Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Jonathan
Dec 7, 2011, 6:11:18 PM12/7/11
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wP-dnVYZXoz8lkLT...@mchsi.com...
> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissions-in-2010-study-finds.html
>
> "Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
> Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
> scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the
> increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was
> almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the
> Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.
>
> "The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists
> fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe
> climate change in coming decades".
With China and others growing at some 10% a year, half the
planet yet to reach the industrial.age, and as oil and natural gas
keeps going up in price, guess what the energy of choice
will soon become....that's right....COAL.
Jonathan
Space Energy Inc
http://spaceenergy.com/
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER
(SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Space-Based Solar Power
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
National Security Space Office
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
s
Jonathan
Dec 7, 2011, 6:31:22 PM12/7/11
to
"$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:95b23e45-a052-4026...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Wow! The I guess China as the major emitter better be required to
> sign-on to any new agreement replacing the useless Kyoto accord, right?
I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon. But there's no way the solution is a group
of self-appointed scientists 'planning' our biosphere like it's some
cheap sci-fi plot.
The solution is political, not technological.
Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.
Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
nature.
It won't be scientists that save the day, but the mobs of
people over the world.rampaging for democracy.
Jonathan
s
jacob navia
Dec 7, 2011, 8:10:55 PM12/7/11
to
China is responsible for 23.33% of the emissions, the
U.S. for 18.11%. The European Union arrives at the third
place with 14.04%.
Together they make 55,48% of the emitted CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
When you look at the tons per capita however, a different picture
emerges:
U.S.: 19.18
China: 4.91
The first country according to per capita emissions is
Australia, with 20.82, then the U.S. then Canada with 17.7
Data:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
In both tables, the U.S. is the second.
Obama has made a pact with China to block any progress in the
U.N. clima talks, so the world will go on warming until they
are covered by the rising ocean.
Since only the 99% is affected (the 1% doesn't care at all)
the clima will go on degrading and the 99% will suffer from
the consequences. Big corporations will go on making profits
warming or not.
U.S. for 18.11%. The European Union arrives at the third
place with 14.04%.
Together they make 55,48% of the emitted CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
When you look at the tons per capita however, a different picture
emerges:
U.S.: 19.18
China: 4.91
The first country according to per capita emissions is
Australia, with 20.82, then the U.S. then Canada with 17.7
Data:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
In both tables, the U.S. is the second.
Obama has made a pact with China to block any progress in the
U.N. clima talks, so the world will go on warming until they
are covered by the rising ocean.
Since only the 99% is affected (the 1% doesn't care at all)
the clima will go on degrading and the 99% will suffer from
the consequences. Big corporations will go on making profits
warming or not.
Message has been deleted
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Dec 8, 2011, 9:13:16 AM12/8/11
to
On Dec 7, 6:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> How'd we cause it and what do you propose we do?
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Naw, Jonathan should plan to move to southern Alaska in his old age
as their will be too much mud further north.
And we will be long and safely gone into the ether of eternity.
Trig
> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >needs to be done soon.
>
> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>
> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >needs to be done soon.
>
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> How'd we cause it and what do you propose we do?
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Naw, Jonathan should plan to move to southern Alaska in his old age
as their will be too much mud further north.
And we will be long and safely gone into the ether of eternity.
Trig
Jonathan
Dec 8, 2011, 7:12:23 PM12/8/11
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>needs to be done soon.
>>
>
>
>>
>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>needs to be done soon.
>>
>
> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> How'd we cause it
Thanks for replying
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> How'd we cause it
My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
plausible explanation for the recent warming.
Maybe you should look at this chart.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I think NASA's opinion is pretty good for
many reasons...
"NASA currently has more than a dozen Earth science
spacecraft/instruments in orbit studying all aspects of the
Earth system (oceans, land, atmosphere, biosphere,
cyrosphere."
"In 2004, NASA's spending on climate science exceeded all
other Federal agencies, combined. NASA spent $1.3 billion
on climate science that year, out of a $1.9 billion total."
http://climate.nasa.gov/NasaRole/
Your source would be what?
>..and what do you propose we do?
My post already addressed that question.
Jonathan
s
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 9, 2011, 3:15:45 AM12/9/11
to
On Dec 9, 2:11 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...
> >> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >>>needs to be done soon.
>
> >> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
> >> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> >> How'd we cause it
>
> >Thanks for replying
>
> >My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
> >plausible explanation for the recent warming.
> >Maybe you should look at this chart.
> >http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. Hell, even show evidence
>
> >>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >>>needs to be done soon.
>
> >> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
> >> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> >> How'd we cause it
>
> >Thanks for replying
>
> >My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
> >plausible explanation for the recent warming.
> >Maybe you should look at this chart.
> >http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.
>
> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
>
> However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
> through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> during that same decade and preceding it.
>
> Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".
>
> Perhaps you should learn to read and think?
>
>
>
> >Your source would be what?
>
> My source for what? I didn't make a claim.
>
>
> >Your source would be what?
>
>
>
>
> >>..and what do you propose we do?
>
> >My post already addressed that question.
>
> Well, no, it didn't, unless you think 'something' is a definitive
>
>
> >>..and what do you propose we do?
>
> >My post already addressed that question.
>
> action.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
>
> - Show quoted text -
well things are definetely changing. just look at the wierd weather
when global warming floods new york the super wealthy will begin to
take notice and action. coming to work in boats and getting their 5
grand a pair shoes wet will force them to do something..
anyone with a aquarium knows if you try keeping too many fish the
aquarium becomes unstable and fish start dying....
aquariums have carrying capacity and so may our earth........
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 9, 2011, 7:19:13 AM12/9/11
to
On Dec 9, 3:11 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And just by the way, there's ALWAYS been 'weird weather'. Never heard
> of the Dust Bowl Days?
>
> The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!
everything........
when they went back to strips of farm land and strips of native
grasses things returned to normal..
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >well things are definetely changing. just look at the wierd weather
>
> Yeah, so?
>
> >well things are definetely changing. just look at the wierd weather
>
>
> And just by the way, there's ALWAYS been 'weird weather'. Never heard
> of the Dust Bowl Days?
>
> The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
the dust bowl was caused by farming practices at the time, they plowed
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
everything........
when they went back to strips of farm land and strips of native
grasses things returned to normal..
Brad Guth
Dec 9, 2011, 8:18:01 AM12/9/11
to
On Dec 7, 3:11 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> s
Yes, quite dirty, bloody, nasty and even lethal and toxic coal will
fuel the next hungry and greedy generations to come, plus negative
energy via liquid synfuels from deep shale, oily sand and coal are
going to more than double each of their energy unit carbon footprints,
to boot.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:wP-dnVYZXoz8lkLT...@mchsi.com...
>
> > Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...
> news:wP-dnVYZXoz8lkLT...@mchsi.com...
>
> > Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>
>
> > "Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
> > Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
> > scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the
> > increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was
> > almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the
> > Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.
>
> > "The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists
> > fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe
> > climate change in coming decades".
>
> With China and others growing at some 10% a year, half the
> planet yet to reach the industrial.age, and as oil and natural gas
> keeps going up in price, guess what the energy of choice
> will soon become....that's right....COAL.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Space Energy Inchttp://spaceenergy.com/
> > "Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
> > Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
> > scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the
> > increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was
> > almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the
> > Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.
>
> > "The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists
> > fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe
> > climate change in coming decades".
>
> With China and others growing at some 10% a year, half the
> planet yet to reach the industrial.age, and as oil and natural gas
> keeps going up in price, guess what the energy of choice
> will soon become....that's right....COAL.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER
> (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER
>
> Space-Based Solar Power
> As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
> National Security Space Officehttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessme...
> Space-Based Solar Power
> As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
>
> s
Yes, quite dirty, bloody, nasty and even lethal and toxic coal will
fuel the next hungry and greedy generations to come, plus negative
energy via liquid synfuels from deep shale, oily sand and coal are
going to more than double each of their energy unit carbon footprints,
to boot.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Message has been deleted
k...@kymhorsell.com
Dec 9, 2011, 11:15:14 AM12/9/11
to
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Some form of projection, obviously.
--
It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008
...
> Perhaps you should learn to read and think?
...
Some form of projection, obviously.
--
It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008
Quadibloc
Dec 9, 2011, 12:00:31 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 7, 7:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
have implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the
scientific community*.
Which means that people who are "sceptical" about global warming
belong in the same loony bin with creationists.
The details aren't in yet, but the greenhouse effect is hard
scientific fact.
None the less, there _are_ two sides to this question. It isn't going
to do the world any good if China builds up its war machine on burning
coal while the Western democracies go back to a simpler time with the
energy they can get from wind and solar power.
So how do we keep the Western industrialized world strong and free,
while preventing global warming? Nuclear power.
John Savard
> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >needs to be done soon.
>
>
> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >needs to be done soon.
>
> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
Never mind _his_ reputation. That man-made carbon dioxide emissions
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
have implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the
scientific community*.
Which means that people who are "sceptical" about global warming
belong in the same loony bin with creationists.
The details aren't in yet, but the greenhouse effect is hard
scientific fact.
None the less, there _are_ two sides to this question. It isn't going
to do the world any good if China builds up its war machine on burning
coal while the Western democracies go back to a simpler time with the
energy they can get from wind and solar power.
So how do we keep the Western industrialized world strong and free,
while preventing global warming? Nuclear power.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Dec 9, 2011, 11:56:02 AM12/9/11
to
On Dec 7, 4:31 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
> of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
> internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.
The way nature does this, though, is that creatures that are going in
> Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
> of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
> internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.
the wrong direction die.
> Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
> nature.
nature. Where there is no feedback - such as in the case of
environmental pollution, the costs of which are not automatically
directly borne by the polluter - they don't.
You need the government directly bludgeoning people into not polluting
or otherwise not causing externalities to have that part work. To
expect otherwise is to put ideology ahead of common sense.
John Savard
Marvin the Martian
Dec 9, 2011, 1:05:38 PM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Dec 7, 7:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something needs
>> >to be done soon.
>>
>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> Never mind _his_ reputation. That man-made carbon dioxide emissions have
> implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the scientific
> community*.
It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
> On Dec 7, 7:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something needs
>> >to be done soon.
>>
>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> Never mind _his_ reputation. That man-made carbon dioxide emissions have
> implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the scientific
> community*.
isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
got a D in "earth science", his only science class.
A fallacy based on a laughably false premise. It doesn't get stupider
than that.
> Which means that people who are "sceptical" about global warming belong
> in the same loony bin with creationists.
community. Darwin had an idea that went against the scientific community.
Einstein (Lorentz & Fitzgarld, really) had an idea that went against the
scientific community. Lemaitre had an idea that went against the
scientific community.
Again, you gibber a silly non-sequitor based on a false premise.
> The details aren't in yet, but the greenhouse effect is hard scientific
> fact.
failed to predict the last decade of non cooling. There has been a HUGE
amount of evidence that the whole thing is a damned fraud: faked data,
data that is altered by computer programs, use of peer review to suppress
the real climate science that shows CO2 has little to do with climate
change, the boycotting of journals that publish the truth...
It's a damned lie!
Sam Wormley
Dec 9, 2011, 2:21:08 PM12/9/11
to
On 12/9/11 1:11 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. Hell, even show evidence
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. Hell, even show evidence
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags
Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057
> A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new
evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators.
Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is
extremely likely (>95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed
warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity.
> Previously, climate scientists have used a technique called "optimal
fingerprinting" to pinpoint the causes of global warming. This involves
using complex models to simulate the climate response to different
"forcings". These include greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone, as well
as natural factors such as solar and volcanic variability. The relative
contribution of each forcing is then assessed by a statistical
comparison of the model outputs to the real-life warming pattern.
> However, this method relies on the ability of climate models to
accurately simulate the response patterns to each forcing, and also
assumes that the responses can be scaled and added. Furthermore, changes
in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly
See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057
Dawlish
Dec 9, 2011, 1:23:44 PM12/9/11
to
What's your name again, so that you can tell them?
Sam Wormley
Dec 9, 2011, 2:23:36 PM12/9/11
to
On 12/9/11 7:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> The Dust Bowl was caused by a prolonged drought. Otherwise it would
> have happened much earlier. It's not like that was the first year
> they farmed the place, after all.
Had humans not ravished the land the dust bowl would not have happened
in the 30s.
> The Dust Bowl was caused by a prolonged drought. Otherwise it would
> have happened much earlier. It's not like that was the first year
> they farmed the place, after all.
Had humans not ravished the land the dust bowl would not have happened
in the 30s.
Sam Wormley
Dec 9, 2011, 2:24:54 PM12/9/11
to
On 12/7/11 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> How'd we cause it and what do you propose we do?
>
> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
Sam Wormley
Dec 9, 2011, 2:33:57 PM12/9/11
to
On 12/9/11 12:05 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you.
> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you.
Marvin the Martian
Dec 9, 2011, 7:57:53 PM12/9/11
to
"The model, driven by observational records of climate forcings, surface
temperature and ocean heat uptake, was run many thousands of times with
different parameter combinations. The combinations that best matched the
observations were then fed through the model a second time in order to
simulate the climate response to each individual forcing."
In other words, it is yet ANOTHER example of fitting a spanning set of
basis functions to a curve, and then extrapolating that curve to the
future to get the (desired) results.
In short, another bunch of idiots think that if they do a Fourier fit to
a given wave function over a given time period, that the wave function
will predict the future. No, it won't. Every undergrad EE major KNOWS
this to be an error, but making this STUPID BLUNDER is SOP for the AGW
frauds, because YOU CAN PREDICT ANY DAMNED THING YOU WANT.
And Wormley, ONCE AGAIN you totally missed the point I made about post
hoc fallacies and bandwagon fallacies and you GIBBERED something
irrelevant into the conversation. This idiot post you made just comes out
of NOWHERE. Don't you get tired of being the fool of sci.physics?
Jonathan
Dec 9, 2011, 8:00:46 PM12/9/11
to
news:drc3e7dsbcko0o3ka...@4ax.com...
So you're saying it's a big coincidence that greenhouse gasses
spiked, climate warmed and the Industrial age exploded
....all at the same time?
That's like saying it's a big coincidence that Twin Towers
happened to explode just as those jets rammed into them.
No proof is needed for what is plainly obvious. If you
want to claim there's no connection between a 757
hitting the Twin Towers and their destruction, then
the burden of proof falls on...you.
> Hell, even show evidence
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.
Provide a link please to that claim please.
>
> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
And that bolsters your argument h o w e x a c t l y?
>
> However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
Then why is the ice melting then? And provide a link to your data please.
I have data below showing it's a very significant rate.
> through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> during that same decade and preceding it.
>
> Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".
Yes they do, on the last line below, read it and weep~
"NASA Earth Observatory Q and A"
"If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what
makes scientists think that humans are causing global
warming now?
"The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past
few decades isn't part of a natural cycle is how fast the change
is happening. The biggest temperature swings our planet has
experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based
on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists
estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken
about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees
Celsius. The warming of the past century-0.7 degrees Celsius-is
roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming
on average."
"The second reason that scientists think the current warming
is not from natural influences is that, over the past century,
scientists from all over the world have been collecting data
on natural factors that influence climate-things like changes
in the Sun's brightness, major volcanic eruptions, and cycles
such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
/These observations have failed to show any long-term changes
that could fully account for the recent, rapid warming of
Earth's temperature."/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
EIGHT TIMES certainly is statistically significant
Let's review quickly, the highest concentration of Co2 in
650,000 years, a rate of warming 8 times faster than in
the last 1,000,000 years. And all in the last 50 years
or so, most of it in the last 20 years.
Hmmm.....what a mystery....NOT
On my side is most of the scientists of the world, NASA
with their fleet of high tech instruments and dozens of
climate specialists, and shear common sense.
On your side it's just ...you.
Jonathan
s
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...
>>> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>>>needs to be done soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> How'd we cause it
>>
>>Thanks for replying
>>
>>My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
>>plausible explanation for the recent warming.
>>Maybe you should look at this chart.
>>http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>>
>
>
>>
>>"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...
>>> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>>>needs to be done soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> How'd we cause it
>>
>>Thanks for replying
>>
>>My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
>>plausible explanation for the recent warming.
>>Maybe you should look at this chart.
>>http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>>
>
> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change.
Thanks for replying, these debates are fun.
So you're saying it's a big coincidence that greenhouse gasses
spiked, climate warmed and the Industrial age exploded
....all at the same time?
That's like saying it's a big coincidence that Twin Towers
happened to explode just as those jets rammed into them.
No proof is needed for what is plainly obvious. If you
want to claim there's no connection between a 757
hitting the Twin Towers and their destruction, then
the burden of proof falls on...you.
> Hell, even show evidence
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.
>
> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
>
> However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
I have data below showing it's a very significant rate.
> through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> during that same decade and preceding it.
>
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".
Yes they do, on the last line below, read it and weep~
"NASA Earth Observatory Q and A"
"If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what
makes scientists think that humans are causing global
warming now?
"The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past
few decades isn't part of a natural cycle is how fast the change
is happening. The biggest temperature swings our planet has
experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based
on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists
estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken
about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees
Celsius. The warming of the past century-0.7 degrees Celsius-is
roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming
on average."
"The second reason that scientists think the current warming
is not from natural influences is that, over the past century,
scientists from all over the world have been collecting data
on natural factors that influence climate-things like changes
in the Sun's brightness, major volcanic eruptions, and cycles
such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
/These observations have failed to show any long-term changes
that could fully account for the recent, rapid warming of
Earth's temperature."/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
EIGHT TIMES certainly is statistically significant
Let's review quickly, the highest concentration of Co2 in
650,000 years, a rate of warming 8 times faster than in
the last 1,000,000 years. And all in the last 50 years
or so, most of it in the last 20 years.
Hmmm.....what a mystery....NOT
On my side is most of the scientists of the world, NASA
with their fleet of high tech instruments and dozens of
climate specialists, and shear common sense.
On your side it's just ...you.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
Dec 9, 2011, 8:08:28 PM12/9/11
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:af224ccf-8c75-42f7...@f36g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> So how do we keep the Western industrialized world strong and free,
> while preventing global warming? Nuclear power.
So more can ...afford...solutions such as
nuclear power, space solar power etc.
As things stand now, the second explosion
of the Industrial Age (China et al) will be
increasingly powered by...coal.
> John Savard
Jonathan
Dec 9, 2011, 8:22:05 PM12/9/11
to
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:mbadncpT-5tv0H_T...@giganews.com...
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
> got a D in "earth science", his only science class.
I get my opinions on this topic mostly from here....
>
> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
> got a D in "earth science", his only science class.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
NASA accounts for some 3/4ths of all US govt spending
on studying climate change most years. They operate
a fleet of the highest tech instruments around, and have
the largest concentration of climate scientists in the world.
And their motives or political agenda isn't that strong
either way. It has shifted left somewhat since Bush left
office, but the change is marginal.
But let's forget debating the facts and figures either way
for a minute. And answer this question instead.
Should we develop the ability to manage our biosphere
or just let Nature takes it's course, and hope it all
works out???
Once that is answered, then we can start wondering
what we need to do about it, if anything. I think the
answer is spreading free-market democracies across
the globe. As such systems best mimic natural processes
which settle on the optimum solutions...all by themselves.
We don't need to find an 'big fix' for climate change.
We need to build a world that fixes...itself.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
Dec 9, 2011, 8:59:13 PM12/9/11
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c17446f2-ba4b-4aac...@n7g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
so bad Chinese cities have to put spittoons in the streets to keep
the sidewalks from becoming blackened with spit.
"Twenty-six percent of all deaths in China are from
respiratory disease."
http://books.google.com/books?id=10gh6j463nAC&pg=PT520&lpg=PT520&dq=china+coal+spitting&source=bl&ots=B_P1DQ0PPv&sig=nxgz8fAa88y2raFZjtlrWua88hA&hl=en&ei=9bbiTvfhDM_4sQK55uj0BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=china%20coal%20spitting&f=false
Our standard of living is some 6 times higher than in China.
What happens when China and other third world nations
begin to catch up? I think the trends for the next 20 or 30
years, when it comes to greenhouse gasses, is rather scary.
My hobby is the non-linear math of Complexity Science
and people should keep in mind the difference between
linear and non-linear change is the difference between
geometric and exponential rates of change.
And the 'tipping point' between those two types
of change is when the rate of change becomes
fast enough to generate 'unintended consequences'.
Such as sudden methane releases for instance.
And once those kinds of events become reality, so
that there is clear 'proof' no one can deny, well
it's too late.
Those unintended consequences are the hallmark
of any panic or impending exponential rates of change.
My stock trading strategy is entirely built around this
phenomena...panics. Since a panic is always an
over reaction, creating the opportunity.
For instance, in the stock market, when the rate
of change of price is high enough, then things like
automated stop loss orders begin kicking in, and
the price swing can quickly cascade out of control
so that everyone that ...can sell...sells.
Like the Big Crash of Oct 08, which sent the entire
world into an economic depression.
And what scares me the most, is that the oil market
can crash just like the stock market did.
A panic is a panic is a panic is a panic.
Every week I watch a 'complex adaptive system'
get pushed to it's own tipping point. I've watched
hundreds of them cycle, I know exactly how they behave
when they're about to break, and just what to look for.
It took just seven business days for the stock market
to totally collapse in a panic. The oil market can go
just the same way. The oil market is almost thin enough
a good rumor could take it down. That's how close
our world is to the abyss today.
A GOOD FUCKING RUMOR!
And once the panic begins, no amount of fixes
like a strategic reserve can stop it, in fact the fixes
only adds fuel to the panic. The last two great
stock market crashes came just a couple of days
after their respective ..."Rescue Bills".
Jonathan
Marvin the Martian
Dec 9, 2011, 9:48:17 PM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:22:05 -0500, Jonathan wrote:
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:mbadncpT-5tv0H_T...@giganews.com...
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>
>> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
>> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
>> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
>> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
>> got a D in "earth science", his only science class.
>
>
> I get my opinions on this topic mostly from here....
>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
>
> NASA accounts for some 3/4ths of all US govt spending on studying
> climate change most years. They operate a fleet of the highest tech
> instruments around, and have the largest concentration of climate
> scientists in the world. And their motives or political agenda isn't
> that strong either way. It has shifted left somewhat since Bush left
> office, but the change is marginal.
So, basically, you don't understand science at all, much less the science
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:mbadncpT-5tv0H_T...@giganews.com...
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>
>> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
>> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
>> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
>> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
>> got a D in "earth science", his only science class.
>
>
> I get my opinions on this topic mostly from here....
>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
>
> NASA accounts for some 3/4ths of all US govt spending on studying
> climate change most years. They operate a fleet of the highest tech
> instruments around, and have the largest concentration of climate
> scientists in the world. And their motives or political agenda isn't
> that strong either way. It has shifted left somewhat since Bush left
> office, but the change is marginal.
of climate change, and you're going with the guys who get the most money
for the predetermined answer to tell you what to think.
And saying that Hansen, who leads the NASA climate change fraud, is not
only unbiased but not a hard over lunatic is a bit of a stretch; he's
the guy who wanted to put "deniars" on trial for crimes against humanity
and nature, and execute a death sentence upon them to shut them up.
Sort of like screaming for Burno to be burnt at the stake.
Never mind that e-mail thing which some of the NASA "climate scientist"
were caught up in, or the whole issue of picking data sources to show
warming over time that NASA got caught doing.
< snip stupid question about controlling the environment >
You have to understand it first before you can control it.
Brad Guth
Dec 9, 2011, 9:53:36 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 9, 5:59 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> http://books.google.com/books?id=10gh6j463nAC&pg=PT520&lpg=PT520&dq=c...
When did you first realize our government was corrupted and out of
control?
For myself it was roughly 1966
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
control?
For myself it was roughly 1966
Jonathan
Dec 9, 2011, 11:29:52 PM12/9/11
to
news:f34a8519-6e9a-4ba8...@d12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
might be culled, not people. It's the cyclic process that
matters. Where the output is fed back into the input
in an iterative loop.
Where two opposing entities are /repetitively/ judged by an
independent third party.
Genetics v Mutation ...by natural selection
Rule of law v Freedom ...by elections
Producer v Consumer....by markets
Subcritical v Supercritical.....critically interacting.
Static v Chaotic .....dynamically interacting
> > Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
> > nature.
> Yes, they do - on one level. Where there is feedback, they mimic
> nature. Where there is no feedback - such as in the case of
> environmental pollution, the costs of which are not automatically
> directly borne by the polluter - they don't.
Like with HIV, it can be dormant for so long there's little
immediate feedback, and it can get out of control.
If the output doesn't feed back, it's not a naturally
evolving system, but a 'disease' like a dictatorship.
We need to find a way to restore the feedback so
such a damaged system can return to health.
For instance with earlier detection of the disease
or more legitimate elections. The point is that
nature shows the way to solve any real world
problem...by itself.
> You need the government directly bludgeoning people into not polluting
> or otherwise not causing externalities to have that part work. To
> expect otherwise is to put ideology ahead of common sense.
The process works best when the various scales
of governing, from voter to local to national, are
fairly equal in power or the effect they have.
John Savard
On Dec 7, 4:31 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
> > of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
> > internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.
> The way nature does this, though, is that creatures that are going in
> the wrong direction die.
But in a civilized system, only bad ideas, or bad actions
> > Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
> > of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
> > internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.
> The way nature does this, though, is that creatures that are going in
> the wrong direction die.
might be culled, not people. It's the cyclic process that
matters. Where the output is fed back into the input
in an iterative loop.
Where two opposing entities are /repetitively/ judged by an
independent third party.
Genetics v Mutation ...by natural selection
Rule of law v Freedom ...by elections
Producer v Consumer....by markets
Subcritical v Supercritical.....critically interacting.
Static v Chaotic .....dynamically interacting
> > Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
> > nature.
> Yes, they do - on one level. Where there is feedback, they mimic
> nature. Where there is no feedback - such as in the case of
> environmental pollution, the costs of which are not automatically
> directly borne by the polluter - they don't.
immediate feedback, and it can get out of control.
If the output doesn't feed back, it's not a naturally
evolving system, but a 'disease' like a dictatorship.
We need to find a way to restore the feedback so
such a damaged system can return to health.
For instance with earlier detection of the disease
or more legitimate elections. The point is that
nature shows the way to solve any real world
problem...by itself.
> You need the government directly bludgeoning people into not polluting
> or otherwise not causing externalities to have that part work. To
> expect otherwise is to put ideology ahead of common sense.
of governing, from voter to local to national, are
fairly equal in power or the effect they have.
John Savard
Sam Wormley
Dec 9, 2011, 11:39:37 PM12/9/11
to
On 12/9/11 8:48 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> So, basically, you don't understand science at all, much less the science
> of climate change, and you're going with the guys who get the most money
> for the predetermined answer to tell you what to think.
>
Ironic comment coming from a denier of the climate science, Marvin.
> So, basically, you don't understand science at all, much less the science
> of climate change, and you're going with the guys who get the most money
> for the predetermined answer to tell you what to think.
>
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:
> The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
> Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
> The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
See: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Unum
Dec 9, 2011, 8:01:57 PM12/9/11
to
On 12/9/2011 1:11 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
This is very readily available. Satellite observations show a drop
in emitted radiation from the Earth that is consonant with the
increase in CO2 concentration. Here's an illustrated explanation
for you;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.
Show that evidence. Make sure it isn't refuted by this;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
>
not the only thing influencing global temperature. But the trend
over the past 150 years of steadily increasing industrialization
is clearly up.
> Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".
>>
>> Your source would be what?
>>
>
issue with?
.
> "Jonathan"<Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Fred J. McCall"<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...
>>> "Jonathan"<Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>>> needs to be done soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> How'd we cause it
>>
>> Thanks for replying
>>
>> My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
>> plausible explanation for the recent warming.
>> Maybe you should look at this chart.
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>>
>
> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. Hell, even show evidence
>
>>
>> "Fred J. McCall"<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...
>>> "Jonathan"<Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>>> needs to be done soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> How'd we cause it
>>
>> Thanks for replying
>>
>> My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
>> plausible explanation for the recent warming.
>> Maybe you should look at this chart.
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>>
>
This is very readily available. Satellite observations show a drop
in emitted radiation from the Earth that is consonant with the
increase in CO2 concentration. Here's an illustrated explanation
for you;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
>
> However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
> through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> during that same decade and preceding it.
What does 10 years have to do with anything, cherrypicker? CO2 is
> during that same decade and preceding it.
not the only thing influencing global temperature. But the trend
over the past 150 years of steadily increasing industrialization
is clearly up.
> Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".
>
> Perhaps you should learn to read and think?
Says the person who doesn't appear to know anything about the subject.
> Perhaps you should learn to read and think?
>>
>> Your source would be what?
>>
>
> My source for what? I didn't make a claim.
>
>>
>
>>
>>> ..and what do you propose we do?
>>
>> My post already addressed that question.
>>
>
>>
>> My post already addressed that question.
>>
>
> Well, no, it didn't, unless you think 'something' is a definitive
> action.
Is there something specific in his NASA cite you want to take
> action.
issue with?
.
Message has been deleted
Last Post
Dec 11, 2011, 2:21:55 PM12/11/11
to
Message has been deleted
Jonathan
Dec 12, 2011, 8:42:40 PM12/12/11
to
news:8363020a-1a49-499e...@v31g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> When did you first realize our government was corrupted and out of
> control?
> For myself it was roughly 1966
1982.
However, in 1999 I realized that too little corruption (evil)
is just as bad as too much. Whether socialist or fascist
the tragic endings are the same.
A complex adaptive system/evolution requires the dynamic
balance between the static and chaotic (order and disorder)
[good and evil] to exist at all.
When the components find that balance, then the
whole is at it's greatest potential to produce justice
and a better future.
s
> When did you first realize our government was corrupted and out of
> control?
> For myself it was roughly 1966
However, in 1999 I realized that too little corruption (evil)
is just as bad as too much. Whether socialist or fascist
the tragic endings are the same.
A complex adaptive system/evolution requires the dynamic
balance between the static and chaotic (order and disorder)
[good and evil] to exist at all.
When the components find that balance, then the
whole is at it's greatest potential to produce justice
and a better future.
s
Brad Guth
Dec 14, 2011, 8:12:03 AM12/14/11
to
On Dec 12, 6:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you've been nuts for 45 years, then?
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
At least I didn't turn myself into a ZNR approved parrot, brown-nosed
clown or FUD-master on behalf of always sucking up to the mainstream
status-quo, so I was never qualified for the “Grand Cross of the
German Eagle” or possibly even the “Gold Iron Cross” to go along with
the “Blood Order” that Zionist Jews seem to drool over, as most
certainly you were more than qualified.
If you silly guys and gals think the killings of mostly innocent
humans and the systematic environmental trashing of our Earth, as well
as creating as much global inflation as possible, are just too funny
to not allow or perpetrate, then no doubt anything off-world is going
to become ZNR fair game.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> So you've been nuts for 45 years, then?
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
At least I didn't turn myself into a ZNR approved parrot, brown-nosed
clown or FUD-master on behalf of always sucking up to the mainstream
status-quo, so I was never qualified for the “Grand Cross of the
German Eagle” or possibly even the “Gold Iron Cross” to go along with
the “Blood Order” that Zionist Jews seem to drool over, as most
certainly you were more than qualified.
If you silly guys and gals think the killings of mostly innocent
humans and the systematic environmental trashing of our Earth, as well
as creating as much global inflation as possible, are just too funny
to not allow or perpetrate, then no doubt anything off-world is going
to become ZNR fair game.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Message has been deleted
Brad Guth
Dec 14, 2011, 8:36:42 AM12/14/11
to
On Dec 12, 5:42 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I agree, that what little corruption is left is kind of the cookie
crumbs of the mostly public funded jar, because all the really good
cookies of crime and corruption have already been taken and consumed
by those truly in charge of whomever we elect or appoint.
Perhaps it's past due that we the evil villagers with each of our fist
full of burning sticks take charge, and if need be burn down the
castles of those evil robber barons oppressing and misguiding us.
So, it's kind of evil against evil, and may the best bad guys win, and
of course only the evil victors get to interpret and publish their
version of history.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
crumbs of the mostly public funded jar, because all the really good
cookies of crime and corruption have already been taken and consumed
by those truly in charge of whomever we elect or appoint.
Perhaps it's past due that we the evil villagers with each of our fist
full of burning sticks take charge, and if need be burn down the
castles of those evil robber barons oppressing and misguiding us.
So, it's kind of evil against evil, and may the best bad guys win, and
of course only the evil victors get to interpret and publish their
version of history.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Jonathan
Dec 14, 2011, 6:47:25 PM12/14/11
to
>news:c964444c-44c4-447d...@d17g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> I agree, that what little corruption is left is kind of the cookie
>crumbs of the mostly public funded jar, because all the really good
>cookies of crime and corruption have already been taken and consumed
> by those truly in charge of whomever we elect or appoint.
When I moved to Florida I noticed an example of what you
mean. Schools involve huge sums of money, and down here
many of the 'charter schools', where public school funds are
diverted to private companies, are owned by family and
friends of politicians...insiders. It's just terrible.
An example, there's this Florida state legislator that chairs
most of the state education committees. Turns out his...sister
owns a large chain of charter schools. And they have to pay
some $12 million a year in impact fees to the various municipalities.
So this politician wrote legislation that zeros out each and every
impact fee his sister's company would have to pay. Essentially
a $12 million dollar a year gift to his sister at taxpayer expense.
Of course, everyone knows his sister is the straw man
owner, it's ...his charter school. Or will when he leaves
office.
When the Miami Herald caught him and made a splash about it
he was completely unapologetic. He said there's nothing illegal
at all about writing legislation that enriches his family or friends.
And he's right, the reason is in Florida the law about
conflict of interest states it's only illegal if it enriches his
family....and no one else.... Which is a loophole you
could drive a space shuttle through. Other charter schools
also got breaks from that bill, so it's OK to steal.
Florida politics is corrupt to the bone. I believe you can trace
the source of the current world wide depression directly to
Florida. From the mortgage flipping industry pioneered
in my home town of Miami.
>Perhaps it's past due that we the evil villagers with each of our fist
>full of burning sticks take charge, and if need be burn down the
>castles of those evil robber barons oppressing and misguiding us.
Look around the world to what the Internet and smart phones
are doing. People are getting fed up and are ..massing.
The power of collective action is starting to sink in
around the world.
I firmly believe a One World Government is forming.
But from the people rising up and electronically connecting
in a global network movement freedom, democracy
and justice.
From the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street.
In Syria some 15,000 people have died in just
months fighting for freedom. That's a Vietnam like
casualty rate. When the interim govt in Egypt
drops the ball, a 100,000 people show up the
next day to protest. It's really quite a spectacle
of change we're witnessing.
And the rich and powerful are realizing that collective
action can overwhelm almost ...anything in it's path.
>So, it's kind of evil against evil, and may the best bad guys win, and
of course only the evil victors get to interpret and publish their
>version of history.
When I look around the world at the major obstacles
to a better future, I see two huge roadblocks.
Iran and China.
When those two go to democracy, the remaining
dictators will quickly fall. It's exceedingly rare to find
an example of two functioning democracies ever
going to war with each other.
Jonathan
> I agree, that what little corruption is left is kind of the cookie
>crumbs of the mostly public funded jar, because all the really good
>cookies of crime and corruption have already been taken and consumed
> by those truly in charge of whomever we elect or appoint.
mean. Schools involve huge sums of money, and down here
many of the 'charter schools', where public school funds are
diverted to private companies, are owned by family and
friends of politicians...insiders. It's just terrible.
An example, there's this Florida state legislator that chairs
most of the state education committees. Turns out his...sister
owns a large chain of charter schools. And they have to pay
some $12 million a year in impact fees to the various municipalities.
So this politician wrote legislation that zeros out each and every
impact fee his sister's company would have to pay. Essentially
a $12 million dollar a year gift to his sister at taxpayer expense.
Of course, everyone knows his sister is the straw man
owner, it's ...his charter school. Or will when he leaves
office.
When the Miami Herald caught him and made a splash about it
he was completely unapologetic. He said there's nothing illegal
at all about writing legislation that enriches his family or friends.
And he's right, the reason is in Florida the law about
conflict of interest states it's only illegal if it enriches his
family....and no one else.... Which is a loophole you
could drive a space shuttle through. Other charter schools
also got breaks from that bill, so it's OK to steal.
Florida politics is corrupt to the bone. I believe you can trace
the source of the current world wide depression directly to
Florida. From the mortgage flipping industry pioneered
in my home town of Miami.
>Perhaps it's past due that we the evil villagers with each of our fist
>full of burning sticks take charge, and if need be burn down the
>castles of those evil robber barons oppressing and misguiding us.
are doing. People are getting fed up and are ..massing.
The power of collective action is starting to sink in
around the world.
I firmly believe a One World Government is forming.
But from the people rising up and electronically connecting
in a global network movement freedom, democracy
and justice.
From the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street.
In Syria some 15,000 people have died in just
months fighting for freedom. That's a Vietnam like
casualty rate. When the interim govt in Egypt
drops the ball, a 100,000 people show up the
next day to protest. It's really quite a spectacle
of change we're witnessing.
And the rich and powerful are realizing that collective
action can overwhelm almost ...anything in it's path.
>So, it's kind of evil against evil, and may the best bad guys win, and
of course only the evil victors get to interpret and publish their
>version of history.
to a better future, I see two huge roadblocks.
Iran and China.
When those two go to democracy, the remaining
dictators will quickly fall. It's exceedingly rare to find
an example of two functioning democracies ever
going to war with each other.
Jonathan
Brad Guth
Dec 15, 2011, 5:28:34 PM12/15/11
to
On Dec 14, 3:47 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
A corrupt democracy like we currently have will only bankrupt the
likes of China and Iran.
There's nothing wrong with a good dictatorship. Of course coming up
with a "GOOD" anything nowadays is a wee bit problematic, or it well
most certainly become problematic once those Semitic oligarchs and
Rothschilds get done with it.
Giving whomever we elect to lead us with sufficient executive
authority, as to move ahead regardless of whatever others may think we
should be doing, is a kind of an elected dictatorship that we could
learn to live with.
Question is; who do you trust? and what amounts are you willing to
pay?
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> >"Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
likes of China and Iran.
There's nothing wrong with a good dictatorship. Of course coming up
with a "GOOD" anything nowadays is a wee bit problematic, or it well
most certainly become problematic once those Semitic oligarchs and
Rothschilds get done with it.
Giving whomever we elect to lead us with sufficient executive
authority, as to move ahead regardless of whatever others may think we
should be doing, is a kind of an elected dictatorship that we could
learn to live with.
Question is; who do you trust? and what amounts are you willing to
pay?
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
AGWFacts
Dec 16, 2011, 9:18:03 PM12/16/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:12:03 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >For myself it was roughly 1966
> > So you've been nuts for 45 years, then?
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >For myself it was roughly 1966
> > So you've been nuts for 45 years, then?
> At least I didn't turn myself into a ZNR approved parrot, brown-nosed
> clown or FUD-master on behalf of always sucking up to the mainstream
> status-quo, so I was never qualified for the “Grand Cross of the
> German Eagle” or possibly even the “Gold Iron Cross” to go along with
> the “Blood Order” that Zionist Jews seem to drool over, as most
> certainly you were more than qualified.
>
> If you silly guys and gals think the killings of mostly innocent
> humans and the systematic environmental trashing of our Earth, as well
> as creating as much global inflation as possible, are just too funny
> to not allow or perpetrate, then no doubt anything off-world is going
> to become ZNR fair game.
Hysterical paranoid net.kook
> clown or FUD-master on behalf of always sucking up to the mainstream
> status-quo, so I was never qualified for the “Grand Cross of the
> German Eagle” or possibly even the “Gold Iron Cross” to go along with
> the “Blood Order” that Zionist Jews seem to drool over, as most
> certainly you were more than qualified.
>
> If you silly guys and gals think the killings of mostly innocent
> humans and the systematic environmental trashing of our Earth, as well
> as creating as much global inflation as possible, are just too funny
> to not allow or perpetrate, then no doubt anything off-world is going
> to become ZNR fair game.
--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca
Brad Guth
Dec 17, 2011, 1:09:06 PM12/17/11
to
So you think the best available science that's mostly public funded is
"Hysterical paranoid net.kook" worthy.
Is this why you can't honestly research and/or communicate on behalf
of anything pertaining to our moon or the planet Venus?
Would you be a happy camper if I became a brown-nosed clown like
yourself and other ZNR approved rednecks?
I bet you wouldn't be bothered the least bit if Greenland lost an
average km3 of ice per day.
Do you have any solutions other than doing nothing, or doing the 95%
culling of all humans?
AGWFacts
Dec 18, 2011, 4:04:43 PM12/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:09:06 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 6:18 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:12:03 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> > <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 12, 6:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >For myself it was roughly 1966
> > > > So you've been nuts for 45 years, then?
> > > At least I didn't turn myself into a ZNR approved parrot, brown-nosed
> > > clown or FUD-master on behalf of always sucking up to the mainstream
> > > status-quo, so I was never qualified for the “Grand Cross of the
> > > German Eagle” or possibly even the “Gold Iron Cross” to go along with
> > > the “Blood Order” that Zionist Jews seem to drool over, as most
> > > certainly you were more than qualified.
> >
> > > If you silly guys and gals think the killings of mostly innocent
> > > humans and the systematic environmental trashing of our Earth, as well
> > > as creating as much global inflation as possible, are just too funny
> > > to not allow or perpetrate, then no doubt anything off-world is going
> > > to become ZNR fair game.
> > Hysterical paranoid net.kook
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 6:18 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:12:03 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> > <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 12, 6:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >For myself it was roughly 1966
> > > > So you've been nuts for 45 years, then?
> > > At least I didn't turn myself into a ZNR approved parrot, brown-nosed
> > > clown or FUD-master on behalf of always sucking up to the mainstream
> > > status-quo, so I was never qualified for the “Grand Cross of the
> > > German Eagle” or possibly even the “Gold Iron Cross” to go along with
> > > the “Blood Order” that Zionist Jews seem to drool over, as most
> > > certainly you were more than qualified.
> >
> > > If you silly guys and gals think the killings of mostly innocent
> > > humans and the systematic environmental trashing of our Earth, as well
> > > as creating as much global inflation as possible, are just too funny
> > > to not allow or perpetrate, then no doubt anything off-world is going
> > > to become ZNR fair game.
> > Hysterical paranoid net.kook
> So you think the best available science that's mostly public funded is
> "Hysterical paranoid net.kook" worthy.
No.
> "Hysterical paranoid net.kook" worthy.
--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
Brad Guth
Dec 18, 2011, 5:17:03 PM12/18/11
to
with?
Obviously if you're rich and powerful, our global albedo could drop by
a good 10% and everything would be just fine and dandy.
AGWFacts
Dec 19, 2011, 11:59:20 AM12/19/11
to
Brad Guth
Dec 20, 2011, 11:01:44 PM12/20/11
to
Only the rich and powerful, or their devout brown-nosed minions care
less about our global environment getting trashed.
What do you think I mean by the using the phrase "global environment"?
Do you think I'm only talking temperature, or only about ice melt?
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Dec 21, 2011, 1:36:03 PM12/21/11
to
On Dec 19, 8:59 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
I hope you are young and get to see the full fruits of the extra 300
ppm.
When the arctic gets to melting the tundra will be putting off CO2
that
has been trapped for 10s of thousands of years. Postive feed back
baby.
Frack the water table, let them not take baths and let them drink
triple distilled carbon filtered water that they buy from us so spoke
mister big pig...................Trig
Brad Guth
Dec 21, 2011, 9:00:29 PM12/21/11
to
On Dec 21, 10:36 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"
AGWFacts is a Rothschild brown-nosed clown and part-time FUD-master,
so we honestly can't expect anything better.
so we honestly can't expect anything better.
T. Comeau
Dec 21, 2011, 9:19:12 PM12/21/11
to
Zionist Occupation Government, the Freemasons and Bohemian Grove.
That's why I get all my knowledge from Alex Jones.
Marvin the Martian
Dec 22, 2011, 4:22:23 AM12/22/11
to
scientist.
> by the
> Zionist Occupation Government, the Freemasons and Bohemian Grove. That's
> why I get all my knowledge from Alex Jones.
What would happen if you were able to print up all the money you wanted?
I know you can't answer that. Even you know you're full of shit. That's
why you set the follow ups to a bunch of junk newsgroups - your were
rightfully fearful that someone would point out you're a fool and a
coward.
Brad Guth
Dec 23, 2011, 2:27:22 PM12/23/11
to
whole lot better than most. Not that Mook is right about everything,
but on average his interpretations of pending doom and gloom are worth
noting.
David Spain
Jan 5, 2012, 10:58:11 AM1/5/12
to
trigonom...@gmail.com | wrote:
> I hope you are young and get to see the full fruits of the extra 300
> ppm.
> When the arctic gets to melting the tundra will be putting off CO2
> that
> has been trapped for 10s of thousands of years. Postive feed back
> baby.
>
Um, just for the record, I thought that it was methane not C02.
> I hope you are young and get to see the full fruits of the extra 300
> ppm.
> When the arctic gets to melting the tundra will be putting off CO2
> that
> has been trapped for 10s of thousands of years. Postive feed back
> baby.
>
Methane is also considered a greenhouse gas.
Dave
0 new messages