity that your
contact isn't working on the good stuff, but this doesn't mean that there
isn't good stuff being done in other labs by workers who are more
disciminating about their acquaintances.
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:10:17 -0800 (PST), buleg...@columbus.rr.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't. But oddly enough I feel satisfied knowing that my guy is
not in there pushing every Democratic agenda possible.
Richard Henry
> On Jan 2, 11:59 am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 10:09 am, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> > > I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community
> > > starts coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" -
> > > (backed by science, of course)
>
> > >http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
>
> > Are we supposed to be surprised that the Arctic Ocean freezes in the
> > winter?
>
> with junk science.
More junk science:
krw
wrote:
Touche. I certainly didn't like either, but with the Demonicrats
owning Congress too, I'm more than a bit worried. Gas will be back
at $4 by summer, if they have to raise the gas tax to $3.
Eeyore
krw wrote:
> Gas will be back at $4 by summer
Big Deal. Buy a smaller car.
Graham
krw
Idiot liar.
Richard Henry
> More junk science:
>
> http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/38992
More junk data:
Jan 1 2008 Arctic ice coverage:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/NHem/2008/ims2008001.gif
Jan 1 2009 Arctic ice coverage:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/NHem/2008/ims2009001.gif
Michael A. Terrell
Better idea: Nuke all of Europe and take their gasoline.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Eeyore
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > krw wrote:
> >
> > > Gas will be back at $4 by summer
> >
> > Big Deal. Buy a smaller car.
>
> Better idea: Nuke all of Europe and take their gasoline.
Bad move. We can nuke you back.
Graham
Michael A. Terrell
Sure you can. From the radioactive ruins? Or your fleet of purple &
pink UFOs?
Eeyore
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > krw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gas will be back at $4 by summer
> > > >
> > > > Big Deal. Buy a smaller car.
> > >
> > > Better idea: Nuke all of Europe and take their gasoline.
> >
> > Bad move. We can nuke you back.
>
> Sure you can. From the radioactive ruins? Or your fleet of purple &
> pink UFOs?
Where do you think we (and the French - at least most of theirs) keep our
nukes ?
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
>
> Oops, the blue line's going DOWN !
As it has done in the past, for a couple of years at a time, and will
probably do in the future.
The overall trend remains relentlessly upward, but Graham does have
these fits of feckless optimism.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Michael A. Terrell
Where the sun doesn't shine.
bill....@ieee.org
All true. Unfortunately, if you and all the other satisfied customers
keep on burning oil with their present enthusiasm, and the Indians and
the Chinese get rich enough to enjoy the same advantages we are going
to run into a couple of problems.
The first is that since we've got through most of the easily
accessible oil, what's left is going to get a lot more expensive to
extract, so the price is going to go up even more. Your country is
already running a huge and unsustainable balance of payments deficit
to pay for all the oil it imports now, your attempt to invade and
capture the Iraki oil fields has turned into a hopeless fiasco and you
really nned to start working on living within your means.
None of this is controversial.
The second problem is anthropogenic global warming, which isn't too
bad at the moment, though it does seem to giving us problems with
unexpectedly severe storms and droughts.
Unfortunately, if we keep on burning fossil carbon at the present rate
life will start to get progressively more interesting, and we wil run
a progressively greater risk of kicking off one of the postive
feedback loops that have caused global enxtinctions in the geological
past.
The oil companies and the coal mining companies don't like this idea
very much, and have been paying substantial sums of money to delude
the general public about the status of the scientific concensus on
anthropogenic global warming - which solidly behind the idea that it
is real, getting worse and needs to be reversed as fast as possible,
though we still don't know precisely how fast it is going to get worse
- the likeliest prediction is around 3.7C over the next century, but
nobody wants to nail their colours to a specific number, so the IPCC
covers itself by claiming something between 1.1C and 6.4C.
> I feel like the people that want to take this away from me are the
> hucksters.
And the guy that tells you that you will probably die at around 80 is
another huckster. You know that you are going to live forever.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> James Arthur wrote:
> > cbarn24...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > Why do you think it's junk?
>
> > a) Because it's theory, not confirmed by experiment.
>
> Hypothesis actually. It doesn't even merit the title of theory.
Says Graham, who has told us that all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere
has comes out of the oceans because they are warming up, rather than
from of our cars and power stations.
His grasp of science didn't extend far enough to kown that this
fatuous hypothesis fails to explain the the declining proportion of
the short-lived carbon-14 isotope in atmopsheric carbon dioxide, but
he's still confidently telling us that anthropogenic global warming is
bad science, just as if he could identify bad science when he saw it
(let alone when he posted it over his signature).
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
Too true. I doubt if Jim Thompson would do much better if he moved to
the Netherlands - he's nearly as old as I am (I'm 66) and the Dutch
aren't really into hiring the elderly.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Eeyore
Richard Henry wrote:
But ice is *supposed* to melt when it gets to the sea ! The sea's warmer than
ice's melting point you see ! Have *they* measured how much NEW ice has been
formed in the interior ? You bet not. But NASA and ESA have been, and it's
growing. Ditto Antartica.
In fact sea level has been dropping for several years. About 4mm since 2005.
Graham
Eeyore
krw wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >krw wrote:
> >
> >> Gas will be back at $4 by summer
> >
> >Big Deal. Buy a smaller car.
>
> Idiot liar.
It is gramattically impossible for a suggestion such as "Big Deal. Buy a
smaller car." to be a lie, so I assume you refer to Archimedes Bath's
statement regarding gas price.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Ah ! ANOTHER anomaly. Soon, AGW 'theory' will be based exclusively on them.
Graham
Eeyore
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > krw wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gas will be back at $4 by summer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Big Deal. Buy a smaller car.
> > > > >
> > > > > Better idea: Nuke all of Europe and take their gasoline.
> > > >
> > > > Bad move. We can nuke you back.
> > >
> > > Sure you can. From the radioactive ruins? Or your fleet of purple &
> > > pink UFOs?
> >
> > Where do you think we (and the French - at least most of theirs) keep our
> > nukes ?
>
> Where the sun doesn't shine.
It is admitttedly pretty dark down there.
We've got a potential capacity of 512 nuclear warheads in 64 missiles btw (MIRV
type of course)
The French have another 64 nuclear missiles with 384 warheads.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> >
> > I hope the oil companies can keep selling their gasoline to me.
> > Hopefully at $1.65 as it is right now. Funny thing, for all these
> > years that I have been driving to work, driving to vacation, flying in
> > airplanes on business trips, riding in a pontoon boat on a beautiful
> > lake in northern Michigan, mowing my lawn.....
> > well, I have never felt like I was getting hustled buying that
> > beautiful comodity (oil) that has made my life so much richer to
> > live. I love the cheap food it has provided, and all the wonderful
> > freedoms that it provides the average man. I never felt like the oil
> > companies were hucksters for selling me this most wonderful product.
>
> All true. Unfortunately, if you and all the other satisfied customers
> keep on burning oil with their present enthusiasm, and the Indians and
> the Chinese get rich enough to enjoy the same advantages we are going
> to run into a couple of problems.
Both the Indians and Chinese are now building nuclear reactors to help serve
their future energy needs.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Do you *look* elderly ?
I could easily pass myself off as 10 years younger, more with a tiny facelift
to get rid of some 'smile lines'. You could LIE about your age you know.
Graham
Richard Henry
Michael A. Terrell
Yawn. The French couldn't be bothered, and the English take too long
to make decisions.
krw
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It is gramattically impossible for a suggestion to be a lie.
No, Dumb Donkey, it's not.
Jim Thompson
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > Jim Thompson wrote:
>> > > buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > >I hope the oil companies can keep selling their gasoline to me.
>> > > >Hopefully at $1.65 as it is right now. Funny thing, for all these
>> > > >years that I have been driving to work, driving to vacation, flying in
>> > > >airplanes on business trips, riding in a pontoon boat on a beautiful
>> > > >lake in northern Michigan, mowing my lawn.....
>> > > >well, I have never felt like I was getting hustled buying that
>> > > >beautiful comodity (oil) that has made my life so much richer to
>> > > >live. I love the cheap food it has provided, and all the wonderful
>> > > >freedoms that it provides the average man. I never felt like the oil
>> > > >companies were hucksters for selling me this most wonderful product.
>> >
>> > > >I feel like the people that want to take this away from me are the
>> > > >hucksters.
>> >
>> > > In Slowman's case it's "fuckster" == can't hold a job "expert"
>> >
>> > > ...Jim Thompson
>> >
>> > Hold ? He can't even GET one !
>>
>> Too true. I doubt if Jim Thompson would do much better if he moved to
>> the Netherlands - he's nearly as old as I am (I'm 66)
Thanks for the compliment! I guess turning 69 next month is "...
nearly as old as I am..."
>> and the Dutch
>> aren't really into hiring the elderly.
>
>Do you *look* elderly ?
>
>I could easily pass myself off as 10 years younger, more with a tiny facelift
>to get rid of some 'smile lines'. You could LIE about your age you know.
>
>Graham
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research...
-- Albert Einstein
bill....@ieee.org
There's nothing anomalous about short term noise. Graham doesn't
understand much so he doesn't hestitate to tell the world that he
really doesn't understand how to interpret real-world data.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
If I got hired I'd have to produce my passport and my residence permit
- both display my date of birth.
Naturally, I don't believe that I look as if I'm 66 - everybody has
this delusion about looking younger than their calender age - but
since I've got a modicum of practical intelligence I do tend to ignore
this particular delusion.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Graham demonstrates his remarkable ignorance again. The measurments on
which the figure is based were taken by NASA's GRACE satellites
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GRACE_Revised/page4.php
that measure the mass of the ice caps directly. The measurments this
include the new ice formed in the interior.
Graham's capacity to believe junk science is only equalled by his
scepticism about real science.
> In fact sea level has been dropping for several years. About 4mm since 2005.
As has the average temperatures of the ocean - water contracts when it
gets cooler (at least down to 4C) and that has dominated the sea-level
figures. When the long term warming trend eventually overwhelms the
short term noise the sea level will come up again
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
JosephKK
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 11:59 am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 10:09 am, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community
>> > starts coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" -
>> > (backed by science, of course)
>>
>> >http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
>>
>> Are we supposed to be surprised that the Arctic Ocean freezes in the
>> winter?
>
>No. I am surprised that political policy is rammed down our throats
>with junk science.
Take a walk for several blocks around your house (assuming you have a
suburban lifestyle, else pick an appropriate location); talk to as
many people as you can, see if they can detect junk science (if you
dare), then figure out what chance they have of voting reasonably.
JosephKK
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:56:34 -0800 (PST), bule...@columbus.rr.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Jan 2, 9:27 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:10:17 -0800 (PST), buleg...@columbus.rr.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Jan 2, 7:29 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> >> Sadly, you've just proved that you are not. You've just proved
>>> >> yourself gullible enough to fall for some common-or-garden anti-global-
>>> >> warming propaganda, probably paid for by someone who has a vested
>>> >> interest in keeping on selling fossil carbon for fuel for a few more
>>> >> years, which is to say you have been suckered by a huckster, and have
>>> >> gone to the trouble of advertising your gullibility to the whole
>>> >> world.
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >I hope the oil companies can keep selling their gasoline to me.
>>> >Hopefully at $1.65 as it is right now.
>>>
>>> Just paid $1.36.9. Back to $20 for a full tank. ;-)
>>>
>>> > Funny thing, for all these
>>> >years that I have been driving to work, driving to vacation, flying in
>>> >airplanes on business trips, riding in a pontoon boat on a beautiful
>>> >lake in northern Michigan, mowing my lawn.....
>>> >well, I have never felt like I was getting hustled buying that
>>> >beautiful comodity (oil) that has made my life so much richer to
>>> >live. I love the cheap food it has provided, and all the wonderful
>>> >freedoms that it provides the average man. I never felt like the oil
>>> >companies were hucksters for selling me this most wonderful product.
>>>
>>> Shame on you. You're not a good little socialist.
>>>
>>> >I feel like the people that want to take this away from me are the
>>> >hucksters.
>>>
>>> Shame on you. I hope you voted for Osama bin Biden, anyway.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>>I didn't. But oddly enough I feel satisfied knowing that my guy is
>>not in there pushing every Democratic agenda possible.
>
>Touche. I certainly didn't like either, but with the Demonicrats
>owning Congress too, I'm more than a bit worried. Gas will be back
>at $4 by summer, if they have to raise the gas tax to $3.
I would not put it past them. I would be buying another MC that gets
over 60 MPG in that case. So what if it takes me longer to get there.
JosephKK
Yep, yah, sure, just not in quantity like we can; and if we strike
first you may never be able to. And just how would get through Ronnie
Raygun's Star Wars defense system; oops it is just imaginary like
Ronnie's greatness (let alone the shrub).
JosephKK
<pome...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 9:09 am, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 11:59 am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 10:09 am, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> > > I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community
>> > > starts coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" -
>> > > (backed by science, of course)
>>
>> > >http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
>>
>> > Are we supposed to be surprised that the Arctic Ocean freezes in the
>> > winter?
>>
>> No. I am surprised that political policy is rammed down our throats
>> with junk science.
>
>More junk science:
>
>http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/38992
It is less than that, the last i heard from a reputable source is the
edges of the Greenland ice sheet are melting and falling off but that
the sheet thickness has been getting thicker. The data for Antarctica
is more varied and somewhat more for thinning than thickening. But
that is just the data i saw, now where was it?
bule...@columbus.rr.com
>
> Take a walk for several blocks around your house (assuming you have a
> suburban lifestyle, else pick an appropriate location); talk to as
> many people as you can, see if they can detect junk science (if you
> dare), then figure out what chance they have of voting reasonably.
Fortunately, I think they are starting to understand junk finance. I
hope they will get smart about junk science before its too late.
You know, a hundred years ago you usually died young if you were
stupid.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Unfortunately that type that voted for Obama because they liked his
running mate, Sarah Palin, seem to live forever :-(
bule...@columbus.rr.com
Site.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately that type that voted for Obama because they liked his
> running mate, Sarah Palin, seem to live forever :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Not quite sure I follow. Palin was one of the things that got me off
the sofa to vote for McCain. I can't say I am too upset about McCain
losing. He was just going to do everything Obama did anyway.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 2:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
>Site.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately that type that voted for Obama because they liked his
>> running mate, Sarah Palin, seem to live forever :-(
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>
>Not quite sure I follow. Palin was one of the things that got me off
>the sofa to vote for McCain.
I was making facetious reference to those "man-on-the-street"
interviews that showed Obama supporters to be so clueless that they
thought Palin was Obama's running mate.
>I can't say I am too upset about McCain
>losing. He was just going to do everything Obama did anyway.
Except lose wars.
Unfortunately the US is now 53% ignorant voters, so we're doomed...
time to flee to Australia... for at least a few more years of freedom
krw
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 13:10:22 -0800 (PST), bule...@columbus.rr.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Jan 4, 2:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
>>Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately that type that voted for Obama because they liked his
>>> running mate, Sarah Palin, seem to live forever :-(
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>
>>Not quite sure I follow. Palin was one of the things that got me off
>>the sofa to vote for McCain.
>
>I was making facetious reference to those "man-on-the-street"
>interviews that showed Obama supporters to be so clueless that they
>thought Palin was Obama's running mate.
>
>>I can't say I am too upset about McCain
>>losing. He was just going to do everything Obama did anyway.
>
>Except lose wars.
>
>Unfortunately the US is now 53% ignorant voters, so we're doomed...
>time to flee to Australia... for at least a few more years of freedom
>:-(
Think about it again. Think "Slowman" and "Phyllis" and tell me again
how Australia is a good idea.
Jim Thompson
I really enjoyed my visit to Australia... the people reminded me of
the grand (and friendly) character of the United States in the 1950's.
"Slowman" and "Phyllis" are throwbacks... their behavior should be
discounted completely when rating Australia!
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ah ! ANOTHER anomaly. Soon, AGW 'theory' will be based exclusively on them.
>
> There's nothing anomalous about short term noise.
AGW itself is short term noise, i.e. an anomaly.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> When the long term warming trend eventually overwhelms the
> short term noise the sea level will come up again
Another anomaly ! ;~)
Graham
Eeyore
Jim Thompson wrote:
> Unfortunately the US is now 53% ignorant voters, so we're doomed...
> time to flee to Australia... for at least a few more years of freedom
> :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson
They wouldn't have you. You're too old.
Graham
Eeyore
Jim Thompson wrote:
> Unfortunately the US is now 53% ignorant voters, so we're doomed...
> time to flee to Australia... for at least a few more years of freedom
> :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson
They just elected in the Socialists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party
Graham
James Arthur
I once flew sitting next to an engineer who'd just been to
Oz. He'd flown down to pitch constructing a $100e6 or so plant
to a prospective customer. He laid out his pitch, the Aussie
said "okay," and they shook on it.
So the American guy said he'd call his office and get the
lawyers to draw up the contracts post haste.
The Aussie said, basically, "What for? I said 'okay'."
So they built the plant on a handshake. No nonsense, no
delays.
I've always loved Oz, and even more since.
Cheers,
James Arthur
Jim Thompson
I've actually done business with Japanese companies, as well, in
exactly the same way... handshake (and bow ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
James Arthur
This part made me laugh:
"The Labor Party is commonly described as a social democratic
party, but its constitution stipulates that it is a democratic
socialist party."
Reminds me of "Life of Brian."
REG: The only people we hate more than the Romans are the
fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Cheers,
James Arthur
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Nothing anomalous about it - it has happened often enough already
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
but since you don't know anything and can't be bothered to learn
anything, you may not be aware of this.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
Site.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 13:10:22 -0800 (PST), buleg...@columbus.rr.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 4, 2:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
> >Site.com> wrote:
>
> >> Unfortunately that type that voted for Obama because they liked his
> >> running mate, Sarah Palin, seem to live forever :-(
>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
>
> >Not quite sure I follow. Palin was one of the things that got me off
> >the sofa to vote for McCain.
>
> I was making facetious reference to those "man-on-the-street"
> interviews that showed Obama supporters to be so clueless that they
> thought Palin was Obama's running mate.
>
> >I can't say I am too upset about McCain
> >losing. He was just going to do everything Obama did anyway.
>
> Except lose wars.
>
> Unfortunately the US is now 53% ignorant voters, so we're doomed...
> time to flee to Australia... for at least a few more years of freedom
> :-(
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson does it again. Australia
elected a left-of-centre government on the 24th November 2007 - I've
seldom enjoyed a birthday more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd
The previous prime minister - John Howard - a Dubbya sycophant of the
first water - lost his seat, which was unexpected, but deeply
gratifying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard
One of Rudd's first acts as prime minster was to sign on for the Kyoto
Protocol.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jon Kirwan
http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=207372
"Australia's centre-left Labor government moved to revive the
influence of the country's struggling union movement on Tuesday,
unveiling new workplace laws which employers warned would lead to
more disruption. ...
"The reforms are a key part of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's political
agenda, after he won power in late 2007 by promising to abolish
highly unpopular workplace laws which had undermined job security
and weakened union power."
Also see Rudd's "How the Tide is Turning toward a Social Democratic
Alternative in Australian Policy," given as a speech to The Centre for
Independent Studies in Sydney, on Nov. 16th, 2006:
http://www.cis.org.au/events/policymakers/krudd_lecture.pdf
"do not share Hayek’s belief that the only fair allocation of
resources is what is determined by the 'the game' of the market
as driven by a random cocktail of strength, skill and luck,"
rather,
"all human beings possess an equal and intrinsic dignity and
therefore a value beyond that which a market may apportion to
them."
and,
"education, health and the environment fall properly within the
definition of that which markets will, of themselves, fail to
provide effectively."
Etc.
Might be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, for Jim.
Jon
bill....@ieee.org
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 20:49:47 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
>
>
>
>
>
> <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 2, 9:09 am, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 2, 11:59 am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 1, 10:09 am, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> >> > > I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community
> >> > > starts coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" -
> >> > > (backed by science, of course)
>
> >> > >http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
>
> >> > Are we supposed to be surprised that the Arctic Ocean freezes in the
> >> > winter?
>
> >> No. I am surprised that political policy is rammed down our throats
> >> with junk science.
>
> >More junk science:
>
> >http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/38992
>
> It is less than that, the last i heard from a reputable source is the
> the sheet thickness has been getting thicker. The data for Antarctica
> is more varied and somewhat more for thinning than thickening. But
> that is just the data i saw, now where was it?
Probably here
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/5295
as posted in this thread by Ricahrd Henry.
You've got the Greenland story wrong - the centre of the ice cap has
picked up 54 gigatons of ice, but the periphery has lost 155 gigatons.
The Antarctic seems to be going the same way
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html
but that report is from 2006 and doesn't seem to rely on the GRACE
satellites
Here's another report from 2006 which does
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-03-03.asp
and a more recent report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/03/antarctica.environment
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
And in a few hundred years your descendants may all be dying young
because you are too stupid to appreciate that anthropogenic
global warming is real science, and stupid enough have swallowed a
line of crap peddled by people who have a considerably financial
interest in discouraging people from doing something about it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
Now that's seriously stupid. Voting for McCain could make sense - at
least he is an honorable man, as US politiicans go - but his choice of
Sarah-know-nothing-Palin demonstrated a such a serious weakness
of judgement that it should have provoked you into a rethink rather
motivating you to get out an vote.
Buleg can't recognise junk science or junk politicians.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
JosephKK
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 1:43 pm, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Way past refusing the challenge.
JosephKK
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 13:10:22 -0800 (PST), bule...@columbus.rr.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Jan 4, 2:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
>>Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately that type that voted for Obama because they liked his
>>> running mate, Sarah Palin, seem to live forever :-(
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>
>>Not quite sure I follow. Palin was one of the things that got me off
>>the sofa to vote for McCain.
>
>I was making facetious reference to those "man-on-the-street"
>interviews that showed Obama supporters to be so clueless that they
>thought Palin was Obama's running mate.
>
>>I can't say I am too upset about McCain
>>losing. He was just going to do everything Obama did anyway.
>
>Except lose wars.
>
>Unfortunately the US is now 53% ignorant voters, so we're doomed...
>time to flee to Australia... for at least a few more years of freedom
>:-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson
No, try about 67 percent just plain stupid voters, often voting for
shit that hurts everybody and benefits none.
bill....@ieee.org
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> >> Unfortunately the US is now 53% ignorant voters, so we're doomed...
> >> time to flee to Australia... for at least a few more years of freedom
> >> :-(
>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
>
> > They just elected in the Socialists.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party
>
> > Graham
>
> This part made me laugh:
>
> "The Labor Party is commonly described as a social democratic
> party, but its constitution stipulates that it is a democratic
> socialist party."
The Australian Labor Party is old as labour parties go - the
Australian Labor Party is Australia's oldest political party, formed
in 1891 which means that it predates the British Labour Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)
so it is scarcely surprising that it's constitution fails to reflect
current jargon. There is an element of nostalgia in the constitutions
self-identification as a "democratic socialist party".
http://www.eurekacouncil.com.au/5-Australia-History/History-Pages/1889-Labor-Party_history.htm
"The party was historically committed to socialist economic policies,
but this term was never clearly defined, and no Labor government ever
attempted to implement "socialism" in any serious sense. Labor
supported national wage fixing and a strong welfare system, it did not
nationalise private enterprise. The single exception to this was Ben
Chifley's attempt to nationalise the private banks in the 1940s, but
this was ruled unconstitutional by the High Court of Australia. The
commitment to nationalisation was dropped by Gough Whitlam.
In the 1970s and beyond, the party, through the efforts of Gough
Whitlam and his supporters within the party, gave up its theoretical
commitment to socialism and became a social democratic party. (Some
references to democratic socialism still remain in the party's
constitution, but they are generally regarded as a relic). Indeed,
during the 1980s the party was responsible for the introduction of
many economic policies such as privatisation of government enterprises
(such as the Commonwealth Bank, which was itself established by an
earlier Labor government), and deregulation of many previously tightly-
controlled industries, which are normally the province of conservative
governments."
They are - in fact - a thoroughly pragmatic bunch and function more
like a coalition than monolithic party, with lots of rational
negotiation to resolve ideological issues, which tends to lead to
surprisingly rational decisions.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > When the long term warming trend eventually overwhelms the
> > > short term noise the sea level will come up again
> >
> > Another anomaly ! ;~)
>
> Nothing anomalous about it - it has happened often enough already
Everything you don't like is an 'anomaly'.
The record's stuck you know. The public are clueing up.
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
You'd like to think so. In fact it has been a scientific fact since
around 1980, about thirty years ago, though it took the ice-core data
from the 1980's to get the educated audience fully on side.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
As "anomalies" go, it is pretty persistent.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
krw
wrote:
That makes the voters smarter than congress.
Rich Grise
>
> I could easily pass myself off as 10 years younger, more with a tiny
> facelift to get rid of some 'smile lines'. You could LIE about your age
> you know.
Yeah - "You're 36? Whaddaya, been doing meth since you were 18?" ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> James Arthur wrote:
>> cbarn...@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Why do you think it's junk?
>>
>> a) Because it's theory, not confirmed by experiment.
>
> Hypothesis actually. It doesn't even merit the title of theory.
>
Try wild-ass scare-mongering.
Cheers!
Rich
Bill Sloman
"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" <nu...@example.net> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2009.01.07....@example.net...
Eeyore is - theoretically - a tame ass. It doesn't seem to to
stop him - and you - going into wild-ass
complacence-mongering about a subject that Eeyore
demonstrably knows little about, and where you neither
claim or exhibit any signs of expertise.
It's one thing to tell Chicken Little that the sky isn't falling,
but telling the world's best climatologists that they've got
the science wrong, and that they are silly to worry about rising
greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, does exhibits a
worrying degree of over-confidence.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> "Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" <n...@example.net> schreef in berichtnews:pan.2009.01.07....@example.net...
> ...........................................
> but telling the world's best climatologists that they've got
> the science wrong,
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Does this comitee of people that give the title of "World's Best
Climatoloist" also scour the world and find a handful of Christian
ministers to proclaim the title of
"World's Best Minister"?