info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
403 views
Skip to first unread message
Lynn McGuire
Jul 28, 2015, 1:05:34 PM7/28/15
to
The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper. Usually at some point, the lies get so deep that they get
exposed, all on their own accord. "Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
"The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from
NOAA show a strong warming trend."
Lynn
exposed, all on their own accord. "Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
"The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from
NOAA show a strong warming trend."
Lynn
William December Starr
Jul 28, 2015, 1:16:31 PM7/28/15
to
In article <mp8clu$9mt$1...@dont-email.me>,
Hmm. I could believe this denier, or I could believe the actual
scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
-- wds
scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
-- wds
Brian M. Scott
Jul 28, 2015, 1:38:18 PM7/28/15
to
On 28 Jul 2015 13:16:29 -0400, William December Starr
<wds...@panix.com> wrote
in<news:mp8ddd$t6k$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
‘Steven Goddard’ is actually Tony Heller. His
‘credentials’ are a BS in geology and a master’s degree in
electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
He’s published similar claims in the past that he’s been
forced to retract.
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
<wds...@panix.com> wrote
in<news:mp8ddd$t6k$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
‘credentials’ are a BS in geology and a master’s degree in
electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
He’s published similar claims in the past that he’s been
forced to retract.
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Alan Baker
Jul 28, 2015, 1:40:59 PM7/28/15
to
...but I would like to see if the things he says are true or not.
Was the temperature record presented differently in the past? Did it
show trends different than what is being presented today from the same
data?
Scott Lurndal
Jul 28, 2015, 2:39:28 PM7/28/15
to
the further back in time one looks.
There are a number of difficulties inherent in producing a global
average temperature using noisy data. Factors from the type of
instrument, how it was read, who recorded the data, how often the
data was read, what time of day the data was read and location of
the instrument all factor into the accuracy of the data. Much of
the pre-1960 data was collected by amateur observers and collated
by NOAA et. al.
One also must consider that the land-based surface temperature
data (which is the bulk of the historic data) is not uniformly
distributed across the globe (but rather concentrated in north
america and western europe). The data is often augmented with
sea-surface temperature measurements, subject to similar levels
of uncertainty (bucket measurements, engine intake measurements,
type of instrument, et. alia).
Most of the data-sets being used for analysis (and re-analysis) are
adjusted with various methods to attempt to account for the factors
in the paragraph above. The quality of the adjustments (which seem,
more often than not, to cool the past) are subject to some concern
by various folks, albeit mostly on the sceptical side.
The average for the day at any given measurement site is produced
by summing the recorded daily low and the recorded daily high and
dividing by two. Note that the warming signal produced is
influenced as much by a rise in the daily low as it is by the
rise in the daily high, and an analysis of the raw data shows
that the bulk of the warming in the 20th century was caused by
higher overnight lows, rather than higher daily high temperatures.
When data (e.g. a daily measurement at a given site) is missing,
the algorithms will attempt to 'infill' the data using the
_trends_ from surrounding stations. Many of the louder
sceptics misunderstand this adjustment - they assume that the
daily values from surrounding (up to 1,000 km away) stations
are used, rather than the trends, which indeed would be foolish.
It's not clear that the trends should necessarily match between
two stations 1000 km apart, but that's a different issue driven
primarily by land-use changes (i.e. urbanization) around the
stations.
One may argue all day about each of the various adjustments
(TOBS - Time of Observation, Type of Thermometer, surrouding
elements - e.g. asphalt, building A/C compressors, etc); but
deriving a global temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree
seems to be an agressive goal given the quality of the data.
Lynn McGuire
Jul 28, 2015, 2:44:18 PM7/28/15
to
On 7/28/2015 12:38 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2015 13:16:29 -0400, William December Starr
> <wds...@panix.com> wrote
> in<news:mp8ddd$t6k$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> In article <mp8clu$9mt$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:
>
>>> The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper
>>> and deeper. Usually at some point, the lies get so
>>> deep that they get exposed, all on their own accord.
>>> "Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
>
>>> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
>
>>> "The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that
>>> the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the
>>> reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming
>>> trend."
>
>> Hmm. I could believe this denier, or I could believe the
>> actual scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
>
> ‘Steven Goddard’ is actually Tony Heller. His
> ‘credentials’ are a BS in geology and a master’s degree in
> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
>
> He’s published similar claims in the past that he’s been
> forced to retract.
>
> Brian
Got proof?
> On 28 Jul 2015 13:16:29 -0400, William December Starr
> <wds...@panix.com> wrote
> in<news:mp8ddd$t6k$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> In article <mp8clu$9mt$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:
>
>>> The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper
>>> and deeper. Usually at some point, the lies get so
>>> deep that they get exposed, all on their own accord.
>>> "Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
>
>>> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
>
>>> "The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that
>>> the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the
>>> reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming
>>> trend."
>
>> Hmm. I could believe this denier, or I could believe the
>> actual scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
>
> ‘Steven Goddard’ is actually Tony Heller. His
> ‘credentials’ are a BS in geology and a master’s degree in
> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
>
> He’s published similar claims in the past that he’s been
> forced to retract.
>
> Brian
Thanks,
Lynn
puppetsock
Jul 28, 2015, 2:54:05 PM7/28/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 2:39:28 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
[several paragraphs on the challenges of producing an estimate of global temperature snipped]
So, given all of these challenges, a responsible scientist will produce an uncertainty band along with the estimate, right?
I mean, if one makes a change of assumptions and it produces a change in the result by as much as 0.5C for a given year, as is the case, then some estimate of the confidence band in the data seems to be called for. If certain data is suspect for one reason or another, then the affects of including this data, or not including it, or assuming various things about it, should be explored and represented in the quoted results. If certain well-thought-of scientific bodies claim that certain data should be excluded, as is the case, then the effect of including it should be made plain if it is included.
I have not seen anybody (with the exception of one range of dates alone) reporting any such band. The closest anybody has come is to report a cloud of climate predictions and treat it as data.
The exception is for estimates of the temperature roughly 1000 years ago in the so-called medieval warming period. There some researchers do report uncertainty bands. The bands they report are generally large enough that it is difficult to be sure how to compare the present to the MWP. The difference between now and then is well within the uncertainty band. And depending on who's analysis you accept, the MWP could be warmer or cooler than present.
Given that people are talking about making changes to the global economy that amount to many $10's of billions per year, maybe many $100's of billions per year, it would seem to be important to get this stuff correct. And since grade-school science class I have been taught to include my estimate of the uncertainty in my work. Because every measurement is an estimate. And because a scientific statement is always surrounded by some degree of uncertainty.
[several paragraphs on the challenges of producing an estimate of global temperature snipped]
So, given all of these challenges, a responsible scientist will produce an uncertainty band along with the estimate, right?
I mean, if one makes a change of assumptions and it produces a change in the result by as much as 0.5C for a given year, as is the case, then some estimate of the confidence band in the data seems to be called for. If certain data is suspect for one reason or another, then the affects of including this data, or not including it, or assuming various things about it, should be explored and represented in the quoted results. If certain well-thought-of scientific bodies claim that certain data should be excluded, as is the case, then the effect of including it should be made plain if it is included.
I have not seen anybody (with the exception of one range of dates alone) reporting any such band. The closest anybody has come is to report a cloud of climate predictions and treat it as data.
The exception is for estimates of the temperature roughly 1000 years ago in the so-called medieval warming period. There some researchers do report uncertainty bands. The bands they report are generally large enough that it is difficult to be sure how to compare the present to the MWP. The difference between now and then is well within the uncertainty band. And depending on who's analysis you accept, the MWP could be warmer or cooler than present.
Given that people are talking about making changes to the global economy that amount to many $10's of billions per year, maybe many $100's of billions per year, it would seem to be important to get this stuff correct. And since grade-school science class I have been taught to include my estimate of the uncertainty in my work. Because every measurement is an estimate. And because a scientific statement is always surrounded by some degree of uncertainty.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jul 28, 2015, 4:20:03 PM7/28/15
to
On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
> The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
recant more than once.
He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
than a spammer.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Kevrob
Jul 28, 2015, 6:01:21 PM7/28/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
>
>
> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
> recant more than once.
>
> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
> than a spammer.
If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
>
>
> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
> recant more than once.
>
> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
> than a spammer.
Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be full of
...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
loaded insults is _not_cool_!
Kevin R
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 28, 2015, 7:21:33 PM7/28/15
to
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:eeb5b6fd-cb82-4c02...@googlegroups.com:
And, indeed, that is why there are so many skeptics - because the "oh
my God the world is coming to an end" types *act* like scam artists,
bullying anyone who dares challenge their funding applications, and
resorting to name calling at every possible opportunity. The
namecalling started when skeptics started pointing to specific things
and saying "taht doesn't look right."
Just because one side are fuckign wingnuts doesn't mean the other
isn't, as well. Certainly both sides act it.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:eeb5b6fd-cb82-4c02...@googlegroups.com:
my God the world is coming to an end" types *act* like scam artists,
bullying anyone who dares challenge their funding applications, and
resorting to name calling at every possible opportunity. The
namecalling started when skeptics started pointing to specific things
and saying "taht doesn't look right."
Just because one side are fuckign wingnuts doesn't mean the other
isn't, as well. Certainly both sides act it.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
Jul 28, 2015, 7:25:22 PM7/28/15
to
On 2015-07-28 20:20:00 +0000, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) said:
> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
>
>
> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced
> to recant more than once.
>
> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
> than a spammer.
How do you know he's a liar?
> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
>
>
> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced
> to recant more than once.
>
> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
> than a spammer.
Would you mind linking to something where his claims are debunked?
Alan Baker
Jul 28, 2015, 7:35:00 PM7/28/15
to
the PP linked.
He (Steven Goddard) claims that the temperature record for the United
States (nothing global) has been revised to make a cooling trend look
like a warming trend.
Do you know why that revision might be valid?
William December Starr
Jul 28, 2015, 8:14:42 PM7/28/15
to
William December Starr
Jul 28, 2015, 8:16:55 PM7/28/15
to
In article <7i7utqjc893i$.1syw9lc0...@40tude.net>,
-- wds
>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:
>>
>>> "Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
>>>
>>> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
>>>
>>> "The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that
>>> the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the
>>> reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming
>>> trend."
>>
>> Hmm. I could believe this denier, or I could believe the
>> actual scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
>
> 'Steven Goddard' is actually Tony Heller. His
> 'credentials' are a BS in geology and a master's degree in
> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
>
> He's published similar claims in the past that he's been
> forced to retract.
Wait a minute. The guy actually operates under a false name???
>>
>>> "Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
>>>
>>> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
>>>
>>> "The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that
>>> the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the
>>> reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming
>>> trend."
>>
>> Hmm. I could believe this denier, or I could believe the
>> actual scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
>
> 'Steven Goddard' is actually Tony Heller. His
> 'credentials' are a BS in geology and a master's degree in
> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
>
> He's published similar claims in the past that he's been
> forced to retract.
-- wds
Alan Baker
Jul 28, 2015, 8:17:52 PM7/28/15
to
Alan Baker
Jul 28, 2015, 8:18:12 PM7/28/15
to
William December Starr
Jul 28, 2015, 8:24:28 PM7/28/15
to
In article <mp9642$n4j$2...@news.datemas.de>,
> And that signifies... ...what?
In the context, I think it's prima facie cause to be (ahem)
skeptical about him.
-- wds
In the context, I think it's prima facie cause to be (ahem)
skeptical about him.
-- wds
Shawn Wilson
Jul 28, 2015, 8:27:46 PM7/28/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 5:24:28 PM UTC-7, William December Starr wrote:
> >> Wait a minute. The guy actually operates under a false name???
> >
> > And that signifies... ...what?
>
> In the context, I think it's prima facie cause to be (ahem)
> skeptical about him.
"Hide the decline..."
> >> Wait a minute. The guy actually operates under a false name???
> >
> > And that signifies... ...what?
>
> In the context, I think it's prima facie cause to be (ahem)
> skeptical about him.
Alan Baker
Jul 28, 2015, 8:28:39 PM7/28/15
to
Do you apply that standard equally... ...or just to "deniers"?
hamis...@gmail.com
Jul 28, 2015, 8:49:06 PM7/28/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:54:05 AM UTC+10, puppetsock wrote:
>
>
> Given that people are talking about making changes to the global economy that amount to many $10's of billions per year, maybe many $100's of billions per year, it would seem to be important to get this stuff correct.
a) You're ignoring that ignoring it and hoping that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong has massively higher costs if they aren't than making the changes does.
>
>
> Given that people are talking about making changes to the global economy that amount to many $10's of billions per year, maybe many $100's of billions per year, it would seem to be important to get this stuff correct.
b) the long term effect of burning less fossil fuel has major beneficial impacts which seem to be rarely considered.
(what's the cost of treating lung damage, disability etc caused by particle emission from coal fired power stations?)
Shawn Wilson
Jul 28, 2015, 9:09:31 PM7/28/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 5:49:06 PM UTC-7, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Given that people are talking about making changes to the global economy that amount to many $10's of billions per year, maybe many $100's of billions per year, it would seem to be important to get this stuff correct.
>
> a) You're ignoring that ignoring it and hoping that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong has massively higher costs if they aren't than making the changes does.
Really? And you know those *costs* because a supposed 'climatologist' says so?
> > Given that people are talking about making changes to the global economy that amount to many $10's of billions per year, maybe many $100's of billions per year, it would seem to be important to get this stuff correct.
>
> a) You're ignoring that ignoring it and hoping that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong has massively higher costs if they aren't than making the changes does.
Earlier in this thread I saw complaints about 'he's a geoligist, not a climatologist'. Well, climatologists are not economists. Costs are outside their bailiwick.
> b) the long term effect of burning less fossil fuel has major beneficial impacts which seem to be rarely considered.
> (what's the cost of treating lung damage, disability etc caused by particle emission from coal fired power stations?)
Greg Goss
Jul 28, 2015, 10:37:29 PM7/28/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (what's the cost of treating lung damage, disability etc caused by particle emission from coal fired power stations?)
>
>Less then the cost of doing without electricity.
Of course electricity from fracked gas doesn't produce the dust. So
>> (what's the cost of treating lung damage, disability etc caused by particle emission from coal fired power stations?)
>
>Less then the cost of doing without electricity.
now we need to decide whether the fracking has its own costs, and so
much of the stuff is "proprietary" that a tough question becomes even
more tough.
The social costs of coal sulfur was fixed using cap'n'trade -- when
was the last time you heard about "acid rain"? Of course we then got
that spill of the coal-washing fluid (to remove sulfur before burning)
into a major city's drinking water a year or so back.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Shawn Wilson
Jul 28, 2015, 10:39:57 PM7/28/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:37:29 PM UTC-7, Greg Goss wrote:
> The social costs of coal sulfur was fixed using cap'n'trade -- when
> was the last time you heard about "acid rain"?
Acid rain turned out to be more enviro bullshit. Acidic lakes? Yeah, because they were in acidic soil...
> The social costs of coal sulfur was fixed using cap'n'trade -- when
> was the last time you heard about "acid rain"?
Greg Goss
Jul 29, 2015, 12:34:06 AM7/29/15
to
solution would have been obvious to anyone" (even if it hadn't been),
or as in this case "That wasn't a problem at all."
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 1:13:08 AM7/29/15
to
They were in acidic soil...
...but suddenly became more acidic?
Because you realize that there are lakes where species such as brook
trout flourished where they do not now, right?
Brian M. Scott
Jul 29, 2015, 4:40:21 AM7/29/15
to
On 28 Jul 2015 20:16:52 -0400, William December Starr
<wds...@panix.com> wrote
in<news:mp961k$6fj$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> 'Steven Goddard' is actually Tony Heller. His
>> 'credentials' are a BS in geology and a master's degree in
>> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
>> He's published similar claims in the past that he's been
>> forced to retract.
> Wait a minute. The guy actually operates under a false
> name???
For quite a few years he was at some pains to keep his real
identity secret; he finally revealed it a year ago.
<wds...@panix.com> wrote
in<news:mp961k$6fj$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> 'Steven Goddard' is actually Tony Heller. His
>> 'credentials' are a BS in geology and a master's degree in
>> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
>> He's published similar claims in the past that he's been
>> forced to retract.
> Wait a minute. The guy actually operates under a false
> name???
identity secret; he finally revealed it a year ago.
Brian M. Scott
Jul 29, 2015, 4:42:18 AM7/29/15
to
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:01:19 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp
> (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> The problem with telling a lie is that things get
>>> deeper and deeper.
>> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's
>> been forced to recant more than once.
>> He has no understanding of the science involved, and
>> less integrity than a spammer.
> If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
On the contrary, it’s a straightforward statement of fact.
[...]
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp
> (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> The problem with telling a lie is that things get
>>> deeper and deeper.
>> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's
>> been forced to recant more than once.
>> He has no understanding of the science involved, and
>> less integrity than a spammer.
> If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
[...]
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 4:48:02 AM7/29/15
to
William December Starr
Jul 29, 2015, 4:58:51 AM7/29/15
to
In article <mp96nl$ocp$1...@news.datemas.de>,
operating under an alias. And note that I said "prima facie,"
meaning it as the legal beagles do... to lift from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie:
The term _prima facie_ is used in modern legal English
(including both Civil Law and Criminal Law) to signify that
upon initial examination, sufficient corroborating evidence
appears to exist to support a case. In common law
jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless
rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular
proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic
philosophy. Most legal proceedings, in most jurisdictions,
require a prima facie case to exist, following which
proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.
[...]
and, very importantly:
_Prima facie_ evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable:
at this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered,
only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a
full trial.
-- wds
Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> said:
> On 2015-07-29 00:24:26 +0000, William December Starr said:
>> Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> said:
>>> On 2015-07-29 00:16:52 +0000, William December Starr said:
>>>
>>>> Wait a minute. The guy actually operates under a false name???
>>>
>>> And that signifies... ...what?
>>
>> In the context, I think it's prima facie cause to be (ahem)
>> skeptical about him.
>
> On 2015-07-29 00:24:26 +0000, William December Starr said:
>> Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> said:
>>> On 2015-07-29 00:16:52 +0000, William December Starr said:
>>>
>>>> Wait a minute. The guy actually operates under a false name???
>>>
>>> And that signifies... ...what?
>>
>> In the context, I think it's prima facie cause to be (ahem)
>> skeptical about him.
>
> Is it really?
>
> Do you apply that standard equally... ...or just to "deniers"?
I apply it to anyone who doesn't appear to have a reason for
>
> Do you apply that standard equally... ...or just to "deniers"?
operating under an alias. And note that I said "prima facie,"
meaning it as the legal beagles do... to lift from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie:
The term _prima facie_ is used in modern legal English
(including both Civil Law and Criminal Law) to signify that
upon initial examination, sufficient corroborating evidence
appears to exist to support a case. In common law
jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless
rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular
proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic
philosophy. Most legal proceedings, in most jurisdictions,
require a prima facie case to exist, following which
proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.
[...]
and, very importantly:
_Prima facie_ evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable:
at this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered,
only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a
full trial.
-- wds
leif...@dimnakorr.com
Jul 29, 2015, 5:03:55 AM7/29/15
to
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
>
> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
Sure, but is that what's happening here? Are you sure the person in question
>
> If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
>
> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
actually _is_ a skeptic rather than a (faithful) denier?
After all, insisting on referring to a denier as a "skeptic" would be equally
low rhetorics.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Mart van de Wege
Jul 29, 2015, 5:14:07 AM7/29/15
to
similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Brian M. Scott
Jul 29, 2015, 5:20:11 AM7/29/15
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 01:48:00 -0700, Alan Baker
<em...@domain.com> wrote
in<news:mpa3vv$p77$1...@news.datemas.de> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
evolution deniers (young-earth creationists, proponents of
‘intelligent’ design, etc.).
The details are still very much in flux as we continue to
learn more about a relatively new area, but there is
general agreement about the broad outlines amongst those
competent to judge -- among whom I very much doubt that
you’re to be numbered.
<em...@domain.com> wrote
in<news:mpa3vv$p77$1...@news.datemas.de> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> No... ...it's just not.
Yes, it just is. You might almost as well be defending
evolution deniers (young-earth creationists, proponents of
‘intelligent’ design, etc.).
The details are still very much in flux as we continue to
learn more about a relatively new area, but there is
general agreement about the broad outlines amongst those
competent to judge -- among whom I very much doubt that
you’re to be numbered.
William December Starr
Jul 29, 2015, 5:20:30 AM7/29/15
to
In article <86vbd37...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> said:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be
>> full of ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it,
>> but resorting to loaded insults is _not_cool_!
>
> They're denying observable science because of political
> reasons. Like in similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
I think that in some cases -- especially among those who don't have
a personal monetary stake in the game -- it's a lot more
psychological than political. Some people need the ego-boost of
believing themselves much smarter than the foolish gullible masses.
Call it Contrarian Syndrome: "I am in a tiny oft-mocked minority
compared to mainstream belief. That proves how special I am!"
-- wds
Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> said:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be
>> full of ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it,
>> but resorting to loaded insults is _not_cool_!
>
> They're denying observable science because of political
> reasons. Like in similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
a personal monetary stake in the game -- it's a lot more
psychological than political. Some people need the ego-boost of
believing themselves much smarter than the foolish gullible masses.
Call it Contrarian Syndrome: "I am in a tiny oft-mocked minority
compared to mainstream belief. That proves how special I am!"
-- wds
J. Clarke
Jul 29, 2015, 6:35:36 AM7/29/15
to
In article <86vbd37...@gaheris.avalon.lan>, mvd...@gmail.com
says...
best to marginalize them instead of just demonstrating their error.
If you think that "global warming" is a problem that humans can and must
"fix" then first you have to either convince both the majority and the
movers and shakers that it is such a problem and that your solution is
correct, or establish a dictatorship with you as dictator.
Calling people who disagree with you "deniers" only plays to the peanut
gallery so long before you become a parody of yourself.
says...
>
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> > The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
> >> recant more than once.
> >>
> >> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
> >> than a spammer.
> >
> > If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
> >
> > Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be full of
> > ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
> > loaded insults is _not_cool_!
> >
> They're denying observable science because of political reasons. Like in
> similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
And you're treating them like any religion treats heretics, doing your
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> > The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
> >> recant more than once.
> >>
> >> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
> >> than a spammer.
> >
> > If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
> >
> > Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be full of
> > ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
> > loaded insults is _not_cool_!
> >
> They're denying observable science because of political reasons. Like in
> similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
best to marginalize them instead of just demonstrating their error.
If you think that "global warming" is a problem that humans can and must
"fix" then first you have to either convince both the majority and the
movers and shakers that it is such a problem and that your solution is
correct, or establish a dictatorship with you as dictator.
Calling people who disagree with you "deniers" only plays to the peanut
gallery so long before you become a parody of yourself.
William December Starr
Jul 29, 2015, 6:49:45 AM7/29/15
to
In article <MPG.302276fba...@news.eternal-september.org>,
-- wds
"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
> In article <86vbd37...@gaheris.avalon.lan>, mvd...@gmail.com says...
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>
>>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be full of
>>> ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
>>> loaded insults is _not_cool_!
>>
>> They're denying observable science because of political reasons. Like in
>> similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
>
> And you're treating them like any religion treats heretics, doing your
> best to marginalize them instead of just demonstrating their error.
He's calling wailing dingbattery wailing dingbattery. Live with it.
> In article <86vbd37...@gaheris.avalon.lan>, mvd...@gmail.com says...
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>
>>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be full of
>>> ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
>>> loaded insults is _not_cool_!
>>
>> They're denying observable science because of political reasons. Like in
>> similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
>
> And you're treating them like any religion treats heretics, doing your
> best to marginalize them instead of just demonstrating their error.
-- wds
Kevrob
Jul 29, 2015, 8:12:39 AM7/29/15
to
to deal with this idea, in my post of 5 July 2015:
[quote]
`Course, that's just me being "fact-based," and I don't discount that
AGW could be a plausible description of what is going on. Forgive
me if I apply the same skepticism to the theory that I would to any
other panic, especially when the remedies proposed are more of that
ol' debbil, statism.
Ever read "After Communism" by Robert Heilbroner?
The New Yorker, September 10, 1990 P. 91
"Socialism may not continue as an important force now that Communism is finished. But another way of looking at socialism is as the society that
must emerge if humanity is to cope with the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment."
IOW, using environmentalism to sneak a planned economy back in after it
failed so massively. The watermelon strategy. Green on the outside...
[/quote]
Just search "kevrob" and "watermelon" or hit the link.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.arts.sf.written/kevrob$20watermelon
I'm not a climatologist, but I did get a political science B.A.,
also a history major while I was at it. AGW may not have been cooked
up as an excuse to justify increasing state control of the economy
once Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism was removed from the board as a plausible
alternative to a free enterprise exchange economy, but it has all the
trappings. Survey research has shown that among academic research scientists,
statist ideas on how to run the economy are far more popular than they
are among the general public. I prefer Wm F Buckley' old axiom, that he'd
rather be ruled by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than
by the faculty of Harvard. It is an old, Progressive Era conceit that
those with advanced degrees are necessarily wiser. That's the sort of
thing that got us eugenics-based forced sterilization programs, the
obliteration of vital urban neighborhoods in the name of "renewal,"
and a baseball team pretending to the name "Dodgers" in Los Angeles.
(That last is only partly true, and partly a joke.) Forgive me if
I, as a citizen and a voter, exhibit some skepticism.
I await a preponderance of evidence that radical measures must be taken.
Note that I do not take a poll of persons considered to be climate
scientists as evidence. We've all seen how the membership rolls for
pro-statist organizations have been packed for effect. For example,
the minority of MDs who are members of "Physicians for Social
Responsibility."
Kevin R
Anthony Nance
Jul 29, 2015, 8:29:57 AM7/29/15
to
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> > The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
>>
>>
>> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
>> recant more than once.
>>
>> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
>> than a spammer.
>
> If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
>
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> > The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
>>
>>
>> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
>> recant more than once.
>>
>> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
>> than a spammer.
>
> If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
>
> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
Says a guy who uses the phrase "government school" and dismisses
the normally used term as a popular euphemism.
Just sayin'. Well, just observin' and sayin'.
- Tony
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jul 29, 2015, 8:30:54 AM7/29/15
to
"Arguments" are to fabricate "scandals" which show that you don't
understand (or don't want to understand) the actual material, "denier"
is pretty much the right description.
I don't even bother to argue with deniers any more, just point them to
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php , which covers most of the
arguments with both brief statements and, if you click on the brief
statements, more in-depth reasons as to why they are wrong.
I don't expect any of them to ever ADMIT they are wrong; they seem
almost universally to ignore the reference, or willfully misunderstand
what's there.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Mart van de Wege
Jul 29, 2015, 8:47:32 AM7/29/15
to
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:49:45 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <MPG.302276fba...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> > In article <86vbd37...@gaheris.avalon.lan>, mvd...@gmail.com says...
>> >> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be full of
>> >>> ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
>> >>> loaded insults is _not_cool_!
>> >>
>> >> They're denying observable science because of political reasons. Like in
>> >> similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
>> >
>> > And you're treating them like any religion treats heretics, doing your
>> > best to marginalize them instead of just demonstrating their error.
>>
>> He's calling wailing dingbattery wailing dingbattery. Live with it.
<snip>
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:49:45 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <MPG.302276fba...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> > In article <86vbd37...@gaheris.avalon.lan>, mvd...@gmail.com says...
>> >> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic. He may be full of
>> >>> ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
>> >>> loaded insults is _not_cool_!
>> >>
>> >> They're denying observable science because of political reasons. Like in
>> >> similar cases, the word 'denier' fits.
>> >
>> > And you're treating them like any religion treats heretics, doing your
>> > best to marginalize them instead of just demonstrating their error.
>>
>> He's calling wailing dingbattery wailing dingbattery. Live with it.
> I'm not a climatologist, but I did get a political science B.A.,
> also a history major while I was at it. AGW may not have been cooked
> up as an excuse to justify increasing state control of the economy
> once Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism was removed from the board as a plausible
> alternative to a free enterprise exchange economy, but it has all the
> trappings.
As William says: wailing dingbattery.
> also a history major while I was at it. AGW may not have been cooked
> up as an excuse to justify increasing state control of the economy
> once Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism was removed from the board as a plausible
> alternative to a free enterprise exchange economy, but it has all the
> trappings.
puppetsock
Jul 29, 2015, 8:52:55 AM7/29/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 8:49:06 PM UTC-4, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:54:05 AM UTC+10, puppetsock wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Given that people are talking about making changes to the global economy that amount to many $10's of billions per year, maybe many $100's of billions per year, it would seem to be important to get this stuff correct.
>
> a) You're ignoring that ignoring it and hoping that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong has massively higher costs if they aren't than making the changes does.
In this one statement you make many claims not in evidence. This is technically known as a "package deal."
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:54:05 AM UTC+10, puppetsock wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Given that people are talking about making changes to the global economy that amount to many $10's of billions per year, maybe many $100's of billions per year, it would seem to be important to get this stuff correct.
>
> a) You're ignoring that ignoring it and hoping that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong has massively higher costs if they aren't than making the changes does.
The "vast majority" of climate scientists of which you speak clearly does not exist.
The harm from getting this stuff wrong could trivially easily be millions dead. As for example, not expanding industrial technology to the millions in Africa and India and so leaving them with pre-industrial life expectancies and child mortality rates. The harm could easily by 100s of millions dead.
Over the next century we have choices to make. Making it on crappy data that *might* be right is a horrible idea. Only somebody with an agenda would be pushing this. Since the only credible agenda that has been presented is a power grab, I'm going to go with that until somebody brings me an alternative hypothesis.
> b) the long term effect of burning less fossil fuel has major beneficial impacts which seem to be rarely considered.
> (what's the cost of treating lung damage, disability etc caused by particle emission from coal fired power stations?)
Those things would not exist without petroleum. Example: To put 1 litre of milk on your dinner table requires the burning of about 1 half litre of petroleum.
There are useful things that could be done to reduce fossil fuel use. Replacing coal with nuclear for electrical power, just as an example. But the greenies are massively against that also. And just about anything that would actually be beneficial in the manner you sloganeer about here.
The only credible hypothesis for the combination of "don't do that!" and "you must do this other right now!" is a power grab. And it's pretty naked. The greenies all want dramatically bigger government power. They all want people to reflexively do what government tells them to do. And they want to be the government.
Brian M. Scott
Jul 29, 2015, 9:20:30 AM7/29/15
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:46:42 +0200, Mart van de Wege
<mvd...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:86r3nr6...@gaheris.avalon.lan> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:49:45 AM UTC-4, William
>> December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.302276fba...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
>>>> In article <86vbd37...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
>>>> mvd...@gmail.com says...
>>>>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>>>>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical
>>>>>> tactic. He may be full of ...well, air not as hot
>>>>>> as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
>>>>>> loaded insults is _not_cool_!
>>>>> They're denying observable science because of
>>>>> political reasons. Like in similar cases, the word
>>>>> 'denier' fits.
>>>> And you're treating them like any religion treats
>>>> heretics, doing your best to marginalize them instead
>>>> of just demonstrating their error.
>>> He's calling wailing dingbattery wailing dingbattery.
>>> Live with it.
> <snip>
>> I'm not a climatologist, but I did get a political
>> science B.A., also a history major while I was at it.
You mention no relevant qualifications.
>> AGW may not have been cooked up as an excuse to justify
>> increasing state control of the economy once
>> Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism was removed from the board
>> as a plausible alternative to a free enterprise
>> exchange economy, but it has all the trappings.
> As William says: wailing dingbattery.
And tinfoil hattery to boot.
<mvd...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:86r3nr6...@gaheris.avalon.lan> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:49:45 AM UTC-4, William
>> December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.302276fba...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
>>>> In article <86vbd37...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
>>>> mvd...@gmail.com says...
>>>>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>>>>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical
>>>>>> tactic. He may be full of ...well, air not as hot
>>>>>> as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
>>>>>> loaded insults is _not_cool_!
>>>>> They're denying observable science because of
>>>>> political reasons. Like in similar cases, the word
>>>>> 'denier' fits.
>>>> And you're treating them like any religion treats
>>>> heretics, doing your best to marginalize them instead
>>>> of just demonstrating their error.
>>> He's calling wailing dingbattery wailing dingbattery.
>>> Live with it.
> <snip>
>> I'm not a climatologist, but I did get a political
>> science B.A., also a history major while I was at it.
>> AGW may not have been cooked up as an excuse to justify
>> increasing state control of the economy once
>> Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism was removed from the board
>> as a plausible alternative to a free enterprise
>> exchange economy, but it has all the trappings.
> As William says: wailing dingbattery.
Scott Lurndal
Jul 29, 2015, 9:42:39 AM7/29/15
to
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:
>In article <7i7utqjc893i$.1syw9lc0...@40tude.net>,
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:
>
>> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote
>>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:
>In article <7i7utqjc893i$.1syw9lc0...@40tude.net>,
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:
>
>> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> "Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
>>>>
>>>> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
>>>>
>>>> "The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that
>>>> the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the
>>>> reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming
>>>> trend."
>>>
>>> Hmm. I could believe this denier, or I could believe the
>>> actual scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
>>
>> 'Steven Goddard' is actually Tony Heller. His
>> 'credentials' are a BS in geology and a master's degree in
>> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
>>
>> He's published similar claims in the past that he's been
>> forced to retract.
>
>> 'Steven Goddard' is actually Tony Heller. His
>> 'credentials' are a BS in geology and a master's degree in
>> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
>>
>> He's published similar claims in the past that he's been
>> forced to retract.
>
>Wait a minute. The guy actually operates under a false name???
There are folks on both sides of the debate who operate under
nom de jures or nom de plumes. Eli Rabbett, for example, is
the nom-de-plume of Professor Joshua Halpern.
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 12:43:32 PM7/29/15
to
On 2015-07-29 12:30:51 +0000, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) said:
> On 7/28/15 8:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2015-07-29 00:14:39 +0000, William December Starr said:
>>
>>> In article <eeb5b6fd-cb82-4c02...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
>>>
>>> No it is not.
>>>
>>> -- wds
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I agree with the previous poster.
>>
>
> I don't. When the vast weight of evidence is against you, and your
> only "Arguments" are to fabricate "scandals" which show that you don't
> understand (or don't want to understand) the actual material, "denier"
> is pretty much the right description.
I'm sorry, but some of the arguments about the "vast weight" are pretty
> On 7/28/15 8:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2015-07-29 00:14:39 +0000, William December Starr said:
>>
>>> In article <eeb5b6fd-cb82-4c02...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
>>>
>>> No it is not.
>>>
>>> -- wds
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I agree with the previous poster.
>>
>
> I don't. When the vast weight of evidence is against you, and your
> only "Arguments" are to fabricate "scandals" which show that you don't
> understand (or don't want to understand) the actual material, "denier"
> is pretty much the right description.
clearly spurious. The consensus is nowhere NEAR what has been put
forth, which makes me wonder why the spurious figure for it was offered
in the first place.
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 12:44:35 PM7/29/15
to
>
> The details are still very much in flux as we continue to
> learn more about a relatively new area, but there is
> general agreement about the broad outlines amongst those
> competent to judge -- among whom I very much doubt that
> you’re to be numbered.
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 1:15:43 PM7/29/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:13:08 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> The social costs of coal sulfur was fixed using cap'n'trade -- when
> >> was the last time you heard about "acid rain"?
> >
> >
> > Acid rain turned out to be more enviro bullshit. Acidic lakes? Yeah,
> > because they were in acidic soil...
>
> So...
>
> They were in acidic soil...
>
> ...but suddenly became more acidic?
Actually no. They were always acidic. Enviros just ass-umed that they had not been acidic previously. (and, btw 'acid rain' is a *fertilizer*)
> >> The social costs of coal sulfur was fixed using cap'n'trade -- when
> >> was the last time you heard about "acid rain"?
> >
> >
> > Acid rain turned out to be more enviro bullshit. Acidic lakes? Yeah,
> > because they were in acidic soil...
>
> So...
>
> They were in acidic soil...
>
> ...but suddenly became more acidic?
Much like the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. There were never measurements that didn't see it. They saw it and ass-umed it was new. Turns out, O3 has a (chemical) half life, and winter wind patterns mostly isolate the air over Antarctica from the rest of the atmosphere. End result? Regular periodic thinning in the Antarctic winter, the supposed 'hole'. That's why it didn't go away even decades after cfcs were banned, cfcs never had anything to do with it.
> Because you realize that there are lakes where species such as brook
> trout flourished where they do not now, right?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 2:11:55 PM7/29/15
to
You know, Shawn, I'm half tempted to drop the requirement that the
majority agree your definition is reasonable. There'd still be a
survey, just for my amusement, but even if it is unanimous that
your definition is completely full of shit, I'd still pay if you
meet _all_ the conditions.
Imagine, Shawn, $500 cash for admitting your definition is "because
I says so." Publicly. On the record, in a medium that it is
impossible to ever delete anything from.
But since you will _never_ admit that your definition is bullshit
even to you, there wouldn't be much point, would there? It would be
admitting, here, publicly, for all time, that you _know_ you're
full of shit, and your fragile self image couldn't survive that,
could it?
Offer's still open, Shawn:
Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you intend
when you refer to yourself with that word?
*******************************************************************
Hey, Shawn Wilson, you claim to be an economist. I have a challenge
for you:
First, provide us with an objective definition of what you mean by
"economist," when you refer to yourself being one. This will be
discussed, of course, but the definition will be up to you, and
only you.
Once you are happy with your definition of what you mean by
"economist," when you refer to yourself being one, I will set up a
survey on Survey Monkey (or some place else, if you prefer another
service) with two questions:
Do you agree this is a reasonable definition of what makes someone
an economist?
Do you agree that this is an objective definition, which is to say,
one that can be objectively verified.
If the majority of the votes agree that your definition is
reasonable, and objective (50% + 1 on both questions), then we
still proceed to step two:
Since _your_ definition must be objective, it will be possible to
verify it. If, for instance, you claim that a degree in economics
makes you an economist, then it would be easy to verify whether or
not you have one, once you tell us what university awarded you such
a degree. Or, for instance, if you claim that being published in a
peer reviewed journal devoted to economics makes you a journalist,
you tell us which journal and when you were published. But again,
these are just examples. We will be using *your* definition of
"economist," and *only* your definition. If you choose the archaic
dictionary definiton of "one who practices economy," that's fine,
too, because _it is your choice_, and your's alone.
If the survey indicates that people do not find your definition is
reasonable, then you are using the word differently than other
people, and should make a note of that when using it publicly. If
the majority do not agree that your definition is objective, and
verifiable, then your use of it is meaningless, and you should
note that when you use it publicly. (Because, in both cases, I
*will* note it whether you do or not.)
If need be, we can discuss methods of verifying your claim to be an
economist _by your own definition_ here, until you and I agree on a
method that will verify whether your not your claim is true _by
your own definition_.
Once we have a method _that you agree_ will objetively verify your
claim to be an economist _by your own definition_, we can proceed
to the verification process itself. If it involves public
information, like a claim to have been published in a peer reviewed
journal, then you can provide that information here and _anyone_
can verify it. If it involves some information that you want to
keep private, especially something that would require your
permission to a third party, such as verifying that you have a
degree in economics from an accredited university, then you provide
that information to me alone, or to any other party that we both
agree to be an impartial arbitrator (if need be, I'll hire an
attorney to do this), with an explicit agreement that this
information will be kept private, for your protection.
If in the end, you get the majority here to agree that _your_
definition of what makes you an economist is reasonable, and
objectively verifiable, and, in the end, it _is_ verified that you
meet that definition - *your* definition - then I will send you a
US postal money order (good as money, but safer to mail) for at
least $500. If anyone else wishes to contribute to this fund, it
will, perhaps, be even more, and I encourage everyone to contribute
if Shawn accepts my challenge (which we all know he won't, and he
will lie and claim he did). If you don't trust me, then the
attorney
I hire to act as arbitrator can also hold the money in escrow
(where
it would be a criminal offense for him to not pay you if you meet
the conditions, which, remember, will be pubicly available).
So how about it, Shawn? Are you confident enough that you are using
a realistic definition of "economist" when you call yourself one to
_get paid_ to back it up?
I predict you won't even answer this post. I am confident - $500,
plus the cost of an attorney - that you won't accept this
challenge. And confident enough that you won't meet the challenge
that I won't even _ask_ for you to put up a single penny against
the possibility that you fail.
You game? I am.
*******************************************************************
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
majority agree your definition is reasonable. There'd still be a
survey, just for my amusement, but even if it is unanimous that
your definition is completely full of shit, I'd still pay if you
meet _all_ the conditions.
Imagine, Shawn, $500 cash for admitting your definition is "because
I says so." Publicly. On the record, in a medium that it is
impossible to ever delete anything from.
But since you will _never_ admit that your definition is bullshit
even to you, there wouldn't be much point, would there? It would be
admitting, here, publicly, for all time, that you _know_ you're
full of shit, and your fragile self image couldn't survive that,
could it?
Offer's still open, Shawn:
Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you intend
when you refer to yourself with that word?
*******************************************************************
Hey, Shawn Wilson, you claim to be an economist. I have a challenge
for you:
First, provide us with an objective definition of what you mean by
"economist," when you refer to yourself being one. This will be
discussed, of course, but the definition will be up to you, and
only you.
Once you are happy with your definition of what you mean by
"economist," when you refer to yourself being one, I will set up a
survey on Survey Monkey (or some place else, if you prefer another
service) with two questions:
Do you agree this is a reasonable definition of what makes someone
an economist?
Do you agree that this is an objective definition, which is to say,
one that can be objectively verified.
If the majority of the votes agree that your definition is
reasonable, and objective (50% + 1 on both questions), then we
still proceed to step two:
Since _your_ definition must be objective, it will be possible to
verify it. If, for instance, you claim that a degree in economics
makes you an economist, then it would be easy to verify whether or
not you have one, once you tell us what university awarded you such
a degree. Or, for instance, if you claim that being published in a
peer reviewed journal devoted to economics makes you a journalist,
you tell us which journal and when you were published. But again,
these are just examples. We will be using *your* definition of
"economist," and *only* your definition. If you choose the archaic
dictionary definiton of "one who practices economy," that's fine,
too, because _it is your choice_, and your's alone.
If the survey indicates that people do not find your definition is
reasonable, then you are using the word differently than other
people, and should make a note of that when using it publicly. If
the majority do not agree that your definition is objective, and
verifiable, then your use of it is meaningless, and you should
note that when you use it publicly. (Because, in both cases, I
*will* note it whether you do or not.)
If need be, we can discuss methods of verifying your claim to be an
economist _by your own definition_ here, until you and I agree on a
method that will verify whether your not your claim is true _by
your own definition_.
Once we have a method _that you agree_ will objetively verify your
claim to be an economist _by your own definition_, we can proceed
to the verification process itself. If it involves public
information, like a claim to have been published in a peer reviewed
journal, then you can provide that information here and _anyone_
can verify it. If it involves some information that you want to
keep private, especially something that would require your
permission to a third party, such as verifying that you have a
degree in economics from an accredited university, then you provide
that information to me alone, or to any other party that we both
agree to be an impartial arbitrator (if need be, I'll hire an
attorney to do this), with an explicit agreement that this
information will be kept private, for your protection.
If in the end, you get the majority here to agree that _your_
definition of what makes you an economist is reasonable, and
objectively verifiable, and, in the end, it _is_ verified that you
meet that definition - *your* definition - then I will send you a
US postal money order (good as money, but safer to mail) for at
least $500. If anyone else wishes to contribute to this fund, it
will, perhaps, be even more, and I encourage everyone to contribute
if Shawn accepts my challenge (which we all know he won't, and he
will lie and claim he did). If you don't trust me, then the
attorney
I hire to act as arbitrator can also hold the money in escrow
(where
it would be a criminal offense for him to not pay you if you meet
the conditions, which, remember, will be pubicly available).
So how about it, Shawn? Are you confident enough that you are using
a realistic definition of "economist" when you call yourself one to
_get paid_ to back it up?
I predict you won't even answer this post. I am confident - $500,
plus the cost of an attorney - that you won't accept this
challenge. And confident enough that you won't meet the challenge
that I won't even _ask_ for you to put up a single penny against
the possibility that you fail.
You game? I am.
*******************************************************************
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 2:42:42 PM7/29/15
to
On 2015-07-29 17:15:41 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:13:08 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
>>>> The social costs of coal sulfur was fixed using cap'n'trade -- when
>>>> was the last time you heard about "acid rain"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Acid rain turned out to be more enviro bullshit. Acidic lakes? Yeah,>
>>> > because they were in acidic soil...
>>
>> So...
>>
>> They were in acidic soil...
>>
>> ...but suddenly became more acidic?
>
>
> Actually no. They were always acidic. Enviros just ass-umed that they
> had not been acidic previously. (and, btw 'acid rain' is a
> *fertilizer*)
Ummm... ..no.
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:13:08 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
>>>> The social costs of coal sulfur was fixed using cap'n'trade -- when
>>>> was the last time you heard about "acid rain"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Acid rain turned out to be more enviro bullshit. Acidic lakes? Yeah,>
>>> > because they were in acidic soil...
>>
>> So...
>>
>> They were in acidic soil...
>>
>> ...but suddenly became more acidic?
>
>
> Actually no. They were always acidic. Enviros just ass-umed that they
> had not been acidic previously. (and, btw 'acid rain' is a
> *fertilizer*)
A lake which previously supported fish species that then cannot support
those species has clearly changed.
"In 1998, more than 500 lakes and ponds out of 2,800 in the Adirondack
Park were too acidic to support the plants and fish that once existed
there, according to an Adirondack Council report at the time."
<http://poststar.com/news/local/officials-say-acid-rain-is-on-the-decline-in-adirondack/article_f41e32b2-1db0-11e3-ac52-0019bb2963f4.html>
> Much like the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. There were
> never measurements that didn't see it. They saw it and ass-umed it was
> new. Turns out, O3 has a (chemical) half life, and winter wind
> patterns mostly isolate the air over Antarctica from the rest of the
> atmosphere. End result? Regular periodic thinning in the Antarctic
> winter, the supposed 'hole'. That's why it didn't go away even decades
> after cfcs were banned, cfcs never had anything to do with it.
>
>
>> Because you realize that there are lakes where species such as brook>
>> trout flourished where they do not now, right?
>
>
> And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume that it was the
> supposed 'acid rain'? Why? How acidic do you think that rain actually
> was anyway?
What do you think it was when the measured pH of the lakes changed? The
soil suddenly got more acidic?
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 2:50:45 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:42:42 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> > Actually no. They were always acidic. Enviros just ass-umed that they
> > had not been acidic previously. (and, btw 'acid rain' is a
> > *fertilizer*)
>
> Ummm... ..no.
>
> A lake which previously supported fish species that then cannot support
> those species has clearly changed.
>
> "In 1998, more than 500 lakes and ponds out of 2,800 in the Adirondack
> Park were too acidic to support the plants and fish that once existed
> there, according to an Adirondack Council report at the time."
> <http://poststar.com/news/local/officials-say-acid-rain-is-on-the-decline-in-adirondack/article_f41e32b2-1db0-11e3-ac52-0019bb2963f4.html>
"Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0, too acidic for brook trout to thrive, according to the DEC.
> > Actually no. They were always acidic. Enviros just ass-umed that they
> > had not been acidic previously. (and, btw 'acid rain' is a
> > *fertilizer*)
>
> Ummm... ..no.
>
> A lake which previously supported fish species that then cannot support
> those species has clearly changed.
>
> "In 1998, more than 500 lakes and ponds out of 2,800 in the Adirondack
> Park were too acidic to support the plants and fish that once existed
> there, according to an Adirondack Council report at the time."
> <http://poststar.com/news/local/officials-say-acid-rain-is-on-the-decline-in-adirondack/article_f41e32b2-1db0-11e3-ac52-0019bb2963f4.html>
"Acidity is measured on a scale of 1 to 14.
"A value of seven is considered neutral, and anything less is acidic.
"In 2002, when the pH had risen to almost 6, the DEC began stocking native brook trout in Silver Lake."
Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
> > And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume that it was the
> > supposed 'acid rain'? Why? How acidic do you think that rain actually
> > was anyway?
>
> How acidic do you think it needed to be?
>
> What do you think it was when the measured pH of the lakes changed? The
> soil suddenly got more acidic?
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 3:00:09 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:11:55 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> You know, Shawn, I'm half tempted to drop the requirement that the
> majority agree your definition is reasonable. There'd still be a
> survey, just for my amusement, but even if it is unanimous that
> your definition is completely full of shit, I'd still pay if you
> meet _all_ the conditions.
>
> Imagine, Shawn, $500 cash for admitting your definition is "because
> I says so." Publicly. On the record, in a medium that it is
> impossible to ever delete anything from.
Funny that you have a problem with that, given that the *20* definitions, all basically the same and from widely used dictionaries, I have previously cited you have determined to be inadequate for no other reason than because you said so...
> You know, Shawn, I'm half tempted to drop the requirement that the
> majority agree your definition is reasonable. There'd still be a
> survey, just for my amusement, but even if it is unanimous that
> your definition is completely full of shit, I'd still pay if you
> meet _all_ the conditions.
>
> Imagine, Shawn, $500 cash for admitting your definition is "because
> I says so." Publicly. On the record, in a medium that it is
> impossible to ever delete anything from.
The OED seems to have a daily cap if you don't have a pricey subscription, so I will use Merriam-Webster (again...)-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economist
2 : a specialist in economics
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specialist
1 : one who specializes in a particular occupation, practice, or branch of learning
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economics
1 a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
b : economic theory, principles, or practices <sound economics
You can pay me at will. You never will, of course.
pete...@gmail.com
Jul 29, 2015, 3:21:57 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:50:45 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:42:42 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
> > > Actually no. They were always acidic. Enviros just ass-umed that they
> > > had not been acidic previously. (and, btw 'acid rain' is a
> > > *fertilizer*)
> >
> > Ummm... ..no.
> >
> > A lake which previously supported fish species that then cannot support
> > those species has clearly changed.
> >
> > "In 1998, more than 500 lakes and ponds out of 2,800 in the Adirondack
> > Park were too acidic to support the plants and fish that once existed
> > there, according to an Adirondack Council report at the time."
> > <http://poststar.com/news/local/officials-say-acid-rain-is-on-the-decline-in-adirondack/article_f41e32b2-1db0-11e3-ac52-0019bb2963f4.html>
>
>
> "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0, too acidic for brook trout to thrive, according to the DEC.
>
> "Acidity is measured on a scale of 1 to 14.
>
> "A value of seven is considered neutral, and anything less is acidic.
>
> "In 2002, when the pH had risen to almost 6, the DEC began stocking native brook trout in Silver Lake."
>
>
> Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:42:42 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
> > > Actually no. They were always acidic. Enviros just ass-umed that they
> > > had not been acidic previously. (and, btw 'acid rain' is a
> > > *fertilizer*)
> >
> > Ummm... ..no.
> >
> > A lake which previously supported fish species that then cannot support
> > those species has clearly changed.
> >
> > "In 1998, more than 500 lakes and ponds out of 2,800 in the Adirondack
> > Park were too acidic to support the plants and fish that once existed
> > there, according to an Adirondack Council report at the time."
> > <http://poststar.com/news/local/officials-say-acid-rain-is-on-the-decline-in-adirondack/article_f41e32b2-1db0-11e3-ac52-0019bb2963f4.html>
>
>
> "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0, too acidic for brook trout to thrive, according to the DEC.
>
> "Acidity is measured on a scale of 1 to 14.
>
> "A value of seven is considered neutral, and anything less is acidic.
>
> "In 2002, when the pH had risen to almost 6, the DEC began stocking native brook trout in Silver Lake."
>
>
> Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
> > > And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume that it was the
> > > supposed 'acid rain'? Why? How acidic do you think that rain actually
> > > was anyway?
> >
> > How acidic do you think it needed to be?
> >
> > What do you think it was when the measured pH of the lakes changed? The
> > soil suddenly got more acidic?
>
> Or the waste dumped in the water directly got less so...
This is a pretty pure example of a technique used by internet trolls such
as Shawn. He first postulates, out of thin air, an explanation:
"Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?"
"Or the waste dumped in the water directly got less so..."
falls apart. Silver lake is in the middle of the Adirondack Park, the nearest
road is over 3 miles away, and it sits in a mountain bowel - no water flows
into it from any inhabited area; its fed only by local rain.
Nothing gets 'dumped' into it. Its too hard to reach.
There's a more detailed article on how the CAA has improved the health
of Adirondack water here, with charts and graphs from *many* lakes and
streams.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/acid-rains-dirty-legacy/
pt
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 3:29:34 PM7/29/15
to
it unnecessary.
I now await the inevitable non-answer answer from Mr. Wilson...
Quadibloc
Jul 29, 2015, 3:48:02 PM7/29/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 12:44:18 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Got proof?
Here are some links to sites presenting the allegations concerning him, which may
or may not seem to be substantiated:
First, he admits to being Tony Heller on his *own* site:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/who-is-steven-goddard/
Now for his critics:
http://climatecrocks.com/tag/steven-goddard/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe
And here's a Wikipedia article - they usually have some pretensions to objectivity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard
John Savard
> Got proof?
Here are some links to sites presenting the allegations concerning him, which may
or may not seem to be substantiated:
First, he admits to being Tony Heller on his *own* site:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/who-is-steven-goddard/
Now for his critics:
http://climatecrocks.com/tag/steven-goddard/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe
And here's a Wikipedia article - they usually have some pretensions to objectivity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard
John Savard
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 3:50:58 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>
> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
Dirty coal? Gigaton???
> > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>
> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 tons.
http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.01#/?f=M&start=200001
Annual US consumption was almost exactly 1,000,000 tons.
So, you were only off by a factor of 1000...
Dirty coal? No, the US mostly uses clean forms of coal. Plants that don't burn clean coal use scrubbers.
> > > > And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume that it was the
> > > > supposed 'acid rain'? Why? How acidic do you think that rain actually
> > > > was anyway?
> > >
> > > How acidic do you think it needed to be?
> > >
> > > What do you think it was when the measured pH of the lakes changed? The
> > > soil suddenly got more acidic?
> >
> > Or the waste dumped in the water directly got less so...
>
> ...or as usual, Shawn doesn't know what he's talking about.
pete...@gmail.com
Jul 29, 2015, 4:12:38 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:50:58 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
> >
> > Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> > in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
> Dirty coal? Gigaton???
> Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 tons.
> http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.01#/?f=M&start=200001
> Annual US consumption was almost exactly 1,000,000 tons.
> So, you were only off by a factor of 1000...
Go back and read your page again. Speak the words slowly and carefully to
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
> >
> > Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> > in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
> Dirty coal? Gigaton???
> Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 tons.
> http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.01#/?f=M&start=200001
> Annual US consumption was almost exactly 1,000,000 tons.
> So, you were only off by a factor of 1000...
yourself, so you'll have a better chance to understand. The unit used in
the graph and chart on that page is '1000 short tons'.
1 million of those units does in fact add up to a gigaton.
...no wonder you couldn't qualify as an economist.
> Dirty coal? No, the US mostly uses clean forms of coal. Plants that
> don't burn clean coal use scrubbers.
> > > > > And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume that it was the
> > > > > supposed 'acid rain'? Why? How acidic do you think that rain actually
> > > > > was anyway?
> > > >
> > > > How acidic do you think it needed to be?
> > > > What do you think it was when the measured pH of the lakes changed? The
> > > > soil suddenly got more acidic?
> > >
> > > Or the waste dumped in the water directly got less so...
> > ...or as usual, Shawn doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
> This from the guy who was off by a factor of 1000 in US coal use...
Idiot.
pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:13:21 PM7/29/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f1f955af-ae3d-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:11:55 AM UTC-7, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> You know, Shawn, I'm half tempted to drop the requirement that
>> the majority agree your definition is reasonable. There'd still
>> be a survey, just for my amusement, but even if it is unanimous
>> that your definition is completely full of shit, I'd still pay
>> if you meet _all_ the conditions.
>>
>> Imagine, Shawn, $500 cash for admitting your definition is
>> "because I says so." Publicly. On the record, in a medium that
>> it is impossible to ever delete anything from.
>
>
> Funny that you have a problem with that, given that the *20*
> definitions, all basically the same and from widely used
> dictionaries, I have previously cited you have determined to be
> inadequate for no other reason than because you said so...
Which is the issue. They're not all the same, and you won't say
which one you mean.
Which one is *your* definition? Start the post with
"This is the definition of "economist" I intend when I call myself
one."
It's a *very* simply requirement. Even you can handle it. If you
want to.
econmist? If so, what objective test do you propose?
definition, as it applies to *you* when *your* call *yourself* an
economist. A chimpanzee could handle this, but you can't.
Or won't.
We all know which.
news:f1f955af-ae3d-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:11:55 AM UTC-7, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> You know, Shawn, I'm half tempted to drop the requirement that
>> the majority agree your definition is reasonable. There'd still
>> be a survey, just for my amusement, but even if it is unanimous
>> that your definition is completely full of shit, I'd still pay
>> if you meet _all_ the conditions.
>>
>> Imagine, Shawn, $500 cash for admitting your definition is
>> "because I says so." Publicly. On the record, in a medium that
>> it is impossible to ever delete anything from.
>
>
> Funny that you have a problem with that, given that the *20*
> definitions, all basically the same and from widely used
> dictionaries, I have previously cited you have determined to be
> inadequate for no other reason than because you said so...
which one you mean.
Which one is *your* definition? Start the post with
"This is the definition of "economist" I intend when I call myself
one."
It's a *very* simply requirement. Even you can handle it. If you
want to.
>
> The OED seems to have a daily cap if you don't have a pricey
> subscription, so I will use Merriam-Webster (again...)-
>
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economist
>
> 2 : a specialist in economics
Is that the definition *you* intend when *you* call *yourself* an
> The OED seems to have a daily cap if you don't have a pricey
> subscription, so I will use Merriam-Webster (again...)-
>
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economist
>
> 2 : a specialist in economics
econmist? If so, what objective test do you propose?
>
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specialist
>
> 1 : one who specializes in a particular occupation, practice,
> or branch of learning
>
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economics
>
> 1 a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and
> analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of
> goods and services b : economic theory, principles, or
> practices <sound economics
>
>
> You can pay me at will. You never will, of course.
>
Because you will *never*, *ever* have the courage to post *your*
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specialist
>
> 1 : one who specializes in a particular occupation, practice,
> or branch of learning
>
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economics
>
> 1 a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and
> analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of
> goods and services b : economic theory, principles, or
> practices <sound economics
>
>
> You can pay me at will. You never will, of course.
>
definition, as it applies to *you* when *your* call *yourself* an
economist. A chimpanzee could handle this, but you can't.
Or won't.
We all know which.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:17:38 PM7/29/15
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:880f75d8-5737-4207...@googlegroups.com:
Er, no, they really don't.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard
>
I think he was asking about proof of retractions, and the forcing
thereof.
news:880f75d8-5737-4207...@googlegroups.com:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard
>
I think he was asking about proof of retractions, and the forcing
thereof.
Kevrob
Jul 29, 2015, 4:17:49 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony Nance wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> > The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
> >> recant more than once.
> >>
> >> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
> >> than a spammer.
> >
> > If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
> >
> > Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
>
> Says a guy who uses the phrase "government school" and dismisses
> the normally used term as a popular euphemism.
>
> Just sayin'. Well, just observin' and sayin'.
"Government school" is not to "school" the way
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> On 7/28/15 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> > The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper and deeper.
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed, and this guy is lying. A known denier liar who's been forced to
> >> recant more than once.
> >>
> >> He has no understanding of the science involved, and less integrity
> >> than a spammer.
> >
> > If he deny the enviro-saviors thrice, will the cock crow?
> >
> > Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
>
> Says a guy who uses the phrase "government school" and dismisses
> the normally used term as a popular euphemism.
>
> Just sayin'. Well, just observin' and sayin'.
"Holocaust denier" is to "denier." No way it has
equivalent connotations. Play fair, damn it!
>
>
> > He may be full of
> > ...well, air not as hot as the AGW zealots would have it, but resorting to
> > loaded insults is _not_cool_!
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 4:19:32 PM7/29/15
to
On 2015-07-29 19:50:54 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether
>>> rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>>
>> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
>> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
> Dirty coal? Gigaton???
>
> Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 tons.
>
> http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.01#/?f=M&start=200001
>
> Annual US consumption was almost exactly 1,000,000 tons.
>
> So, you were only off by a factor of 1000...
No. Annual US consumption in 2008 was almost exactly 1,120,548.444
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether
>>> rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>>
>> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
>> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
> Dirty coal? Gigaton???
>
> Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 tons.
>
> http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.01#/?f=M&start=200001
>
> Annual US consumption was almost exactly 1,000,000 tons.
>
> So, you were only off by a factor of 1000...
THOUSAND short tons...
...or in short, 1.12 Gigatons.
Pity you didn't actually pay attention to your own source, huh?
>
>
> Dirty coal? No, the US mostly uses clean forms of coal.
doing that before 1970 and the Clear Air Act?
> Plants that don't burn clean coal use scrubbers.
All to the man who can't even read the legend of the chart he cited.
:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>> And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume that it was the
>>>>> supposed 'acid rain'? Why? How acidic do you think that rain actually
>>>>> was anyway?
>>>>
>>>> How acidic do you think it needed to be?
>>>>
>>>> What do you think it was when the measured pH of the lakes changed? The
>>>> soil suddenly got more acidic?
>>>
>>> Or the waste dumped in the water directly got less so...
>>
>> ...or as usual, Shawn doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
>
> This from the guy who was off by a factor of 1000 in US coal use...
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:21:58 PM7/29/15
to
pete...@gmail.com wrote in
news:1c3ab7e0-50fd-453f...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:50:58 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7,
>> pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and
>> > > whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say
>> > > direct waste dumping?
>> >
>> > Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being
>> > mined and burned in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates
>> > it contained coming back to earth.
>>
>>
>> Dirty coal? Gigaton???
>> Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 tons.
>> http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.01#/?f=M&start=200
>> 001 Annual US consumption was almost exactly 1,000,000 tons.
>> So, you were only off by a factor of 1000...
>
> Go back and read your page again. Speak the words slowly and
> carefully to yourself, so you'll have a better chance to
> understand. The unit used in the graph and chart on that page is
> '1000 short tons'.
>
> 1 million of those units does in fact add up to a gigaton.
As usual, well, pretty much always, Shawn's own source proves him
wrong (and full of shit).
simplest instructions, or even being aware that he hasn't, there
are no surprises there.
news:1c3ab7e0-50fd-453f...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:50:58 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7,
>> pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and
>> > > whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say
>> > > direct waste dumping?
>> >
>> > Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being
>> > mined and burned in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates
>> > it contained coming back to earth.
>>
>>
>> Dirty coal? Gigaton???
>> Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 tons.
>> http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.01#/?f=M&start=200
>> 001 Annual US consumption was almost exactly 1,000,000 tons.
>> So, you were only off by a factor of 1000...
>
> Go back and read your page again. Speak the words slowly and
> carefully to yourself, so you'll have a better chance to
> understand. The unit used in the graph and chart on that page is
> '1000 short tons'.
>
> 1 million of those units does in fact add up to a gigaton.
wrong (and full of shit).
>
> ...no wonder you couldn't qualify as an economist.
Given that he has proven himself utterly incapable of following the
> ...no wonder you couldn't qualify as an economist.
simplest instructions, or even being aware that he hasn't, there
are no surprises there.
>
>> Dirty coal? No, the US mostly uses clean forms of coal.
>> Plants that don't burn clean coal use scrubbers.
>
> Back when the CAA was passed, that was not the case.
>
>> > > > > And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume
>> > > > > that it was the supposed 'acid rain'? Why? How acidic
>> > > > > do you think that rain actually was anyway?
>> > > >
>> > > > How acidic do you think it needed to be?
>> > > > What do you think it was when the measured pH of the
>> > > > lakes changed? The soil suddenly got more acidic?
>> > >
>> > > Or the waste dumped in the water directly got less so...
>> > ...or as usual, Shawn doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>
>> This from the guy who was off by a factor of 1000 in US coal
>> use...
>
> See above.
>
> Idiot.
>
Other than the drool on your shoes, what was your first clue?
>> Dirty coal? No, the US mostly uses clean forms of coal.
>> Plants that don't burn clean coal use scrubbers.
>
> Back when the CAA was passed, that was not the case.
>
>> > > > > And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume
>> > > > > that it was the supposed 'acid rain'? Why? How acidic
>> > > > > do you think that rain actually was anyway?
>> > > >
>> > > > How acidic do you think it needed to be?
>> > > > What do you think it was when the measured pH of the
>> > > > lakes changed? The soil suddenly got more acidic?
>> > >
>> > > Or the waste dumped in the water directly got less so...
>> > ...or as usual, Shawn doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>
>> This from the guy who was off by a factor of 1000 in US coal
>> use...
>
> See above.
>
> Idiot.
>
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:25:17 PM7/29/15
to
Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> wrote in
news:mpbcgi$ie8$1...@news.datemas.de:
> On 2015-07-29 19:50:54 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7,
>> pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and
>>>> whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say
>>>> direct waste dumping?
>>>
>>> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being
>>> mined and burned in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates
>>> it contained coming back to earth.
>>
>>
>> Dirty coal? Gigaton???
>>
>> Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 tons.
>>
>> http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.01#/?f=M&start=200
>> 001
>>
>> Annual US consumption was almost exactly 1,000,000 tons.
>>
>> So, you were only off by a factor of 1000...
>
> No. Annual US consumption in 2008 was almost exactly
> 1,120,548.444 THOUSAND short tons...
>
> ...or in short, 1.12 Gigatons.
>
> Pity you didn't actually pay attention to your own source, huh?
him, rather than directly refuting his claims?
Shawn, I'll buy you a steak dinner if you admit you were wrong,
point blank, without equivacation. You clearly misread the graph,
but you're not man enough to admit it, even if you get paid for it.
Kevrob
Jul 29, 2015, 4:30:48 PM7/29/15
to
> "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
> --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
And using a sig to talk about summary executions of the class enemy is
> --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
so restrained.
I have not been claiming scientific expertise. I was making a p0litical
point, one someone with even less training in politics and history ought
to be able to see. I repeat:
[quote]
`Course, that's just me being "fact-based," and I don't discount that
AGW could be a plausible description of what is going on. Forgive
me if I apply the same skepticism to the theory that I would to any
other panic, especially when the remedies proposed are more of that
ol' debbil, statism.
Ever read "After Communism" by Robert Heilbroner?
The New Yorker, September 10, 1990 P. 91
"Socialism may not continue as an important force now that Communism is finished. But another way of looking at socialism is as the society that
must emerge if humanity is to cope with the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment."
IOW, using environmentalism to sneak a planned economy back in after it
failed so massively. The watermelon strategy. Green on the outside...
[/quote]
Just search "kevrob" and "watermelon" or hit the link.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.arts.sf.written/kevrob$20watermelon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heilbroner
[quote]
Published in 1953, The Worldly Philosophers has sold nearly four million copies, making it the second-best-selling economics text of all time (the first being Paul Samuelson's Economics, a highly popular university textbook).[citation needed] The seventh edition of the book, published in 1999, included a new final chapter entitled "The End of Worldly Philosophy?", which included both a grim view on the current state of economics as well as a hopeful vision for a "reborn worldly philosophy" that incorporated social aspects of capitalism.
He also came up with a way of classifying economies, as either Traditional (primarily agriculturally based, perhaps subsistence economy), Command (centrally planned economy, often involving the state), Market (capitalism), or Mixed.
Though an outspoken socialist for nearly his entire career, Heilbroner famously wrote in a 1989 New Yorker article prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won...Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism.[3]
[/quote]
He was someone who could see that the side he used to carry the banner for
had lost. He also knew what bolt hole the communists and fellow travelers
would make for: a coat of green over the red.
Now, this isn't to say they aren't authentic enviros, honestly concerned
about the future of the planet. But their are power-lusting statists
among them, so I reserve the right to be suspicious of them.
Kevin R
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 4:34:02 PM7/29/15
to
> > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>
> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
All of it in Silver Lake?
>
> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
> Of course, on the slightest examination, his attempt to rescue his argument
> falls apart. Silver lake is in the middle of the Adirondack Park, the nearest
> road is over 3 miles away, and it sits in a mountain bowel - no water flows
> into it from any inhabited area; its fed only by local rain.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/slwaump.pdf
Page 4
SOILS
"The soils contain a layer enriched in iron and humus that is strongly acidic."
And, seriously, you never considered how acidic that rain would have to be to have the effect you claim. 'Acid rain' was never *that* acidic. It just wasn't Ph neutral. NORMAL rain has a Ph of 5.6.
http://epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html
"Pure water has a pH of 7.0. However, normal rain is slightly acidic because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic acid, giving the resulting mixture a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical atmospheric concentrations of CO2."
Remember-
"Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
Quadibloc
Jul 29, 2015, 3:42:53 PM7/29/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:38:18 AM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2015 13:16:29 -0400, William December Starr
> <wds...@panix.com> wrote
> in<news:mp8ddd$t6k$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
> > In article <mp8clu$9mt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >> deep that they get exposed, all on their own accord.
evolution by natural selection was a fraud... is this an occupational hazard,
or what?
John Savard
> On 28 Jul 2015 13:16:29 -0400, William December Starr
> <wds...@panix.com> wrote
> in<news:mp8ddd$t6k$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
> > In article <mp8clu$9mt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:
> >> The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper
> >> and deeper. Usually at some point, the lies get so
> >> The problem with telling a lie is that things get deeper
> >> deep that they get exposed, all on their own accord.
> >> "Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA"
> >> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
> >> "The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that
> >> the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the
> >> reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming
> >> trend."
> > Hmm. I could believe this denier, or I could believe the
> > actual scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
> 'Steven Goddard' is actually Tony Heller. His
> 'credentials' are a BS in geology and a master's degree in
> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
> He's published similar claims in the past that he's been
> forced to retract.
I recall an electrical engineer who "proved" that Charles Darwin's theory of
> >> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
> >> "The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that
> >> the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the
> >> reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming
> >> trend."
> > Hmm. I could believe this denier, or I could believe the
> > actual scientists in the field. Which way to choose...?
> 'Steven Goddard' is actually Tony Heller. His
> 'credentials' are a BS in geology and a master's degree in
> electrical engineering -- which is to say, none.
> He's published similar claims in the past that he's been
> forced to retract.
evolution by natural selection was a fraud... is this an occupational hazard,
or what?
John Savard
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 4:36:42 PM7/29/15
to
On 2015-07-29 20:33:58 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether
>>> rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>>
>> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
>> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
> All of it in Silver Lake?
So you're just going to pretend the post you made "refuting" the
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether
>>> rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>>
>> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
>> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
> All of it in Silver Lake?
gigaton number never existed?
Man up.
>
>
>
>
>> Of course, on the slightest examination, his attempt to rescue his argument
>> falls apart. Silver lake is in the middle of the Adirondack Park, the nearest
>> road is over 3 miles away, and it sits in a mountain bowel - no water flows
>> into it from any inhabited area; its fed only by local rain.
>
>
> Sigh...
>
> http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/slwaump.pdf
>
> Page 4
>
> SOILS
>
> "The soils contain a layer enriched in iron and humus that is strongly acidic."
>
> And, seriously, you never considered how acidic that rain would have to
> be to have the effect you claim. 'Acid rain' was never *that* acidic.
> It just wasn't Ph neutral. NORMAL rain has a Ph of 5.6.
>
> http://epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html
>
> "Pure water has a pH of 7.0. However, normal rain is slightly acidic
> because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic
> acid, giving the resulting mixture a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical
> atmospheric concentrations of CO2."
>
>
> Remember-
>
> "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
> to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
>
> So, rainwater at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals... what?
used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
Do you see the flaw in your argument? I personally doubt it because
you've clearly shown you can't do something as read the legend on a
chart.
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 4:40:08 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:25:17 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Shawn, I'll buy you a steak dinner if you admit you were wrong,
> point blank, without equivacation. You clearly misread the graph,
> but you're not man enough to admit it, even if you get paid for it.
OK, I misread the graph*. Oops. My bad.
> Shawn, I'll buy you a steak dinner if you admit you were wrong,
> point blank, without equivacation. You clearly misread the graph,
> but you're not man enough to admit it, even if you get paid for it.
*technically what I did was look down to the table rather than the graph, which didn't have a note on units.
Now, YOU need to admit you were wrong when you cast aspersions on my ability as an economist.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:42:18 PM7/29/15
to
Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> wrote in
news:mpbdgn$kvg$1...@news.datemas.de:
> On 2015-07-29 20:33:58 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7,
>> pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and
>>>> whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say
>>>> direct waste dumping?
>>>
>>> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being
>>> mined and burned in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates
>>> it contained coming back to earth.
>>
>>
>> All of it in Silver Lake?
>
> So you're just going to pretend the post you made "refuting" the
> gigaton number never existed?
>
> Man up.
Heh.
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 4:43:46 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:36:42 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> > http://epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html
> >
> > "Pure water has a pH of 7.0. However, normal rain is slightly acidic
> > because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic
> > acid, giving the resulting mixture a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical
> > atmospheric concentrations of CO2."
> >
> >
> > Remember-
> >
> > "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
> > to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
> >
> > So, rainwater at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals... what?
>
> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
> used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
> > http://epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html
> >
> > "Pure water has a pH of 7.0. However, normal rain is slightly acidic
> > because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic
> > acid, giving the resulting mixture a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical
> > atmospheric concentrations of CO2."
> >
> >
> > Remember-
> >
> > "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
> > to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
> >
> > So, rainwater at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals... what?
>
> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
> used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of the rain in the region anyway? And how did that compare to historical levels? And how much WAS there?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:44:45 PM7/29/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ebeba815-4354-4e47...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:25:17 PM UTC-7, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
>> Shawn, I'll buy you a steak dinner if you admit you were wrong,
>> point blank, without equivacation. You clearly misread the
>> graph, but you're not man enough to admit it, even if you get
>> paid for it.
>
>
> OK, I misread the graph*. Oops. My bad.
certificate to. But you didn't. You followed it up with the
equivacation:
>
> *technically what I did was look down to the table rather than
> the graph, which didn't have a note on units.
You didn't bother to read your own source, which, as always, proved
> *technically what I did was look down to the table rather than
> the graph, which didn't have a note on units.
you wrong.
I'll make the offer again: If you just admit you were wrong,
without equivacation, I'll buy you a steak dinner. But you won't,
because you *can't*. You aren't capable of admitting you just
fucked up.
>
> Now, YOU need to admit you were wrong when you cast aspersions
> on my ability as an economist.
>
How can I cast apsersions on something you refuse to even define?
> Now, YOU need to admit you were wrong when you cast aspersions
> on my ability as an economist.
>
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:45:57 PM7/29/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c1751cab-ccc8-4f41...@googlegroups.com:
then there not being fish in the lake? Or do you dispute that there
*were* fish, then there *werne't* fish?
Seriously, dude.
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 4:47:19 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:43:46 PM UTC-7, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> > > "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
> > > to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
Ah, and what was the actual ph in 1969? And was there any other effect that might have killed off the fish? Just because B follows A doesn't mean A CAUSES B.
> > > "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
> > > to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 4:48:28 PM7/29/15
to
On 2015-07-29 20:40:04 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:25:17 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
>> Shawn, I'll buy you a steak dinner if you admit you were wrong,
>> point blank, without equivacation. You clearly misread the graph,
>> but you're not man enough to admit it, even if you get paid for it.
>
>
> OK, I misread the graph*. Oops. My bad.
Yup. An economist could have done the back of the envelope calculations
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:25:17 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
>> Shawn, I'll buy you a steak dinner if you admit you were wrong,
>> point blank, without equivacation. You clearly misread the graph,
>> but you're not man enough to admit it, even if you get paid for it.
>
>
> OK, I misread the graph*. Oops. My bad.
that could have told him that there was no possibility that the US was
only burning a megaton of coal...
...but you couldn't manage it.
>
> *technically what I did was look down to the table rather than the
> graph, which didn't have a note on units.
>
> Now, YOU need to admit you were wrong when you cast aspersions on my
> ability as an economist.
pete...@gmail.com
Jul 29, 2015, 4:49:25 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:34:02 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
> >
> > Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> > in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
> All of it in Silver Lake?
After your 1000x error, you should learn better than to talk bullshit
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
> >
> > Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
> > in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
> All of it in Silver Lake?
about numbers.
How about apologizing for your inability to read a fucking graph?
> > Of course, on the slightest examination, his attempt to rescue his argument
> > falls apart. Silver lake is in the middle of the Adirondack Park, the nearest
> > road is over 3 miles away, and it sits in a mountain bowel - no water flows
> > into it from any inhabited area; its fed only by local rain.
>
> Sigh...
> http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/slwaump.pdf
> Page 4
> SOILS
> "The soils contain a layer enriched in iron and humus that is strongly acidic."
>
> And, seriously, you never considered how acidic that rain would have to be to have the effect you claim. 'Acid rain' was never *that* acidic. It just wasn't Ph neutral. NORMAL rain has a Ph of 5.6.
"Acid Precipitation
Recently acidic deposition has impacted the aquatic resources of
the Adirondacks. The ALSC surveyed 1,469 Adirondack waters, 24
percent of which had pH levels less th an 5.0 (Kretser el al. 1989).
Historic data and water chemistry analysis demonstrate that many
of those waters were historically circumneutral and able to support
fishes. Although less well studied, streams have also been impacted by
acidification (Colquhoun 1984).
While acid deposition has affected all areas of the Adirondack
Park, the available data indicates that it has had a substantial
impact on the fisheries resources in the Silver Lake Wilderness.
The pH ranges from 4.6 to 7.1 on area ponds for which chemistry
data is available. Six ponds formerly known to support fish
communities have since become fishless due to the effects of acid
deposition."
pt
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 4:49:48 PM7/29/15
to
On 2015-07-29 20:43:43 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:36:42 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
>>> http://epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html
>>>
>>> "Pure water has a pH of 7.0. However, normal rain is slightly acidic
>>> because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic
>>> acid, giving the resulting mixture a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical
>>> atmospheric concentrations of CO2."
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember-
>>>
>>> "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
>>> to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
>>>
>>> So, rainwater at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals... what?
>>
>> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
>> used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
>
>
> Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
Failure to answer the question noted.
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:36:42 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
>>> http://epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html
>>>
>>> "Pure water has a pH of 7.0. However, normal rain is slightly acidic
>>> because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic
>>> acid, giving the resulting mixture a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical
>>> atmospheric concentrations of CO2."
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember-
>>>
>>> "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
>>> to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
>>>
>>> So, rainwater at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals... what?
>>
>> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
>> used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
>
>
> Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
>
> No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of the rain
> in the region anyway? And how did that compare to historical levels?
> And how much WAS there?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:51:25 PM7/29/15
to
Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> wrote in
news:mpbe6q$m7s$1...@news.datemas.de:
because he wont' tell us. He might mean "an economist is a bullshit
artist who makes shit up on the internet, but is so bad at it that
literally not one single person takes him seriously on any
subject." In wihch case, he'd be *very* able.
Brian M. Scott
Jul 29, 2015, 4:52:43 PM7/29/15
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:4aeec6af-1af1-490c...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:47:32 AM UTC-4, Mart van
> de Wege wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
[...]
>>> I'm not a climatologist, but I did get a political
>>> science B.A., also a history major while I was at it.
>>> AGW may not have been cooked up as an excuse to
>>> justify increasing state control of the economy once
>>> Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism was removed from the board
>>> as a plausible alternative to a free enterprise
>>> exchange economy, but it has all the trappings.
>> As William says: wailing dingbattery.
[...]
> I have not been claiming scientific expertise. I was
> making a p0litical point, one someone with even less
> training in politics and history ought to be able to
> see.
Given the science, the political point is irrelevant.
Imagining otherwise is indeed dingbattery.
[...]
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:4aeec6af-1af1-490c...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:47:32 AM UTC-4, Mart van
> de Wege wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>> I'm not a climatologist, but I did get a political
>>> science B.A., also a history major while I was at it.
>>> AGW may not have been cooked up as an excuse to
>>> justify increasing state control of the economy once
>>> Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism was removed from the board
>>> as a plausible alternative to a free enterprise
>>> exchange economy, but it has all the trappings.
>> As William says: wailing dingbattery.
> I have not been claiming scientific expertise. I was
> making a p0litical point, one someone with even less
> training in politics and history ought to be able to
> see.
Imagining otherwise is indeed dingbattery.
[...]
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 4:53:44 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:45:57 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of
> > the rain in the region anyway? And how did that compare to
> > historical levels? And how much WAS there?
> >
> What's your explanation for there being fish in the lake before,
> then there not being fish in the lake? Or do you dispute that there
> *were* fish, then there *werne't* fish?
*I* don't need to explain the fish. The issue is whether the acid rain explanation is correct. Given normal ph of 5.6 according to the EPA and "strongly acidic" soil according to the state of NY, what effect do you think supposed "acid rain" had on actual ph levels?
> > No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of
> > the rain in the region anyway? And how did that compare to
> > historical levels? And how much WAS there?
> >
> What's your explanation for there being fish in the lake before,
> then there not being fish in the lake? Or do you dispute that there
> *were* fish, then there *werne't* fish?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:55:13 PM7/29/15
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:13l1g4cgwhpmr
$.1w16n3kbnusy3$.d...@40tude.net:
When multi-trillion dollar public policy decisions are being made,
the political point is _never_ irrelevant.
And only those who stand to gain would claim it is.
That is why there are so many skeptics. Because the hysterical "Oh,
my God, we're all going to die (so give me all your money)" crowd
act like the political point is all there is.
$.1w16n3kbnusy3$.d...@40tude.net:
the political point is _never_ irrelevant.
And only those who stand to gain would claim it is.
That is why there are so many skeptics. Because the hysterical "Oh,
my God, we're all going to die (so give me all your money)" crowd
act like the political point is all there is.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 4:57:12 PM7/29/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3d8cc9a3-2501-4aa7...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:45:57 PM UTC-7, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
>> > No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of
>> > the rain in the region anyway? And how did that compare to
>> > historical levels? And how much WAS there?
>> >
>> What's your explanation for there being fish in the lake
>> before, then there not being fish in the lake? Or do you
>> dispute that there *were* fish, then there *werne't* fish?
>
>
> *I* don't need to explain the fish.
happened to them, yes, you do.
Otherwise, as usual, well, always, you're just a fucking idiot.
talking out of your ass.
But then, you're used to that.
Scott Lurndal
Jul 29, 2015, 4:58:31 PM7/29/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>>
>> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
>> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
>All of it in Silver Lake?
The catchment basin is much larger than the lake.
>On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> > Did you ever consider how much acid that would require and whether rainfall is a plausible source, as opposed to say direct waste dumping?
>>
>> Did you ever consider that a gigaton of dirty coal was being mined and burned
>> in the US in 2008? This is just the sulfates it contained coming back to earth.
>
>
>All of it in Silver Lake?
Kevrob
Jul 29, 2015, 4:58:42 PM7/29/15
to
Would you have been 4-square behind Lysenkoism, if a large enough %
of biologists were saids to be in favor in a poll?
Kevin R
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 4:59:01 PM7/29/15
to
I'm starting to wonder if you even graduated high school.
If the soil is acidic, then it is pretty much certain it has ALWAYS
been acidic.
So normal rain and acidic soil were a perfectly workable combination
for that lake to support brook trout.
And if rain is normally somewhat acidic, then what we refer to as acid
rain would clearly be MORE acidic.
And that made the lake's environment inimical to brook trout.
Acid rain has now been lessened and the brook trout are coming back.
Simple for those with at least some education in logic.
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 4:59:46 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:49:48 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
> >> used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
> >
> >
> > Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
>
> Failure to answer the question noted.
For all you know the trout were deliberately poisoned for some reason.
> >> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
> >> used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
> >
> >
> > Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
>
> Failure to answer the question noted.
> > No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of the rain
> > in the region anyway? And how did that compare to historical levels?
> > And how much WAS there?
>
> Answer my question first.
"And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume that it was the supposed 'acid rain'? Why?"
So far you can't even demonstrate that acid rain had anything to do with the lake's ph. As I said from the start- "...strongly acidic soil".
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 5:00:10 PM7/29/15
to
Scientists depend on politics for funding. Ergo, what will get them
funded will get attention.
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 5:01:46 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:57:12 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > *I* don't need to explain the fish.
>
> If you want to refute the currently accepted theory of what
> happened to them, yes, you do.
No, I really don't. "Strongly acidic soil" Job's done, I win. You didn't even know the ph of rain before I posted it.
> > *I* don't need to explain the fish.
>
> If you want to refute the currently accepted theory of what
> happened to them, yes, you do.
Quadibloc
Jul 29, 2015, 5:02:25 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:59:46 PM UTC-6, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> For all you know the trout were deliberately poisoned for some reason.
And Al Gore was probably the culprit!
> For all you know the trout were deliberately poisoned for some reason.
I can't prove that aliens didn't re-animate the dead as their ninth plan to take
over the Earth before we developed solanite either, but _pace_ Criswell, I don't
think it likely.
John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 5:03:32 PM7/29/15
to
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:11568c1a-5080-42e5...@googlegroups.com:
I suspect that, if a poll had been taken among Lysenko's peers, a
majority (perhaps unanimously) *would* have agreed with it. (And
very likely, *did*. Especially after 1948, when dissent was
outlawed.)
It isn't hard to see parallels between the behavior of Lysenko and
his cronies, and the current hysterical doom criers.
If you genuinely believe that there is a danger to human
civllization, it is your sacred duty to convey that warning in a
way that is taken seriously. They do not. In fact, they promote
their view in a way that directly causes people to *not* believe
them.
And they don'tchange, even when this is pointed out to them.
news:11568c1a-5080-42e5...@googlegroups.com:
majority (perhaps unanimously) *would* have agreed with it. (And
very likely, *did*. Especially after 1948, when dissent was
outlawed.)
It isn't hard to see parallels between the behavior of Lysenko and
his cronies, and the current hysterical doom criers.
If you genuinely believe that there is a danger to human
civllization, it is your sacred duty to convey that warning in a
way that is taken seriously. They do not. In fact, they promote
their view in a way that directly causes people to *not* believe
them.
And they don'tchange, even when this is pointed out to them.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 5:06:49 PM7/29/15
to
Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> wrote in
news:mpbeqh$nhp$1...@news.datemas.de:
> On 2015-07-29 20:53:40 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:45:57 PM UTC-7, Gutless
>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of
>>>> the rain in the region anyway? And how did that compare to
>>>> historical levels? And how much WAS there?
>>> What's your explanation for there being fish in the lake
>>> before,> then there not being fish in the lake? Or do you
>>> dispute that there> *were* fish, then there *werne't* fish?
>>
>>
>> *I* don't need to explain the fish. The issue is whether the
>> acid rain explanation is correct. Given normal ph of 5.6
>> according to the EPA and "strongly acidic" soil according to
>> the state of NY, what effect do you think supposed "acid rain"
>> had on actual ph levels?
>
> Wow.
>
> I'm starting to wonder if you even graduated high school.
complete teh mandatory class work, and to do that, you have to follow
directions _correctly_, and you have to follow _all_ of them.
Shawn has proven, again and again, that he is incapable of doing so.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 5:08:27 PM7/29/15
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:013cc39f-450b-4bea...@googlegroups.com:
Shawn can't prove he's not a communist plant, sent to usenet to
destroy western civilization, so as to increase the caviar supply for
Russian astristocrats.
Or, for that matter, that he's not a convicted goat raper.
news:013cc39f-450b-4bea...@googlegroups.com:
destroy western civilization, so as to increase the caviar supply for
Russian astristocrats.
Or, for that matter, that he's not a convicted goat raper.
pete...@gmail.com
Jul 29, 2015, 5:08:52 PM7/29/15
to
from the dirty coal was being dumped over the whole northeast and midwest.
As for how they know what the pH used to be, this is just another area where
Shawn is ignorant.
The Colquhoun article referenced in Shawn's paper is behind a paywall, but the
methodology is well known - they examine fresh water diatoms diposited over the
years in lake bottom sediments.
pt
Brian M. Scott
Jul 29, 2015, 5:10:28 PM7/29/15
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:7232d759-69dc-4e4e...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony
> Nance wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
>> Says a guy who uses the phrase "government school" and
>> dismisses the normally used term as a popular
>> euphemism.
>> Just sayin'. Well, just observin' and sayin'.
> "Government school" is not to "school" the way
> "Holocaust denier" is to "denier."
So what? The relevant comparand is ‘climate denier’, not
‘Holocaust denier’. And both simply suggest imperviousness
to evidence.
> No way it has equivalent connotations. Play fair, damn
> it!
Dismissing the normal term as a popular euphemism is
playing fair? My goodness.
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:7232d759-69dc-4e4e...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony
> Nance wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> Calling skeptics "deniers" is a low rhetorical tactic.
>> Says a guy who uses the phrase "government school" and
>> dismisses the normally used term as a popular
>> euphemism.
>> Just sayin'. Well, just observin' and sayin'.
> "Government school" is not to "school" the way
> "Holocaust denier" is to "denier."
So what? The relevant comparand is ‘climate denier’, not
‘Holocaust denier’. And both simply suggest imperviousness
to evidence.
> No way it has equivalent connotations. Play fair, damn
> it!
Dismissing the normal term as a popular euphemism is
playing fair? My goodness.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 5:11:02 PM7/29/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:40d45863-fe06-4a6b...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:57:12 PM UTC-7, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
>> > *I* don't need to explain the fish.
>>
>> If you want to refute the currently accepted theory of what
>> happened to them, yes, you do.
>
>
> No, I really don't.
punch line, and literally not one single human being anywhere on (or
off) the planet takes you seriously on any subject.
> "Strongly acidic soil" Job's done, I win.
> You didn't even know the ph of rain before I posted it.
>
"strongly acidic," what changed? Why would "strongly acidic soil"
that hadn't killed fish in, most likely at least, centuries, suddenly
do so, if nothing had changed?
Perhaps the fish found out that you existed, and committed suicide in
despair.
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 5:11:25 PM7/29/15
to
On 2015-07-29 20:59:43 +0000, Shawn Wilson said:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:49:48 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
>>>> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
>>>> used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
>>
>> Failure to answer the question noted.
>
>
> For all you know the trout were deliberately poisoned for some reason.
Second failure to answer my question noted.
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:49:48 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
>>>> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
>>>> used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
>>
>> Failure to answer the question noted.
>
>
> For all you know the trout were deliberately poisoned for some reason.
>
>
>
>
>>> No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of the rain
>>> in the region anyway? And how did that compare to historical levels?
>>> And how much WAS there?
>>
>> Answer my question first.
>
>
> Actually I am STILL waiting for YOU to ANSWER MY fundamental question
> that started this whole contretemps-
>
> "And out of the myriad reasons why, you just ass-ume that it was the
> supposed 'acid rain'? Why?"
downstream of coalfired powerplants and the rain was measurably more
acidic than normal. Changing the rules about how those plants could
operate made the rain less acidic than it was before the rule changes
has started to bring down the pH of those lakes.
>
> 'well, this came after that' is not a reason.
>
> So far you can't even demonstrate that acid rain had anything to do
> with the lake's ph. As I said from the start- "...strongly acidic
> soil".
The soil didn't change, so why did the lake change to more acidic and
then back again?
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2015, 5:12:18 PM7/29/15
to
Strongly acidic soil is an unchanging component of the system, so
please explain if it is the culprit...
...why did the lake ever support brook trout?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jul 29, 2015, 5:13:23 PM7/29/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:40d6676d-0040-43ce...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:49:48 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker
> wrote:
>
>
>> >> Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn?
>> >> Because the lake used to have brook trout and then it no
>> >> longer did.
>> >
>> >
>> > Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0
>> > sound reasonable?
>>
>> Failure to answer the question noted.
>
>
> For all you know the trout were deliberately poisoned for some
> reason.
your own sources, which have a 100% chance of directly refuting your
claims), the established wisdome seems entirely more plausible.
pete...@gmail.com
Jul 29, 2015, 5:14:39 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:59:46 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> For all you know the trout were deliberately poisoned for some reason.
That goes straight into the 'Imbecilic emissions from Shawn' file.
> For all you know the trout were deliberately poisoned for some reason.
Honestly, when you start to fall back on sekrit conspiracies, you've
lost.
pt
pete...@gmail.com
Jul 29, 2015, 5:38:44 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:43:46 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:36:42 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
> > > http://epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html
> > >
> > > "Pure water has a pH of 7.0. However, normal rain is slightly acidic
> > > because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic
> > > acid, giving the resulting mixture a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical
> > > atmospheric concentrations of CO2."
> > >
> > >
> > > Remember-
> > >
> > > "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
> > > to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
> > >
> > > So, rainwater at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals... what?
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:36:42 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>
> > > http://epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html
> > >
> > > "Pure water has a pH of 7.0. However, normal rain is slightly acidic
> > > because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic
> > > acid, giving the resulting mixture a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical
> > > atmospheric concentrations of CO2."
> > >
> > >
> > > Remember-
> > >
> > > "Silver Lake, where the record brook trout was caught, was determined
> > > to be fishless in 1969, and in 1976 had a pH of 5.0"
> > >
> >
> > Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
> > used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
>
>
> Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
>
> > Did the soil somehow BECOME "strongly acidic", Shawn? Because the lake
> > used to have brook trout and then it no longer did.
>
>
> Rain at 5.6 plus "strongly acidic" soil equals what? 5.0 sound reasonable?
>
> No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of the rain in the region anyway? And how did that compare to historical levels? And how much WAS there?
There are other papers discussing that. They can get historical pH data in the
water by analyzing fresh water diatom shells in the lake bottom sediments.
pt
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Jul 29, 2015, 5:44:50 PM7/29/15
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:58:39 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>Would you have been 4-square behind Lysenkoism, if a large enough %
>of biologists were saids to be in favor in a poll?
If the bulk of the scientific evidence supported it, you bet I would
have been. But the science wasn't there, which is WHY it was bad
politics.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
wrote:
>Would you have been 4-square behind Lysenkoism, if a large enough %
>of biologists were saids to be in favor in a poll?
have been. But the science wasn't there, which is WHY it was bad
politics.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
pete...@gmail.com
Jul 29, 2015, 5:51:15 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:40:08 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:25:17 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
> > Shawn, I'll buy you a steak dinner if you admit you were wrong,
> > point blank, without equivacation. You clearly misread the graph,
> > but you're not man enough to admit it, even if you get paid for it.
>
>
> OK, I misread the graph*. Oops. My bad.
>
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:25:17 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
> > Shawn, I'll buy you a steak dinner if you admit you were wrong,
> > point blank, without equivacation. You clearly misread the graph,
> > but you're not man enough to admit it, even if you get paid for it.
>
>
> OK, I misread the graph*. Oops. My bad.
>
> *technically what I did was look down to the table rather than the graph, which didn't have a note on units.
>
> Now, YOU need to admit you were wrong when you cast aspersions on my ability as an economist.
No Shawn. You just demonstrated your general incompetence to work in the
>
> Now, YOU need to admit you were wrong when you cast aspersions on my ability as an economist.
field of economics. Getting stuff like this Right is Important.
What did your vaunted 'professors at grad school' do when you made thousand
fold errors? Was 'Oops. My bad' sufficient to recover your grade?
pt
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 5:57:10 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:12:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> *I* don't need to explain the fish.
> >>
> >> If you want to refute the currently accepted theory of what
> >> happened to them, yes, you do.
> >
> >
> > No, I really don't. "Strongly acidic soil" Job's done, I win. You
> > didn't even know the ph of rain before I posted it.
>
> Nope.
>
> Strongly acidic soil is an unchanging component of the system, so
> please explain if it is the culprit...
>
> ...why did the lake ever support brook trout?
I don't know, why did it?
> >>> *I* don't need to explain the fish.
> >>
> >> If you want to refute the currently accepted theory of what
> >> happened to them, yes, you do.
> >
> >
> > No, I really don't. "Strongly acidic soil" Job's done, I win. You
> > didn't even know the ph of rain before I posted it.
>
> Nope.
>
> Strongly acidic soil is an unchanging component of the system, so
> please explain if it is the culprit...
>
> ...why did the lake ever support brook trout?
Shawn Wilson
Jul 29, 2015, 6:12:58 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:38:44 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of the rain in the region anyway? And how did that compare to historical levels? And how much WAS there?
>
> There are other papers discussing that. They can get historical pH data in the
> water by analyzing fresh water diatom shells in the lake bottom sediments.
Can they? You know this process is correct how? Because they only way to confirm it is to compare it to actual historical measurements. And if we had actual historical measurements we wouldn't NEED it... So who was making these measurements in this lake and when?
> > No room for an acid rain effect. And what WAS the acidity of the rain in the region anyway? And how did that compare to historical levels? And how much WAS there?
>
> There are other papers discussing that. They can get historical pH data in the
> water by analyzing fresh water diatom shells in the lake bottom sediments.
I have seen the watermelon crowd try this bullshit too many times to count. Like you going on about 'well, the absence of fish proves...' No, it doesn't PROVE anything except the absence of fish. Do those fish even occur naturally in that lake? Did the fish 'disappear' because they tried to stock the lake with a game fish that the environment was unsuitable for? Was there a predator or parasite or toxin deliberately or accidentally introduced into the system? A LOT of things can potentially explain the absence of fish that used to be present. You are begging the question of 'why are they absent?' to support your agenda.
How acidic WAS the rain in the region, and how much was there? Was it enough to affect the acidity of the lake noticeably? With a ph of rainwater of 5.6 and "highly acidic" soil, how much effect could supposed 'acid rain' have had if the end result was only a ph of 5? And if the fish were THAT susceptible to a small ph difference how could they have existed there at all?
I demand answers to these questions because watermelons have a history of lies and deceit and bullshit. You can sure as hell bet that it wasn't one of them that determined that the ozone 'hole' was a perfectly natural periodic phenomenon in the Antarctic.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages