Man-Made Climate Changes
D. Spencer Hines
news:djron9$d6a$2...@reader2.panix.com...
| Nonsense. There is essentially unanimity in the
| scientific community. That folks don't want to
| pay attention is not reason for others to doubt
| the truth.
|
| ----- Paul J. Gans
------------------------------
Balderdash!
There are all sorts of disagreements in the Scientific Community about a
plethora of issues having to do with climate change -- man-made and
"natural".
We even see some pogues saying man-made climate changes are responsible
for all these hurricanes we have been seeing.
Other scientists say that's blithering nonsense.
Pogue Gans himself has actually been on BOTH sides of that one.
Hilarious!
I love it when he does that -- he looks even more foolish than usual.
Gans: Still Top Banana.
And probably funnier on his own, without Pogue Towe as a sidekick.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
ray o'hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mte8f.81$DP....@eagle.america.net...
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:djron9$d6a$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> | Nonsense. There is essentially unanimity in the
> | scientific community. That folks don't want to
> | pay attention is not reason for others to doubt
> | the truth.
> |
> | ----- Paul J. Gans
> ------------------------------
>
> Balderdash!
>
> There are all sorts of disagreements in the Scientific Community about a
> plethora of issues having to do with climate change -- man-made and
> "natural".
>
> We even see some pogues saying man-made climate changes are responsible
> for all these hurricanes we have been seeing.
>
> Other scientists say that's blithering nonsense.
yes the ones paid for by the industries say it is nonsense.
A}if the ones saying it is man made and we change out habits are wrong no
harm no foul.
B}if the ones saying it isn't man made are wrong and we don't change we are
screwed.
if we bet A nothing bad happens. if we bet B things could get dicey.
it's a big risk to take. when in doubt take the safer route even if it is
initilly more expensive. the costs of being wrong the other way could be
disaster.
D. Spencer Hines
Gans, amusingly, remains mired in Denial.
DSH
----------------
"State of Fear"
Dec 23, 2004
by George Will
"WASHINGTON -- In today's segmented America, Michael Crichton's new
novel "State of Fear" might seem to be just reading for red states.
Granted, a character resembling Martin Sheen -- Crichton's character is
a prototypical Hollywood liberal who plays the president in a television
series -- meets an appropriately grisly fate. But blue states, too --
no, especially -- need Crichton's fable about the ecology of public
opinion.
"State of Fear,'' with a first printing of 1.5 million copies, resembles
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged'' -- about 6 million copies sold since
1957 -- as a political broadside woven into an entertaining story.
But whereas Rand had only an idea -- a good one (capitalism is
splendid), but only one -- Crichton has information. ``State of Fear''
is the world's first page-turner that people will want to read in one
gulp (a long gulp -- 600 pages, counting appendices) even though it has
lots of real scientific graphs, and footnotes citing journals such as
Progress in Physical Geography and Transactions -- American Geophysical
Union.
Crichton's subject is today's fear that global warming will cause
catastrophic climate change, a belief now so conventional that it seems
to require no supporting data. Crichton's subject is also how
conventional wisdom is manufactured in a credulous and media-drenched
society.
Various factions have interests -- monetary, political, even
emotional -- in cultivating fears. The fears invariably seem to require
more government subservience to environmentalists, and more government
supervision of our lives.
Crichton's villains are environmental hysterics who are innocent of
information but overflowing with certitudes and moral vanity.
Hilarious! Sounds just like P. Jonathan Gans. -- DSH
His heroes resemble Navy SEALs tenured at MIT, foiling the villains with
guns and graphs.
The villains are frustrated because the data do not prove that global
warming is causing rising sea levels and other catastrophes.
So they concoct high-tech schemes to manufacture catastrophes they can
ascribe to global warming -- flash floods in the American West, the
calving of an Antarctic iceberg 100 miles across and a tsunami that
would roar 500 miles an hour across the Pacific and smash California's
coast on the last day of a Los Angeles conference on abrupt climate
change.
The theory of global warming -- Crichton says warming has amounted to
just half a degree Celsius in 100 years -- is that ``greenhouse gases,''
particularly carbon dioxide, trap heat on Earth, causing ...well, no one
knows what, or when. Crichton's heroic skeptics delight in noting things
like the decline of global temperature from 1940 to 1970. And that
since 1970 glaciers in Iceland have been advancing. And that Antarctica
is getting colder and its ice is getting thicker.
Last week Fiona Harvey, the Financial Times' environmental
correspondent, fresh from yet another international confabulation on
climate change, wrote that although the Earth's cloud cover ``is
thought'' to have increased recently, no one knows whether this is good
or bad. ******
Hilarious! -- DSH
Is the heat-trapping by the clouds' water vapor greater or less than the
sun's heat reflected back off the clouds into space?
Climate-change forecasts, Harvey writes, are like financial forecasts
but involve a vastly more complex array of variables.
The climate forecasts, based on computer models analyzing the past, tell
us that we do not know how much warming is occurring, whether it is a
transitory episode, or how much warming is dangerous -- or perhaps
beneficial.
One of the good guys in "State of Fear'' cites Montaigne's axiom:
``Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known.'' ******
Yep, Gans demonstrates that principle in action every day -- most
recently re the Vinland Map. -- DSH
Which is why 30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global
cooling. ******
Hilarious! -- DSH
The New York Times (Aug. 14, 1975) saw ``many signs'' that ``Earth may
be heading for another ice age.''
Read it and Weep -- or Laugh. -- DSH
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about ``extensive Northern
Hemisphere glaciation.'' ``Continued rapid cooling of the Earth''
(Global Ecology, 1971) could herald ``a full-blown 10,000 year ice age''
(Science, March 1, 1975). The Christian Science Monitor reported (Aug.
27, 1974) that Nebraska's armadillos were retreating south from the
cooling.
Tres drole. Those poor Nebraskan ARMADILLOS. -- DSH
Last week The Washington Post reported that global warming has caused a
decline in Alaska's porcupine caribou herd and has lured the golden
orange prothonotary warbler back from southern wintering grounds to
Richmond, Va., a day earlier for nearly two decades. Or since global
cooling stopped. Maybe.
Gregg Easterbrook, an acerbic student of eco-pessimism, offers a
"Law of Doomsaying'': Predict catastrophe no later than 10 years hence
but no sooner than five years away -- soon enough to terrify, but far
enough off that people will forget if you are wrong. ******
Hilarious! The LAW OF DOOMSAYING. -- DSH
Because Crichton remembers yesterday's discarded certitudes, millions of
his readers will be wholesomely skeptical of today's."
---------------------------------
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
Fred J. McCall
: yes the ones paid for by the industries say it is nonsense.
:A}if the ones saying it is man made and we change out habits are wrong no
:harm no foul.
Wrong, because 'changing our habits' changes our ability to do things.
Life is worse, perhaps to the point of a tampered with free market not
producing replacements as things like oil grow scarcer.
:B}if the ones saying it isn't man made are wrong and we don't change we are
:screwed.
Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
: if we bet A nothing bad happens. if we bet B things could get dicey.
Again, wrong.
:it's a big risk to take. when in doubt take the safer route even if it is
:initilly more expensive. the costs of being wrong the other way could be
:disaster.
The costs of being wrong EITHER way could be disaster. That's why
it's best not to be wrong.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Peter Jason
The so-called Bird Flew (or is it Bird-Flu?) "pandemic" about to engulf us
all may have the most fortuitous side effect of rendering those Chicken
Littles permanently dead.
Then the oceans can rise (or fall), the world's temperature increase (or
decrease), the CO2 levels go up (or down), the AIDS thing might kill us all
(or not), we'll run out of oil (or not), hurricanes will engulf the Deep
South (or maybe not), G.Bush may be mad (or just rat-cunning), Iraq might
implode (or explode), etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam - and we hard working
taxpaying few can get on with the job, and have something interesting to
read in the newspapers for a change.
nightjar
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HpGdnd0K9ZV...@comcast.com...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Mte8f.81$DP....@eagle.america.net...
>> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:djron9$d6a$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>> | Nonsense. There is essentially unanimity in the
>> | scientific community. That folks don't want to
>> | pay attention is not reason for others to doubt
>> | the truth.
>> |
>> | ----- Paul J. Gans
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Balderdash!
>>
>> There are all sorts of disagreements in the Scientific Community about a
>> plethora of issues having to do with climate change -- man-made and
>> "natural".
>>
>> We even see some pogues saying man-made climate changes are responsible
>> for all these hurricanes we have been seeing.
>>
>> Other scientists say that's blithering nonsense.
>
> yes the ones paid for by the industries say it is nonsense.
While some entirely independent observers suggest that we are looking at the
wrong things. One observer calculated recently that 15% of the CO2 currently
in the atmosphere accounts for 100% of the greenhouse effect attributable to
CO2, therefore adding more CO2 will not increase the problem. However, he is
concerned that water vapour absorbs infra-red radiation in exactly the
wavelength needed to trap heat being radiated by the Earth. He calculates
that water vapour is currently only 70% efficient at trapping re-radiated
energy, so increasing that, as burning many 'green' fuels does, will
increase global warming.
> A}if the ones saying it is man made and we change out habits are wrong no
> harm no foul.
However, even a complete achievement of the Kyoto Protocol will, assuming
the assumptions behind it are correct, delay global warming by a decade or
two at best. Much better, in my view, to accept that global warming is going
to happen and spend the money on preparing the world for the changes that
will occur.
Colin Bignell
Martin
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p693m1hfv7j71n2r5...@4ax.com...
> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> : yes the ones paid for by the industries say it is nonsense.
> :A}if the ones saying it is man made and we change out habits are wrong no
> :harm no foul.
>
> Wrong, because 'changing our habits' changes our ability to do things.
> Life is worse, perhaps to the point of a tampered with free market not
> producing replacements as things like oil grow scarcer.
>
> :B}if the ones saying it isn't man made are wrong and we don't change we are
> :screwed.
>
> Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
> degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
>
> : if we bet A nothing bad happens. if we bet B things could get dicey.
>
> Again, wrong.
>
> :it's a big risk to take. when in doubt take the safer route even if it is
> :initilly more expensive. the costs of being wrong the other way could be
> :disaster.
>
> The costs of being wrong EITHER way could be disaster. That's why
> it's best not to be wrong.
I agree Fred - in fact I'd say we really can't afford to be wrong.
One of the greatest hopes for those who developed early computers was that they
would be able to predict the weather accurately, but despite enormous advances,
that still can't be done. The reason is, it is a chaotic system, with so many
variables and dependencies, even tiny alterations of differences can develop
into dramatic changes very quickly, in ways that are (so far) impossible to
reliably model mathematically.
One of the most alarming things I saw recently were the results of deep drilled
ice cores from the Antarctic, which contain samples of the atmosphere as it was
within them. They have now gone back half a million years, and during all that
time (which includes five Ice Ages), the CO2 levels in the atmosphere never rose
above about 300 ppm. Within the last century, the level rose way beyond that,
and now stands at about 360 ppm. Exactly what effect this might have is unknown,
but it worries me considerably - these things are so finely balanced, with one
thing depending on another, it could spell catastrophe.
Forget about the politics and national ambitions surrounding the issue, this is
something which should seriously concern us all, and we should make preparations
to do something about it ASAP - if we can before it is too late. Inevitably it
will cause a great deal of inconvenience at best, and no doubt cost many lives,
but the time for action is here and now... no amount of debate will help, we
simply can't risk it.
Cheers
Martin
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:p693m1hfv7j71n2r5...@4ax.com...
:> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> : yes the ones paid for by the industries say it is nonsense.
:> :A}if the ones saying it is man made and we change out habits are wrong no
:> :harm no foul.
:>
:> Wrong, because 'changing our habits' changes our ability to do things.
:> Life is worse, perhaps to the point of a tampered with free market not
:> producing replacements as things like oil grow scarcer.
:>
:> :B}if the ones saying it isn't man made are wrong and we don't change we are
:> :screwed.
:>
:> Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
:> degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
:>
:> : if we bet A nothing bad happens. if we bet B things could get dicey.
:>
:> Again, wrong.
:>
:> :it's a big risk to take. when in doubt take the safer route even if it is
:> :initilly more expensive. the costs of being wrong the other way could be
:> :disaster.
:>
:> The costs of being wrong EITHER way could be disaster. That's why
:> it's best not to be wrong.
:
:I agree Fred - in fact I'd say we really can't afford to be wrong.
Unfortunately, you then go on to insist that we must act now, even if
that action is wrong.
:One of the most alarming things I saw recently were the results of deep drilled
:ice cores from the Antarctic, which contain samples of the atmosphere as it was
:within them. They have now gone back half a million years,
This is somewhat overstated. What I see is going back about 160,000
years.
:and during all that
:time (which includes five Ice Ages), the CO2 levels in the atmosphere never rose
:above about 300 ppm. Within the last century, the level rose way beyond that,
:and now stands at about 360 ppm. Exactly what effect this might have is unknown,
:but it worries me considerably - these things are so finely balanced, with one
:thing depending on another, it could spell catastrophe.
But the question is what effect, if any, is it having and where is it
coming from?
"As I have pointed out frequently (Gray 1998) background carbon
dioxide as measured at remote sites has been increasing in the
atmosphere at an almost linear rate of about 1.4ppmv per year ever
since 1972. The rate seems to be unaffected by the large increase in
emissions form combustion of fossil fuels over the period (4.4Gt in
1972 to 6.4Gt in 1995, an increase of 45%)."
-- "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"
Vincent R. Gray
Greenhouse Bulletin No. 120 Feb 1999
:Forget about the politics and national ambitions surrounding the issue, this is
:something which should seriously concern us all, and we should make preparations
:to do something about it ASAP - if we can before it is too late. Inevitably it
:will cause a great deal of inconvenience at best, and no doubt cost many lives,
:but the time for action is here and now... no amount of debate will help, we
:simply can't risk it.
So you didn't mean your first sentence at all, then?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Martin
What, 'we can't afford to be wrong'? Surely, nobody disagrees with that?
As I said, we really don't know what 'wrong' is. Whatever, I find the core
sample analysis disturbing (it was from Scientific American, an article about
the problems of deep ice drilling, not some kooky eco-terror website). Where it
is coming from is another matter - but we'd be rather stupid not to be
considering ways of reducing it PDQ, surely? Just in case....
Paul J Gans
>Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
>degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
Fred, this is why non-experts should not try to figure this
out for themselves.
Try to comprehend the amount of heat energy needed to heat
the entire surface of the world by one degree.
----- Paul J. Gans
ray o'hara
they worry more about short term profits than about long term consequences.
and the average tempeture rise is not evenly spread out. the poles get much
warmer.
it is better to take the prudent course. but they insist that SUVs are a god
given right.
Jack Love
wrote:
>In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
>>degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
>
>Fred, this is why non-experts should not try to figure this
>out for themselves.
And you are an expert?
D. Spencer Hines
Will, 23 December 2004] ******
Yep, Gans demonstrates that principle in action every day -- most
recently re the Vinland Map. -- DSH
"Which is why 30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global
cooling." [GW] ******
Hilarious! -- DSH
"The New York Times (Aug. 14, 1975) saw "many signs'' that " Earth may
be heading for another ice age.''" [GW]
Read it and Weep -- or Laugh. -- DSH
"Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern
Hemisphere glaciation.'' "Continued rapid cooling of the Earth''
(Global Ecology, 1971) could herald "a full-blown 10,000 year ice age''
(Science, March 1, 1975). The Christian Science Monitor reported (Aug.
27, 1974) that Nebraska's armadillos were retreating south from the
cooling." [GW]
Tres drole. Those poor Nebraskan ARMADILLOS. -- DSH
"Last week The Washington Post reported that global warming has caused a
decline in Alaska's porcupine caribou herd and has lured the golden
orange prothonotary warbler back from southern wintering grounds to
Richmond, Va., a day earlier for nearly two decades. Or since global
cooling stopped. Maybe." [GW]
"Gregg Easterbrook, an acerbic student of eco-pessimism, offers a "Law
of Doomsaying'': Predict catastrophe no later than 10 years hence but no
sooner than five years away -- soon enough to terrify, but far enough
off that people will forget if you are wrong." [GW] ******
Hilarious! The LAW OF DOOMSAYING. -- DSH
"Because Crichton remembers yesterday's discarded certitudes, millions
of his readers will be wholesomely skeptical of today's." [GW]
-------------------------------------------------
Martin
"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d9n4m15rvfcokun2u...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:33:02 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
> >>degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
> >
> >Fred, this is why non-experts should not try to figure this
> >out for themselves.
>
> And you are an expert?
This next sentence should confirm that he has some level of expertise - even if
he doesn't claim to...
>
> >Try to comprehend the amount of heat energy needed to heat
> >the entire surface of the world by one degree.
You see Jack love, you shouldn't just automatically believe what you are told by
'the government', or 'official sources' - look and see for yourself, there is a
mass of information out there. As has become abundantly clear, the sources I
just mentioned are not just unreliable, they have been proven to be deceitful,
dishonest and misleading for political purposes many, many times.
The sooner we all learn to read between lines, doubt what we are told by
officials, and think for ourselves, the better chance we all have of surviving a
few more generations as a species..
This is not a matter of politics, we are talking about survival here.
Paul J Gans
>Colin Bignell
"He"? Who "he"? Does he know the field? From what you
quote of him vis a vis water vapor he doesn't know much...
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Yup. As the Arctic ice pack melts, the effects will become
much more notable. The albedo in the northern region is
changing and the warming trend will accelerate up there.
Luckily, Greenland won't melt quite so rapidly.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Gans is now claiming to be an expert CLIMATOLOGIST -- whereas he has NO
credentials in CLIMATOLOGY at all.
Gans is a journeyman physical chemist, self-described, who mostly
teaches lower-classmen [freshmen and sophomores] at the third-rate New
York University.
Gans has NO expertise and NO practical experience in either CLIMATOLOGY
or METEOROLOGY -- yet he is now prattling and bugling on USENET as if he
does.
Hilarious!
D. Spencer Hines
I interact regularly with very bright young folks from Ivy League
colleges who are trying to make career decisions.
They tell me that invariably the Best and Brightest among them with a
scientific bent go to a top Medical School and get their M.D.'s --
whereas the ones who are not bright enough to gain admission to a
Medical School have to settle for getting a Ph.D. in Chemistry or
Biology and going into Academia.
By the same token, these stellar young folks tell me that invariably the
Best and Brightest among them with a Liberal Arts bent go to a top Law
School and get their J.D. -- whereas the ones who are not bright enough
to gain admission to a Law School have to settle for getting a Ph.D. in
History, English, Sociology or Political Science and going into
Academia.
Mediocre Academics with Ph.D's often have this LOONY idea they are the
Smartest Folks Among Us -- but it Just Isn't So.
Then they COMPOUND that error by trying to Poach Out Of Field [POOF] --
leading inexorably to Egregious Pratfall.
DSH
"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o115m1tk7hpi0gd08...@4ax.com...
| >Right. Odds are that an education tends to make you
| >see crap as crap. Or are you claiming that ignorance
| >is better?
| >
| > ---- Paul J. Gans
|
| No it means that getting a PhD forces you through a mold of conformity
| in which the Leftoids dominate by 90+%. PhDs aren't the smartest guys
| around: they're the ones who can tolerate the crap.
|
| What you, personally as a 'PhD' have demonstrated is an inability to
| use logic as well as a complete willingness to reject data which
| doesn't conform to your phantasies.
Grey Satterfield
Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hilarious!
>
> Gans is now claiming to be an expert CLIMATOLOGIST -- whereas he has NO
> credentials in CLIMATOLOGY at all.
>
> Gans is a journeyman physical chemist, self-described, who mostly
> teaches lower-classmen [freshmen and sophomores] at the third-rate New
> York University.
NYU a "third-rate" institution? What arrogant twaddle! Hines tries too
hard -- again -- and gets hoisted on his own petard -- again. The boy needs
to relax and stop thinking with his reproductive organs.
Grey Satterfield
James Toupin
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mte8f.81$DP....@eagle.america.net...
It is unanimously believed by all scientists that human activity has had an
effect upon the climate. The disagreement involves the amount of effect and
what the eventual outcome could be. Some point to the Global Warming which
has happened over the past 100 to 150 years as being "man-made" while others
consider it part of a natural cycle. However, all scientists agree that
human activity has had an effect on the amount of warming and on the
acceleration of climate change.
However, whether the burning of fossil fuels has had a negative impact upon
our climate or not is really irrelevant. Fossil fuels are a limited and
non-renewable resource and they will be depleted within a century by even
the most optimistic estimates. We need to be finding alternative energy
sources now.
The problem has been that industry has seen this only as a short term issue
that effects their immediate profitability and not as a long term process
that will show whether these industries are even viable in the long run.
The development of alternative energy sources is the greatest opportunity
for business to come along since the industrial revolution. This could mean
the development of entirely new industries and a huge economic boost for the
countries that lead the world in the process of switching to new energy
sources. This "crisis" should be viewed as a chance to rebuild western
society on an entirely new economy.
New energy sources mean the foundation of new industries, a new
infrastructure, and a research and building project unrivalled in the
history of civilisation. This is the chance for the developed world to once
again take the lead in the world economy and be instrumental in the creation
of a new age of economic growth and development.
The myopic view of the western world is not only damaging our environment,
but also damaging the power and independence of the free nations of the
world.
James
Vince Brannigan
> You know, there is a Great Deal of Truth in what you say below.
>
> I interact regularly with very bright young folks from Ivy League
> colleges who are trying to make career decisions.
>
> They tell me that invariably the Best and Brightest among them with a
> scientific bent go to a top Medical School and get their M.D.'s --
> whereas the ones who are not bright enough to gain admission to a
> Medical School have to settle for getting a Ph.D. in Chemistry or
> Biology and going into Academia.
>
> By the same token, these stellar young folks tell me that invariably the
> Best and Brightest among them with a Liberal Arts bent go to a top Law
> School and get their J.D. -- whereas the ones who are not bright enough
> to gain admission to a Law School have to settle for getting a Ph.D. in
> History, English, Sociology or Political Science and going into
> Academia.
>
In which the Ivy League is not well ranked.
In Engineering the U of Maryland is tied with Princeton at #17
and Harvard (20) Columbia (23) and Yale (39) are behind.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/brief/engrank_brief.php
But by your analysis the Ph.Ds who selected me as a full Professor
were simply bowing to intellectual superiority. I can see that.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan J.D
ray o'hara
"Grey Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in message
news:BF87F498.1EA86%grey.sat...@oscn.net...
you have DSH's brain located at the correct level but i believe you need to
move it a bit back
ray o'hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdu8f.16$pc1...@eagle.america.net...
> Hilarious!
>
> Gans is now claiming to be an expert CLIMATOLOGIST -- whereas he has NO
> credentials in CLIMATOLOGY at all.
>
where did he make that claim. as always you make stuff up if not spouting
downright lies.
> Gans is a journeyman physical chemist, self-described, who mostly
> teaches lower-classmen [freshmen and sophomores] at the third-rate New
> York University.
>
which is still a higher calling than failed housing officer.
Grey Satterfield
eNKdnX1duYbrDP_e...@comcast.com, "Vince Brannigan"
<ne...@firelaw.us> wrote:
Rankings of the quality of institutions of higher learning, especially those
done by periodicals in order to boost circulation, are, of necessity,
nothing more that surveys of popularity and the conventional wisdom. They
are not just valueless, they are worse than that because the naïve actually
take them seriously.
Grey Satterfield
Vince Brannigan
Actually I say that to the dean all the time. :-)
Vince
Billzz
Talk about thread drift. This may have the record.
alt.books.tom-clancy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.history.british,sci.military.naval,soc.history.medieval,soc.history.war.misc,us.military.army
Doug
ridiculous. As the previous poster stated: "calculate how much energy it
would take to heat the entire astmosphere of the earth by one degree." In
comparison to the the total volume of atmosphere surrounding the earth the
volume of pollution output by all the SUV's on the earth put together is
insignificant.
--
there is no .sig
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Puudnf2ZOYD...@comcast.com...
Kurt Ullman
<billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>Talk about thread drift. This may have the record.
>
Nah, this ain't even close. We have yet to mention Opr** and
not a single discussion of cement battle****s. Not even warmed up
yet.
--
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know that
hurricanes are dangerous.
--Yankee Viejo on misc.writing
D. Spencer Hines
SEVERAL SUV's were MOST amusing during the 2004 Presidential Campaign.
Kerry didn't want the Environmentalists to know that -- so he said "The
family has it. I don't have it.''
Then Kerry got caught by the short hairs...
Hilarious!
DSH
--------------------
"John Kerry on the Environment - Drives an SUV - Lies About It"
"Kerry's SUV habit fuels a 'trust' gap"
By Boston Herald (April 24, 2004)
"Now we've truly heard it all. Rising gas prices are the latest John
Kerry [related, bio] campaign theme, so naturally the senator was asked
this week about his personal vehicle usage.
Kerry insisted, "I don't own an SUV.''
When pressed about a Chevrolet Suburban, the mother of all SUVs, kept at
the Heinz Kerry abode in Idaho, Kerry said: "The family has it. I don't
have it.'' ******
Kerry has now closed the distance between nuance and flat-out deception.
And that's without mentioning the other gas-guzzlers this candidate and
his family enjoy, all the while posturing about reducing the nation's
dependence on foreign oil and fuel efficiency.
At last count, there were eight "family'' cars and SUVs, including the
1995 Suburban (15 mpg highway, 12 mpg city), a 1993 Land Rover Defender
(12 mpg highway, 10 mpg city), a 1989 Jeep Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 16
mpg city), a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a
2001 Audi Allroad (21 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Chrysler PT
Cruiser (25 mpg highway, 20 mpg city), a 1985 Dodge 600 Convertible (26
mpg highway, 23 mpg city), and a 2002 Chrysler 300M (26 mpg highway, 18
mpg city). Kerry, however, only owns up to the latter two.
Then there's the 2002 Harley Davidson (his), two powerboats (one his,
one hers), a power inflatable 2001 Novurania (his), and a Gulfstream II
private jet (hers).
President Kerry would have to open his own pipeline in Saudi Arabia just
to meet family fuel demand.
Yet there he was yammering on to reporters Thursday about making a
hybrid (powered by gas and electricity) his "campaign car.''
It's probably not politically correct to refer to the senator as the
head of the Heinz Kerry family.
But last we checked, he is a part of it, no? Kerry's prevarication is
trivial in the context of terrorism, the war in Iraq, the economy and
all the serious issues this country - and its next president - will
confront.
But if voters can't trust John Kerry to play it straight on the little
things, how can they trust him on the big things?"
http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/john-kerry-environment-suv.htm
Bingo!
DSH
ray o'hara
"Doug" <pig...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ugz8f.10261$Zv5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> For anyone to suggest SUV's are the primary cause of global warming is
> ridiculous. As the previous poster stated: "calculate how much energy it
> would take to heat the entire astmosphere of the earth by one degree." In
> comparison to the the total volume of atmosphere surrounding the earth the
> volume of pollution output by all the SUV's on the earth put together is
> insignificant.
>
> --
> there is no .sig
> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Puudnf2ZOYD...@comcast.com...
> >
> >
the primary cause of course not . but they are symptomatic of the total
disregard of the enviroment. of course you like other rightwingnuts always
take something that hasn't been asserted and argue against that. it is
called intellectual dishonesty.
ray o'hara
> John Kerry's attempts to hide the facts he owns and operates NOT ONE but
> SEVERAL SUV's were MOST amusing during the 2004 Presidential Campaign.
>
> Kerry didn't want the Environmentalists to know that -- so he said "The
> family has it. I don't have it.''
>
> Then Kerry got caught by the short hairs...
>
> Hilarious!
>
> DSH
i'm glad you agree that SUVs are bad things, we might make a human out of
you after all.
Julian Richards
wrote:
What percentage of SUVs never go off road? The ex of my neighbour has
one and it is quite obvious that it never goes off road yet it is a
huge thing that obstructs the cul de sac.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Billzz
news:u7l5m1hjnbcjslkdl...@4ax.com...
Ah yes, we remember the trials of King Richard and how, "for the want of a
nail...."
But if he had a Jeep! All would have been saved.
Why is this posted to....
alt.books.tom-clancy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.history.british,sci.military.naval,soc.history.medieval,soc.history.war.misc,us.military.army
try rec.atos.makers.jeep+willys
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:j0g4m1pbecng7hhp5...@4ax.com...
You apparently do. See what follows.
:As I said, we really don't know what 'wrong' is. Whatever, I find the core
:sample analysis disturbing (it was from Scientific American, an article about
:the problems of deep ice drilling, not some kooky eco-terror website). Where it
:is coming from is another matter - but we'd be rather stupid not to be
:considering ways of reducing it PDQ, surely? Just in case....
But what if us trying to do things is the wrong thing to do? What if
us 'just in case' doing things weakens our economies enough so that we
fail to have the resources to replace things as they run out? We
could destroy ourselves that way, too, you know.
It could very well be the wrong thing to try to reduce it by reducing
human CO2 production, since the 1.4 ppmv per year increase doesn't
seem to be tracking with human releases of CO2 *AT ALL*. Ours go up,
even to the extent of doubling, and this rate just chugs along at a
nice, steady 1.4 ppmv per year.
So you apparently *DO* disagree that "we can't afford to be wrong",
since you're calling for action that we don't know will work at great
cost (which could have bad effects) to address a 'problem' that we
don't know the source of.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
:>degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
:
:Fred, this is why non-experts should not try to figure this
:out for themselves.
Then I suspect you should shut up.
:Try to comprehend the amount of heat energy needed to heat
:the entire surface of the world by one degree.
Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
Martin
I did not mean *afford* in any financial sense Fred - I assume you don't mean
*cost* there in the way of paying cash? *Problem* however we must agree on?
Martin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:QIz8f.33$pc1...@eagle.america.net...
> >> John Kerry's attempts to hide the facts he owns and operates NOT ONE but
> >> SEVERAL SUV's were MOST amusing during the 2004 Presidential Campaign.
> >>
> >> Kerry didn't want the Environmentalists to know that -- so he said "The
> >> family has it. I don't have it.''
> >>
> >> Then Kerry got caught by the short hairs...
> >>
> >> Hilarious!
> >>
> >> DSH
> >
> > i'm glad you agree that SUVs are bad things, we might make a human out of
> >you after all.
>
> What percentage of SUVs never go off road? The ex of my neighbour has
> one and it is quite obvious that it never goes off road yet it is a
> huge thing that obstructs the cul de sac.
Alas, a necessity to get over all the ****ing speed ramps!
Fred J. McCall
:"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
:news:djtjru$bf3$1...@reader2.panix.com...
:> In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>
:> >Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
:> >degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
:>
:> Fred, this is why non-experts should not try to figure this
:> out for themselves.
:>
:> Try to comprehend the amount of heat energy needed to heat
:> the entire surface of the world by one degree.
:
: they
Ah, the omnipresent 'they'.
:worry more about short term profits than about long term consequences.
Another hell of a thing to accuse NOAA of.
:and the average tempeture rise is not evenly spread out. the poles get much
:warmer.
Again, we don't know that.
:it is better to take the prudent course.
If only we knew unequivocally what that is. Remember, the CO2 rise
has been CONSTANT for many decades and does not in any way seem to
correlate to what humans are doing.
:but they insist that SUVs are a god
:given right.
And you insist that anyone who disagrees with your speculations must
be 'evil' and we should start doing something now, even though we
don't know what to do and doing it might hurt us worse than not doing
it.
You're an idiot, Ray. You should stop wasting electricity running
your computer and posting to the net. Do your bit for CO2, why don't
you?
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Martin
"James Toupin" <jto...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:c_v8f.74155$Io.9013@clgrps13...
Well said James, about as positive as you can be on this matter. I just hope
someone takes note before it is too late...
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Doug" <pig...@nospam.com> wrote in message
:news:ugz8f.10261$Zv5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
:> For anyone to suggest SUV's are the primary cause of global warming is
:> ridiculous. As the previous poster stated: "calculate how much energy it
:> would take to heat the entire astmosphere of the earth by one degree." In
:> comparison to the the total volume of atmosphere surrounding the earth the
:> volume of pollution output by all the SUV's on the earth put together is
:> insignificant.
:
: the primary cause of course not . but they are symptomatic of the total
:disregard of the enviroment.
Hogwash. You blow out more noxious gas than an SUV.
:of course you like other rightwingnuts always
:take something that hasn't been asserted and argue against that. it is
:called intellectual dishonesty.
Not in your case. Nothing intellectual about you.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
redc1c4
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
(mercy snipage occurs)
> But by your analysis the Ph.Ds who selected me as a full Professor
> were simply bowing to intellectual superiority. I can see that.
>
> Prof. Vincent Brannigan J.D
yer a legend in your own mind.
redc1c4,
(after all, what normal person would look to Hines for validation? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Howard C. Berkowitz
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> :news:djtjru$bf3$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> :> In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> >Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
> :> >degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
> :>
> :> Fred, this is why non-experts should not try to figure this
> :> out for themselves.
> :>
> :> Try to comprehend the amount of heat energy needed to heat
> :> the entire surface of the world by one degree.
> :
> : they
>
> Ah, the omnipresent 'they'.
>
> :worry more about short term profits than about long term consequences.
>
> Another hell of a thing to accuse NOAA of.
All those ark welders do give off a great deal of heat...
redc1c4
one more pun and we'll torpedo you.... or at least stuff you in tube #4.
redc1c4,
i'm sink of them! %-)
Vince
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
>
>>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>
> (mercy snipage occurs)
>
>
>>But by your analysis the Ph.Ds who selected me as a full Professor
>>were simply bowing to intellectual superiority. I can see that.
>>
>>Prof. Vincent Brannigan J.D
>
>
> yer a legend in your own mind.
>
> redc1c4,
> (after all, what normal person would look to Hines for validation? %-)
As Juvenal wrote
Difficile est satura non scribere.
freely translated as
It is difficult not to write satire.
Being an academic is a profession. It neither confers or demonstrates
"intellect" above a whole host of other professions.
Vince
nightjar
> In soc.history.medieval "nightjar" <nightjar@ <insert my surname
> here>.uk.com> wrote:
>
>>"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:HpGdnd0K9ZV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Mte8f.81$DP....@eagle.america.net...
>>>>
>>>> | Nonsense. There is essentially unanimity in the
>>>> | scientific community. That folks don't want to
>>>> | pay attention is not reason for others to doubt
>>>> | the truth.
>>>> |
>>>> | ----- Paul J. Gans
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Balderdash!
>>>>
>>>> There are all sorts of disagreements in the Scientific Community about
>>>> a
>>>> plethora of issues having to do with climate change -- man-made and
>>>> "natural".
>>>>
>>>> We even see some pogues saying man-made climate changes are responsible
>>>> for all these hurricanes we have been seeing.
>>>>
>>>> Other scientists say that's blithering nonsense.
>>>
>
>>the
>>wrong things. One observer calculated recently that 15% of the CO2
>>currently
>>in the atmosphere accounts for 100% of the greenhouse effect attributable
>>to
>>CO2, therefore adding more CO2 will not increase the problem. However, he
>>is
>>concerned that water vapour absorbs infra-red radiation in exactly the
>>wavelength needed to trap heat being radiated by the Earth. He calculates
>>that water vapour is currently only 70% efficient at trapping re-radiated
>>energy, so increasing that, as burning many 'green' fuels does, will
>>increase global warming.
>
>>> A}if the ones saying it is man made and we change out habits are wrong
>>> no
>>> harm no foul.
>
>>the assumptions behind it are correct, delay global warming by a decade or
>>two at best. Much better, in my view, to accept that global warming is
>>going
>>to happen and spend the money on preparing the world for the changes that
>>will occur.
>
>>Colin Bignell
>
> "He"? Who "he"? Does he know the field? From what you
> quote of him vis a vis water vapor he doesn't know much...
Either that or he knows a lot more about the subject than you do. The report
was quoted in the newspapers a couple of weeks ago and I don't recall the
details of who it was, but he was from the Cavendish Laboratory; The
University of Cambridge's Department of Physics.
Colin Bignell
Fred J. McCall
:Vince Brannigan wrote:
:>
:> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
:
:(mercy snipage occurs)
:
:> But by your analysis the Ph.Ds who selected me as a full Professor
:> were simply bowing to intellectual superiority. I can see that.
:>
:> Prof. Vincent Brannigan J.D
:
:yer a legend in your own mind.
Yeah. PhD is, as we all know, Piled Higher and Deeper. In Vinnie's
case JD must stand for (ex-) Juvenile Delinquent....
--
"Life passes. Honour remains."
-- Kurdish proverb
Grey Satterfield
Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> Grey Satterfield wrote:
>> Rankings of the quality of institutions of higher learning, especially those
>> done by periodicals in order to boost circulation, are, of necessity,
>> nothing more that surveys of popularity and the conventional wisdom. They
>> are not just valueless, they are worse than that because the naïve actually
>> take them seriously.
>>
>> Grey Satterfield
>>
>
> Actually I say that to the dean all the time. :-)
As I have noted on more than one occasion, if you can keep him off the
subjects of George W. Bush and the Iraq War, Vince often demonstrates good
judgment. :>)
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
> Talk about thread drift. This may have the record.
>
> alt.books.tom-clancy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.history.british,sci.military.naval,s
> oc.history.medieval,soc.history.war.misc,us.military.army
Viewed more positively, it could be called an example of the magic of
Usenet. :>)
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
PAz8f.2938$Rl1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Kurt Ullman"
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <d8f59$4362c0a0$9440b19b$14...@STARBAND.NET>, "Billzz"
> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>
>> Talk about thread drift. This may have the record.
>>
> Nah, this ain't even close. We have yet to mention Opr** and
> not a single discussion of cement battle****s. Not even warmed up
> yet.
Indeed, and that's without anyone even mentioning Hitler or the Nazis.
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:31:58 -0400, "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:QIz8f.33$pc1...@eagle.america.net...
>>> John Kerry's attempts to hide the facts he owns and operates NOT ONE but
>>> SEVERAL SUV's were MOST amusing during the 2004 Presidential Campaign.
>>>
>>> Kerry didn't want the Environmentalists to know that -- so he said "The
>>> family has it. I don't have it.''
>>
>> you after all.
>
> What percentage of SUVs never go off road? The ex of my neighbour has
> one and it is quite obvious that it never goes off road yet it is a
> huge thing that obstructs the cul de sac.
There are SUVs and there are SUVs. My daughter in law has a Chevrolet
Suburban, which is huge and has an equally huge V-8 engine; it probably gets
about 10 miles to the gallon. My daughter, in stark contrast, has a
Chevrolet Equinox, which is Chevy's smallest SUV; it is powered by a V-6, is
not much larger than a large sedan, and gets comparable gas mileage.
Further my daughter drives less that 12,000 miles a year so I suggest her
having chosen to drive an SUV, because she has a child and a dog, is doing
next to no harm to the environment. In short, it's not possible to
accurately generalize about Americans' use of SUVs.
Grey Satterfield
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:4kq5m1ld63mss66qd...@4ax.com...
Actually, that is essentially exactly what I mean; cost in the
economic sense. You see, if we go chasing off after trying to 'fix'
something when we don't know the cause (or even if it's fixable), we
expend resources that would otherwise have gone elsewhere. That
'elsewhere' could easily be what produces the replacement technologies
for fossil fuels (for example).
:*Problem* however we must agree on?
Well, 'problem' in the sense of "it could be bad for us if this
continues", sure. But we don't even know that it is a problem with
any certainty. Lacking bottom line causes, it is rather difficult to
reliably predict futures.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
William Black
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
D. Spencer Hines
"Green Gray Areas"
"Books that question the conventional wisdom on the environment."
BY MICHAEL CRICHTON
Saturday, October 29, 2005
The Wall Street Journal
1. "Playing God in Yellowstone" by Alston Chase (Atlantic Monthly Press,
1986).
That raw sewage bubbles out of the ground at Yellowstone National
Park -- after more than a century of botched conservation -- would come
as no surprise to Alston Chase, who 20 years ago wrote "Playing God in
Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park." Mr.
Chase, a former professor of philosophy turned journalist, presents a
clear critique of ever-changing environmental beliefs and the damage
that they have caused the actual environment. As a philosopher, he is
contemptuous of much conventional wisdom and the muddle-headed attitudes
he calls "California cosmology."
2. "The Culture Cult" by Roger Sandall (Westview, 2001).
In "The Culture Cult: Designer Tribalism and Other Essays,"
anthropologist Roger Sandall explores romantic primitivism -- the myth
of Eden and the Noble Savage. Mr. Sandall's histories of utopian
communities (Robert Owen's New Harmony, John Humphrey Noyes's disastrous
Oneida) are vivid, and his portraits of leading primitivists, from
Rousseau to Mead to Levi-Strauss, are sharply drawn. This ignorant
nostalgia for our tribal past ignores the truly horrific reality of
tribal initiation, warfare, mutilation and human sacrifice.
3. "Man and the Natural World" by Keith Thomas (Oxford, 1984).
Don't be put off by the academic title of Keith Thomas's "Man in the
Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800." The book's a
delight. Mr. Thomas's account is both detailed and charming as he
guides the reader from the Tudor view, that nature was made for man to
exploit, through the later sense that nature was to be worshipped and
cherished (such that trees became pets and aristocrats gave names to
their great estate trees and said good-night to them each evening).
Still later came the Romantic preference for untouched nature and rough
settings, a rarified taste that required "a long course of aesthetic
education." At every turn, Mr. Thomas emphasizes the contradictions
between belief and behavior.
4. "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg (Cambridge
University Press, 2002).
No one should miss Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
The author, a Danish statistician and former Greenpeace activist, set
out to disprove the views of the late Julian Simon, who claimed that
environmental fears were baseless and that the world was actually
improving. To Mr. Lomborg's surprise, he found that Simon was mostly
right. Mr. Lomborg's text is calm and devastating to established dogma.
5. "The Logic of Failure" by Dietrich Dorner (Perseus, 1998). ******
Future environmentalists will heed Dietrich Dorner's "The Logic of
Failure." Mr. Dorner is a cognitive psychologist who invited academic
experts to manage the computer simulations of various environments (an
African herding society, a town in Maine). Most experts made things
worse.
Those managers who did well gathered information before acting, thought
in terms of complex-systems interactions instead of simple linear cause
and effect, reviewed their progress, looked for unanticipated
consequences, and corrected course often.
Those who did badly relied on a fixed theoretical approach, did not
correct course and blamed others when things went wrong. Mr. Dorner
concludes that our failure to manage complex systems such as the
environment reflects bad habits of thought, overreliance on theory and
lazy procedures. His book is brief, cheerful and profound."
"Mr. Crichton is author of the novels "State of Fear" and "Jurassic
Park," among many others, and creator of the television series "ER.""
----------------------
DSH
Jack Love
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
>
>> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
>> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
>
>Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
Leftwing mental deficit exhibited one more time: one of the weather
specialists commenting on the current hurricane season: "You have to
go back to the 1930s to find activity like this."
Jack Love
Like those famous moments when he wanted to ban paper in office
buildings because of the fire hazard (WTC)?
>Grey Satterfield
Vince Brannigan
> "FIVE BEST"
>
> "Green Gray Areas"
>
> "Books that question the conventional wisdom on the environment."
>
> BY MICHAEL CRICHTON
> Saturday, October 29, 2005
> The Wall Street Journal
>
> 1. "Playing God in Yellowstone" by Alston Chase (Atlantic Monthly Press,
> 1986).
>
> That raw sewage bubbles out of the ground at Yellowstone National
> Park -- after more than a century of botched conservation
More accurate to say "Botched exploitation"
Vince
>
Vince Brannigan
NO we pointed out the need to properly sprinkler such building, and that
the failure of the sprinkler system and fire in the building contents
are what brought the building down.
As another example
The Mt Blanc tunnel fire was largely margarine.
Vince
>>Grey Satterfield
>
>
William Black
"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:rcidnZzPcKq...@comcast.com...
It doesn't matter.
Yellowstone is on top of something called a 'caldera' that covers something
over two and a half thousand square miles.
When that blows (and it seems to be somewhat overdue) nobody for a very long
way in any direction will worry about what gets blown over them.
Vince Brannigan
> "Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:rcidnZzPcKq...@comcast.com...
>
>>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>
>>>"FIVE BEST"
>>>
>>>"Green Gray Areas"
>>>
>>>"Books that question the conventional wisdom on the environment."
>>>
>>>BY MICHAEL CRICHTON
>>>Saturday, October 29, 2005
>>>The Wall Street Journal
>>>
>>>1. "Playing God in Yellowstone" by Alston Chase (Atlantic Monthly Press,
>>>1986).
>>>
>>>That raw sewage bubbles out of the ground at Yellowstone National
>>>Park -- after more than a century of botched conservation
>>
>>More accurate to say "Botched exploitation"
>
>
> It doesn't matter.
>
> Yellowstone is on top of something called a 'caldera' that covers something
> over two and a half thousand square miles.
>
> When that blows (and it seems to be somewhat overdue) nobody for a very long
> way in any direction will worry about what gets blown over them.
>
Actually the "hot spot" or Magma chamber blows. the caldera is the
shell crater left afterwards.
Vince
William Black
The caldera is the thin bit isn't it?
The bit that can be expected to head skywards in the form of very hot dust
and ash?
Martin
I doubt if exact word definitions will concern local residents if or when it
goes 'bang'...
Is there anything that can be done to prevent this, as I fear (in a selfish way)
such a catastrophic explosion might affect the weather here, and wish to know if
it is likely before making any holiday plans?
Grey Satterfield
"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Although I Admire Vince's acuity from time to time, I would be the last to
claim he is always right -- even when the subject is something other that
Bush or Iraq. :>)
Grey Satterfield
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
:
:> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
:> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
:
:Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
Wrong.
Do try to keep up with reality, won't you? Nothing to do with New
Orleans.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Grey Satterfield
[snip]
> 4. "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg (Cambridge
> University Press, 2002).
>
> No one should miss Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
> The author, a Danish statistician and former Greenpeace activist, set
> out to disprove the views of the late Julian Simon, who claimed that
> environmental fears were baseless and that the world was actually
> improving. To Mr. Lomborg's surprise, he found that Simon was mostly
> right. Mr. Lomborg's text is calm and devastating to established dogma.
[snip]
> DSH
Lomborg is sound and drives environmental activists CRAZY because he is a
liberal European. Thus they can't understand whey he is a "traitor" to the
"cause." His ideas are sound and the environmental crazies haven't been
able to do much to diminish his credibility in the three years since his
book was published.
Grey Satterfield
Fred J. McCall
:"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
:news:vM2dnZh85fk...@comcast.com...
:> William Black wrote:
:> >
:> > It doesn't matter.
:> >
:> > Yellowstone is on top of something called a 'caldera' that covers something
:> > over two and a half thousand square miles.
:> >
:> > When that blows (and it seems to be somewhat overdue) nobody for a very long
:> > way in any direction will worry about what gets blown over them.
:>
:> Actually the "hot spot" or Magma chamber blows. the caldera is the
:> shell crater left afterwards.
:
:The caldera is the thin bit isn't it?'
:
:The bit that can be expected to head skywards in the form of very hot dust
:and ash?
Nope. Vinnie is right. The caldera is the hole in the ground after.
http://www.answers.com/topic/caldera
They generally aren't caused by something 'blowing', but rather by
collapse after the pressure is released.
William Black
"Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4363d...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Nope.
Way too big.
When it blows it blows...
A 'Mt St Helens size explosion' could happen there with virtually no
warning, the much bigger explosion will probably give some warning and the
area is now seeded with warning devices.
A caldera sized bang kills things hundreds of miles away and affects the
world's weather cycle.
Bryn
<martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> writes
basis..
And people go and visits? Without motion sickness..
Posting from soc.culture.scottish
--
Bryn
"I am not Roo," said Piglet loudly.
"I am Piglet!"
"Yes, dear, yes," said Kanga soothingly.
"And imitating Piglet's voice too!
So clever of him."
To email remove GREMILNS
Bryn
<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>:news:vM2dnZh85fk...@comcast.com...
>:> William Black wrote:
>:> >
>:> > It doesn't matter.
>:> >
>:> > Yellowstone is on top of something called a 'caldera' that covers
>:> >something
>:> > over two and a half thousand square miles.
>:> >
>:> > When that blows (and it seems to be somewhat overdue) nobody for a
>:> >very long
>:> > way in any direction will worry about what gets blown over them.
>:>
>:> Actually the "hot spot" or Magma chamber blows. the caldera is the
>:> shell crater left afterwards.
>:
>:The caldera is the thin bit isn't it?'
>:
>:The bit that can be expected to head skywards in the form of very hot dust
>:and ash?
>
>Nope. Vinnie is right. The caldera is the hole in the ground after.
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/caldera
>
>They generally aren't caused by something 'blowing', but rather by
>collapse after the pressure is released.
Unless caused by a massive impact...
Eric Stevens
Nope. That's crater, not a caldera.
See
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/australia/new_zealand/rotorua.html
for a selection of caldera.
http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/impactim.htm for impact craters.
Eric Stevens
D. Spencer Hines
Pogues and poguettes globally will find a way to blame George W. Bush
for it.
DSH
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dk0pko$giu$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
Re: Yellowstone Park -- DSH
Paul J Gans
>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
>> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
>> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
>Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
That's not clear. Until this year the consensus was
that hurricanes, for complex reasons, were not much
affected by global warming. The figures I saw was
that they would not be affected until about 2050.
Early this year (2005) as better models became
available (and far faster computers also became
available) the consensus changed. It is now
about 50-50 that the current level of warming
is sufficient to increase the strength of the
typical hurricane.
I've not been following this thread much. Idiocy
gives me a headache. Has anyone computed the
energy needed to increase the temperature of the
entire surface of the earth an average of 1 degreee?
The result should be given in atomic bomb equivalents.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
be heading for another ice age.''" [George Will]
Read it and Weep -- or Laugh. -- DSH
"Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern
Hemisphere glaciation.'' "Continued rapid cooling of the Earth''
(Global Ecology, 1971) could herald "a full-blown 10,000 year ice age''
(Science, March 1, 1975). The Christian Science Monitor reported (Aug.
27, 1974) that Nebraska's armadillos were retreating south from the
cooling." [GW]
Tres drole. Those poor Nebraskan ARMADILLOS. -- DSH
"Last week The Washington Post reported that global warming has caused a
decline in Alaska's porcupine caribou herd and has lured the golden
orange prothonotary warbler back from southern wintering grounds to
Richmond, Va., a day earlier for nearly two decades. Or since global
cooling stopped. Maybe." [GW]
"Gregg Easterbrook, an acerbic student of eco-pessimism, offers a "Law
of Doomsaying'': Predict catastrophe no later than 10 years hence but no
sooner than five years away -- soon enough to terrify, but far enough
off that people will forget if you are wrong." [GW] ******
Hilarious! The LAW OF DOOMSAYING. -- DSH
"Because Crichton remembers yesterday's discarded certitudes, millions
of his readers will be wholesomely skeptical of today's." [GW]
-------------------------------------------------
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fred J. McCall
:In soc.history.medieval William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:
:>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:>news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
:
:>> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
:>> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
:
:>Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
:
:That's not clear. Until this year the consensus was
:that hurricanes, for complex reasons, were not much
:affected by global warming. The figures I saw was
:that they would not be affected until about 2050.
Again, NOAA, who are the experts on this sort of thing, are talking
about the effects in 2050 amounting to less than a couple MPH.
:Early this year (2005) as better models became
:available (and far faster computers also became
:available) the consensus changed.
They may not be 'better' models. They may merely be DIFFERENT models.
:It is now
:about 50-50 that the current level of warming
:is sufficient to increase the strength of the
:typical hurricane.
By less than 1 MPH.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Howard C. Berkowitz
<grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote:
Opr*h in Sink the Bismarck?
D. Spencer Hines
the sun is getting hotter -- putting out more heat?
Nonsense!
That's not a Politically Correct explanation.
Find some way to blame George Bush -- and don't forget to hammer on the
point he rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which would have Saved The
World -- and be sure to include some mention of the greedy, capitalistic
petroleum companies and their obscene profits as well as the wicked
SUV's.
Oh, yes, also mention that ALL the **responsible** scientists and
experts agree on this and only Right-Wing, anti-social, psychopathic
loons, with no scientific background, do not.
Scorched Earth...
We Have No Enemies To The Left.
DSH
--------------------------
"The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame"
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)
The Telegraph
"Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter
because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the
past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing
radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for
Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said:
"The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be
affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few
hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in
the last 100 to 150 years." ******
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse
gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater
impact. ******
Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over
the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new
extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists,
politicians agreed to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit
greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the
protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from
1990 levels.
Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide
weather records were first collated in 1860.
Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have
contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but
have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising
temperatures.
To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research
team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots,
which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They
found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could
last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had
increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists
also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to
Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest
recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10
is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's
atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists
can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years. ******
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or
how long this cycle would last.
He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has
not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that
the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud
cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal
Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the
established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the
climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is
certainly significant," he said.
"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit
further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to
correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are
the major contributor." ******
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East
Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun
did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20
years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the
Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the
burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the
natural factors involved in climate change", he said.
Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr
Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not
incorporated other potential climate change factors.
"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it
needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as
greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The
research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist.
"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he
said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But
what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and
policy-makers are not. ******
"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately,
become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans
burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide -
the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing
the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this
is poppycock."" ******
--------------------------
Jack Love
wrote:
>In soc.history.medieval William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
>>> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
>
>>Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
>
>That's not clear. Until this year the consensus was
>that hurricanes, for complex reasons, were not much
>affected by global warming. The figures I saw was
>that they would not be affected until about 2050.
>
>Early this year (2005) as better models became
>available (and far faster computers also became
>available) the consensus changed. It is now
>about 50-50 that the current level of warming
>is sufficient to increase the strength of the
>typical hurricane.
>
>I've not been following this thread much. Idiocy
>gives me a headache.
You must have a permanent one given your own apparent IQ.
By the way we're still waiting for a response on the subject of public
schools in the US teaching Creationism. Got one...or are you just the
imbecile blowhard (TRUST ME I'VE GOT A PhD!) that you appear to be.
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dk16om$rt0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In soc.history.medieval William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
> >> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
>
> >Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
>
> That's not clear. Until this year the consensus was
> that hurricanes, for complex reasons, were not much
> affected by global warming. The figures I saw was
> that they would not be affected until about 2050.
So you reckon anyone standing for election there who says 'This global
warming, it's all a Communist plot' is not going to have any problems?
Billzz
I guess this just has to be posted to....
alt.books.tom-clancy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.history.british,sci.military.naval,soc.history.medieval,soc.history.war.misc,us.military.army
....and I have to read about the barbeques and the chalets and the castle
and newborough?
Good bye.
ray o'hara
"Grey Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in message
news:BF88D07B.1EAF2%grey.sat...@oscn.net...
> On 10/28/05 8:49 PM, in article
u7l5m1hjnbcjslkdl...@4ax.com,
> "Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:31:58 -0400, "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:QIz8f.33$pc1...@eagle.america.net...
> >>> John Kerry's attempts to hide the facts he owns and operates NOT ONE
but
> >>> SEVERAL SUV's were MOST amusing during the 2004 Presidential Campaign.
> >>>
> >>> Kerry didn't want the Environmentalists to know that -- so he said
"The
> >>> family has it. I don't have it.''
> >>
> >> i'm glad you agree that SUVs are bad things, we might make a human out
of
> >> you after all.
> >
> > What percentage of SUVs never go off road? The ex of my neighbour has
> > one and it is quite obvious that it never goes off road yet it is a
> > huge thing that obstructs the cul de sac.
>
> There are SUVs and there are SUVs. My daughter in law has a Chevrolet
> Suburban, which is huge and has an equally huge V-8 engine; it probably
gets
> about 10 miles to the gallon. My daughter, in stark contrast, has a
> Chevrolet Equinox, which is Chevy's smallest SUV; it is powered by a V-6,
is
> not much larger than a large sedan, and gets comparable gas mileage.
> Further my daughter drives less that 12,000 miles a year so I suggest her
> having chosen to drive an SUV, because she has a child and a dog, is doing
> next to no harm to the environment. In short, it's not possible to
> accurately generalize about Americans' use of SUVs.
>
> Grey Satterfield
>
yes a child and a dog need an SUV they would never fit in a more econmical
vehicle both being so large.
ray o'hara
> :news:djtjru$bf3$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> :> In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> >Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
> :> >degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
> :>
> :> Fred, this is why non-experts should not try to figure this
> :> out for themselves.
> :>
> :> Try to comprehend the amount of heat energy needed to heat
> :> the entire surface of the world by one degree.
> :
> : they
>
> Ah, the omnipresent 'they'.
>
> :worry more about short term profits than about long term consequences.
>
> Another hell of a thing to accuse NOAA of.
>
> :and the average tempeture rise is not evenly spread out. the poles get
much
> :warmer.
>
> Again, we don't know that.
>
yes we do, that is why they average it out, because it varies. you don't
know that because you choose not to know that.
> :it is better to take the prudent course.
>
> If only we knew unequivocally what that is. Remember, the CO2 rise
> has been CONSTANT for many decades and does not in any way seem to
> correlate to what humans are doing.
>
> :but they insist that SUVs are a god
> :given right.
>
> And you insist that anyone who disagrees with your speculations must
> be 'evil' and we should start doing something now, even though we
> don't know what to do and doing it might hurt us worse than not doing
> it.
>
> You're an idiot, Ray. You should stop wasting electricity running
> your computer and posting to the net. Do your bit for CO2, why don't
> you?
>
your type never learn. when the ice caps are gone you will still be
screaming fuzzy science. you do so for no more than political reasons .
the natural world does not give a rats ass for poitics.
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
ray o'hara
"Vince Brannigan" > NO we pointed out the need to properly sprinkler such
building, and that
> the failure of the sprinkler system and fire in the building contents
> are what brought the building down.
> As another example
> The Mt Blanc tunnel fire was largely margarine.
bad building design brught down the twin towers and even worse design
brought down WTC 7 the 40 story building next to the twin towers that
collapsed hours after the twin towers did.
the empire state and chrystler buildings would not have collapsed if they
had taken the same hits. no sprinkler system{which both towers had} could
have suppressed the fires caused by tons of jet fuel.
the case of WTC7 is most curious in that its collapse has never been fully
investigated.
it was a design failure of stunning proportion and somebody should have been
jailed for gross negligence, but it was swept under the rug in the general
chaos and the conspiricy nuts have claimed that it was delibertally blown up
by{take your pick} either mossad or the cia.
in fact if you ask around among your friends and co-workers you will find
most have no idea that three buildings collapsed at the WTC on that day.
ray o'hara
> On 10/28/05 7:43 PM, in article
> PAz8f.2938$Rl1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Kurt Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <d8f59$4362c0a0$9440b19b$14...@STARBAND.NET>, "Billzz"
> > <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Talk about thread drift. This may have the record.
> >>
> > Nah, this ain't even close. We have yet to mention Opr** and
> > not a single discussion of cement battle****s. Not even warmed up
> > yet.
>
> Indeed, and that's without anyone even mentioning Hitler or the Nazis.
>
> Grey Satterfield
>
i think we can safely rule out hitler and the nazies from any culpability
in this.
ray o'hara
"Martin" > Is there anything that can be done to prevent this, as I fear (in
a selfish way)
> such a catastrophic explosion might affect the weather here, and wish to
know if
> it is likely before making any holiday plans?
>
>
when it blows, you need not make any plans. it is well over due and
activity has been rising there, there is a very similar and almost as large
a one in california that is also rumbling more and more. if they go nuclear
winter sets in all plant life dies followed by 90% of the animal life.
and all our petty concerns become moot. and there is nothing we can do.
Bryn
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> writes
I stand corrected...
I can find no online reference to my assertions...
Vince
> Are you trying to tell me the Earth is getting warmer, in part, because
> the sun is getting hotter -- putting out more heat?
>
> Nonsense!
>
> That's not a Politically Correct explanation.
>
> Find some way to blame George Bush -- and don't forget to hammer on the
> point he rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which would have Saved The
> World -- and be sure to include some mention of the greedy, capitalistic
> petroleum companies and their obscene profits as well as the wicked
> SUV's.
>
> Oh, yes, also mention that ALL the **responsible** scientists and
> experts agree on this and only Right-Wing, anti-social, psychopathic
> loons, with no scientific background, do not.
>
> Scorched Earth...
>
> We Have No Enemies To The Left.
>
> DSH
Of course if the study is correct it makes doing something abut
greenhouse gasses even more urgent.
Vince
> Vires et Honor
>
Vince
> "Vince Brannigan" > NO we pointed out the need to properly sprinkler such
> building, and that
>
>>the failure of the sprinkler system and fire in the building contents
>>are what brought the building down.
>>As another example
>>The Mt Blanc tunnel fire was largely margarine.
>
>
> bad building design brught down the twin towers and even worse design
> brought down WTC 7 the 40 story building next to the twin towers that
> collapsed hours after the twin towers did.
> the empire state and chrystler buildings would not have collapsed if they
> had taken the same hits. no sprinkler system{which both towers had} could
> have suppressed the fires caused by tons of jet fuel.
Supressed is a complex question. Hwever the jet fuel ammounted to only
2-6 percent of the fuel load.
>
> the case of WTC7 is most curious in that its collapse has never been fully
> investigated.
> it was a design failure of stunning proportion and somebody should have been
> jailed for gross negligence, but it was swept under the rug in the general
> chaos and the conspiricy nuts have claimed that it was delibertally blown up
> by{take your pick} either mossad or the cia.
>
> in fact if you ask around among your friends and co-workers you will find
> most have no idea that three buildings collapsed at the WTC on that day.
>
>
Correct.
Vince
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
:news:dk16om$rt0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
:> In soc.history.medieval William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> >"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> >news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
:>
:> >> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
:> >> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
:>
:> >Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
:>
:> That's not clear. Until this year the consensus was
:> that hurricanes, for complex reasons, were not much
:> affected by global warming. The figures I saw was
:> that they would not be affected until about 2050.
:
:So you reckon anyone standing for election there who says 'This global
:warming, it's all a Communist plot' is not going to have any problems?
Likely they wouldn't, Wee Willie. *MOST* folks don't believe it,
although the liberal press here certainly tried to din it in peoples'
ears.
Fred J. McCall
:I guess this just has to be posted to....
:alt.books.tom-clancy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.history.british,sci.military.naval,soc.history.medieval,soc.history.war.misc,us.military.army
:
:....and I have to read about the barbeques and the chalets and the castle
:and newborough?
And I guess this was just another clueless wanker named Bill
responding to a clueless wanker named Bill merely to add to the noise.
:Good bye.
Does this mean you're going to stop adding to the clutter? Don't let
the door hit you on the ass on the way out....
Fred J. McCall
: yes a child and a dog need an SUV they would never fit in a more econmical
:vehicle both being so large.
Jealous that you can't afford one, Ray?
--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:hju5m151imb5cosmg...@4ax.com...
:> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
:> :news:djtjru$bf3$1...@reader2.panix.com...
:> :> In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> >Nope. Even NOAA says that we're only looking at something less than a
:> :> >degree of temperature change over the next 30 years or so.
:> :>
:> :> Fred, this is why non-experts should not try to figure this
:> :> out for themselves.
:> :>
:> :> Try to comprehend the amount of heat energy needed to heat
:> :> the entire surface of the world by one degree.
:> :
:> : they
:>
:> Ah, the omnipresent 'they'.
:>
:> :worry more about short term profits than about long term consequences.
:>
:> Another hell of a thing to accuse NOAA of.
:>
:> :and the average tempeture rise is not evenly spread out. the poles get much
:> :warmer.
:>
:> Again, we don't know that.
:
:yes we do, that is why they average it out, because it varies.
Didn't disagree with that part. I disagree that we know HOW it
varies.
:you don't
:know that because you choose not to know that.
No, I don't know that because I separate 'hypothesis' from 'fact'.
You obviously do not.
:> :it is better to take the prudent course.
:>
:> If only we knew unequivocally what that is. Remember, the CO2 rise
:> has been CONSTANT for many decades and does not in any way seem to
:> correlate to what humans are doing.
:>
:> :but they insist that SUVs are a god
:> :given right.
:>
:> And you insist that anyone who disagrees with your speculations must
:> be 'evil' and we should start doing something now, even though we
:> don't know what to do and doing it might hurt us worse than not doing
:> it.
:>
:> You're an idiot, Ray. You should stop wasting electricity running
:> your computer and posting to the net. Do your bit for CO2, why don't
:> you?
:
:your type never learn.
I've learned you think EVERYONE ELSE should sacrifice while Ray
continues his old wasteful ways using all that electricity to run his
computer and post to Usenet.
I've learned you're just another silly wanker who wants to tell
everyone else how to live.
:when the ice caps are gone you will still be
:screaming fuzzy science. you do so for no more than political reasons .
No, I do so because so far it *is* 'fuzzy science'. Explain the
disparity in atmospheric CO2 increase and human CO2 output, Ray. Can
you? I thought not. You just want to screech, "YOU all must
sacrifice!" while not changing your own behaviour one whit.
:the natural world does not give a rats ass for poitics.
True, but irrelevant, since your position is dictated by politics. If
it were not, you would recognize that there is insufficient evidence
to support the claims.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Grey Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in message
:news:BF88CE0F.1EAF0%grey.sat...@oscn.net...
:> On 10/28/05 7:43 PM, in article
:> PAz8f.2938$Rl1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Kurt Ullman"
:> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:> > In article <d8f59$4362c0a0$9440b19b$14...@STARBAND.NET>, "Billzz"
:> > <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
:> >
:> >> Talk about thread drift. This may have the record.
:> >>
:> > Nah, this ain't even close. We have yet to mention Opr** and
:> > not a single discussion of cement battle****s. Not even warmed up
:> > yet.
:>
:> Indeed, and that's without anyone even mentioning Hitler or the Nazis.
:
: i think we can safely rule out hitler and the nazies from any culpability
:in this.
Don't bet on it. We haven't heard from Vince yet....
--
"Every nation, in every region, now has a choice to make.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
-- President George W Bush
Fred J. McCall
: when it blows, you need not make any plans. it is well over due and
:activity has been rising there, there is a very similar and almost as large
:a one in california that is also rumbling more and more. if they go nuclear
:winter sets in all plant life dies followed by 90% of the animal life.
:and all our petty concerns become moot. and there is nothing we can do.
Preposterous!
You do know that 'nuclear winter' was a fraud, don't you, Ray? They
had to cheat the data by an order of magnitude to make the prediction
come out the way they wanted it to.
All that happens from what is now being discussed is that some dust
gets raised that leads to a couple of years that are a few degrees
cooler than they would otherwise be. Hey, what with global warming
and all, I'd think you'd be pleased at the prospect!
You're REALLY starting to sound like an eco-loon, Ray; lots of panic
coupled with lots of ignorance combining to produce lots of things
that any real analysis of the facts would have shown are bullshit.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
William Black
Most folks (in the USA anyway) seem to think God made the world in seven
days, about five thousand years ago.
It doesn't make it so.
Trying to pretend that people aren't affecting the climate is just hiding
your head in the sand.
William Black
> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> : when it blows, you need not make any plans. it is well over due and
> :activity has been rising there, there is a very similar and almost as
large
> :a one in california that is also rumbling more and more. if they go
nuclear
> :winter sets in all plant life dies followed by 90% of the animal life.
> :and all our petty concerns become moot. and there is nothing we can do.
>
> Preposterous!
>
> You do know that 'nuclear winter' was a fraud, don't you, Ray? They
> had to cheat the data by an order of magnitude to make the prediction
> come out the way they wanted it to.
An 'order of magnitude' brings the energy release into the 'caldera' class.
> All that happens from what is now being discussed is that some dust
> gets raised that leads to a couple of years that are a few degrees
> cooler than they would otherwise be. Hey, what with global warming
> and all, I'd think you'd be pleased at the prospect!
You couldn't make it up...
T3
Ya'know what McCall? I have read your drivel for sometime now and have
come to the conclusion that you are a complete fool, if not
semi-retarded! The door won't be hitting me on the ass, but you are
definitely headed for the septic tank, have fun down there! I think I
better flush twice, 'cause you're an awful big turd! Buh-bye....
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:1cj9m15fbjr03ks79...@4ax.com...
:> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:> :
:> :"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
:> :news:dk16om$rt0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
:> :> In soc.history.medieval William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> >"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> :> >news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
:> :>
:> :> >> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
:> :> >> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
:> :>
:> :> >Well so far its been enough to do for New Orleans...
:> :>
:> :> That's not clear. Until this year the consensus was
:> :> that hurricanes, for complex reasons, were not much
:> :> affected by global warming. The figures I saw was
:> :> that they would not be affected until about 2050.
:> :
:> :So you reckon anyone standing for election there who says 'This global
:> :warming, it's all a Communist plot' is not going to have any problems?
:>
:> Likely they wouldn't, Wee Willie. *MOST* folks don't believe it,
:> although the liberal press here certainly tried to din it in peoples'
:> ears.
:
:Most folks (in the USA anyway) seem to think God made the world in seven
:days, about five thousand years ago.
Your ignorance is pretty much all encompassing, isn't it, Willie?
That wouldn't be so bad, if only you would stop trying to fill it in
with silly things that you 'know' but which turn out to be poppycock.
:It doesn't make it so.
:
:Trying to pretend that people aren't affecting the climate is just hiding
:your head in the sand.
And trying to pretend everything that happens is part of a disaster
movie plot is acting like Chicken Little.
Global Warming has *NOTHING* significant to do with the strength of
hurricanes either now or for what remains of your lifetime. The sky
is NOT falling today. Get over it.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:3kk9m1tri0q0mpdbe...@4ax.com...
:> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> : when it blows, you need not make any plans. it is well over due and
:> :activity has been rising there, there is a very similar and almost as
:large
:> :a one in california that is also rumbling more and more. if they go
:nuclear
:> :winter sets in all plant life dies followed by 90% of the animal life.
:> :and all our petty concerns become moot. and there is nothing we can do.
:>
:> Preposterous!
:>
:> You do know that 'nuclear winter' was a fraud, don't you, Ray? They
:> had to cheat the data by an order of magnitude to make the prediction
:> come out the way they wanted it to.
:
:An 'order of magnitude' brings the energy release into the 'caldera' class.
So you're still misusing 'caldera' (which is the hole in the ground
due to collapse of the bubble after pressure is removed) AND think
that the energy of 1,000,000 nuclear weapons plus ten times the total
fuel load of every major city on Earth is the energy disposed of and
the debris raised?
You've just gone right past stupid, haven't you?
:> All that happens from what is now being discussed is that some dust
:> gets raised that leads to a couple of years that are a few degrees
:> cooler than they would otherwise be. Hey, what with global warming
:> and all, I'd think you'd be pleased at the prospect!
:
:You couldn't make it up...
I don't have to. It's not like this would be the first time one of
these things happened, now is it?
Grey Satterfield
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dk1shr$qhv$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:dk16om$rt0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>> In soc.history.medieval William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:6eu5m19ht1cu93c4t...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> Try and compute the small effect of a few tenths of a degree
>>>>> temperature change, Paul. They're not much, typically.
[snip]
> I guess this just has to be posted to....
> alt.books.tom-clancy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.history.british,sci.military.naval,s
> oc.history.medieval,soc.history.war.misc,us.military.army
>
> ....and I have to read about the barbeques and the chalets and the castle
> and newborough?
>
> Good bye.
How much sense does it make to further clutter a thread full of off-topic
posts in a crossposted thread with another off-topic post criticizing the
topicality of the earlier posts? Think about it.
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
pY-dnZ3Zhe-QHPne...@comcast.com, "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Grey Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in message
> news:BF88D07B.1EAF2%grey.sat...@oscn.net...
>> Suburban, which is huge and has an equally huge V-8 engine; it probably gets
>> about 10 miles to the gallon. My daughter, in stark contrast, has a
>> Chevrolet Equinox, which is Chevy's smallest SUV; it is powered by a V-6, is
>> not much larger than a large sedan, and gets comparable gas mileage. Further
>> my daughter drives less that 12,000 miles a year so I suggest her having
>> chosen to drive an SUV, because she has a child and a dog, is doing next to
>> no harm to the environment. In short, it's not possible to accurately
>> generalize about Americans' use of SUVs.
>
> vehicle both being so large.
How typical of the Left Wing ideologue, Ray O'Hara, to criticize the choice
of an SUV, although it is driven little and its gas mileage is, therefore,
irrelevant in the greater scheme of conservation of resources. Ray, as a
committed Left Wing Democrat, would, no doubt, make the ownership of SUVs
unlawful for the little people (but not for the Kerry family, of course).
This is typical Limousine Liberal claptrap of the sort we have all come to
expect from a know-nothing like Ray.
Grey Satterfield
Fred J. McCall
Gee, I'm hurt! NOT!!
In case you haven't figured it out, little boy, I don't much care what
idiots like you think. Do get back to me when puberty hits and you
perhaps grow enough nuts to post under something other than a
pseudonym and content other than stupid 'drive bys', won't you?
--
"So many women. So little charm."
-- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing