-[I]- Cat Door, one more thing
Lesley Weston
cat-door so enthusiastically [1], we were surprised yesterday morning
when she refused to use it, asking us more and more prettily to open the
whole door for her. Eventually we gave in, since our point has been
made, and there just outside the door was about half of a ratsicle [2].
I guess she didn't want to get her dainty little feet dirty by going
through her door into it, and with the whole door open she could make
her way round it.
This could be the solution to the potential problem of us finding
dismembered wildlife all over the house, now that there's no impediment
to her coming in. If she continues to believe that she can't get through
the door with something in her mouth, then that's just fine. She
normally eats rats, leaving just the tail and one hind foot, but not
this one [3]. Presumably it was too cold for her to stay outside long
enough to finish it, so she had to abandon it and top up on salmon p�t�
indoors.
[1] Cat goes in, cat goes out, cat goes in, cat goes....
[2] Vancouver is going through a really cold spell just now. It's not
horrible like last year because there's no snow on the ground and
therefore no ice. It's just BLOODY cold.
[3] I /think/ the green wobbly bit was still there - difficult to tell,
really.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Chris Zakes
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>Now that the cat has taken to popping in and out through her new
>cat-door so enthusiastically [1], we were surprised yesterday morning
>when she refused to use it, asking us more and more prettily to open the
>whole door for her. Eventually we gave in, since our point has been
>made, and there just outside the door was about half of a ratsicle [2].
>I guess she didn't want to get her dainty little feet dirty by going
>through her door into it, and with the whole door open she could make
>her way round it.
>
> This could be the solution to the potential problem of us finding
>dismembered wildlife all over the house, now that there's no impediment
>to her coming in. If she continues to believe that she can't get through
>the door with something in her mouth, then that's just fine. She
>normally eats rats, leaving just the tail and one hind foot, but not
>this one [3]. Presumably it was too cold for her to stay outside long
>enough to finish it, so she had to abandon it and top up on salmon p�t�
>indoors.
>
>[1] Cat goes in, cat goes out, cat goes in, cat goes....
>
>[2] Vancouver is going through a really cold spell just now. It's not
>horrible like last year because there's no snow on the ground and
>therefore no ice. It's just BLOODY cold.
Yep. More evidence of global warming, I suppose. (It snowed in Houston
last week, which it hardly ever does, and it's *never* snowed that
early in December in recorded weather history. We got a few flurries
here, but most of the wet air was south and east of us.)
>[3] I /think/ the green wobbly bit was still there - difficult to tell,
>really.
If it's that cold, it's probably a green crunchy bit at the moment.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
Bob Larter
> Now that the cat has taken to popping in and out through her new
> cat-door so enthusiastically [1], we were surprised yesterday morning
> when she refused to use it, asking us more and more prettily to open the
> whole door for her. Eventually we gave in, since our point has been
> made, and there just outside the door was about half of a ratsicle [2].
> I guess she didn't want to get her dainty little feet dirty by going
> through her door into it, and with the whole door open she could make
> her way round it.
I think it's just as likely that she wanted to share the yummy rat with you.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Winterbay
Well, that's why it's called "Global Climate Change" instead...
/Winterbay
Chris Zakes
Yeah, they switched to that term when things *stopped* getting warmer.
It makes it easier to blame humans for the vagaries of the weather. (I
can remember back in the 1970s when global *cooling* was the big
bugaboo.)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
As I understand it, the *global* temperature is increasing.
On a *local* level, the effect is simply that the climate's gone mad.
Think of the ice caps as an ice-cube and the oceans as a glass of water.
As the temperature increases, the ice melts. As the ice melts, the water
gets colder.
(Disclaimer: I made up that analogy myself and IANAClimatologist, so
there's every possibility it's a hideous over-simplification.)
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Lesley Weston
I guess that's why they've started calling it climate change instead.
Just don't mention e-mails is all...
>
>
>> [3] I /think/ the green wobbly bit was still there - difficult to tell,
>> really.
>
> If it's that cold, it's probably a green crunchy bit at the moment.
Probably. But I'm not going to unearth the garbage bag in the bin to
find out. We had to wash the place where it was with warm water, and be
careful to get it dry so as not to leave a sheet of ice just outside the
door.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> Now that the cat has taken to popping in and out through her new
>> cat-door so enthusiastically [1], we were surprised yesterday morning
>> when she refused to use it, asking us more and more prettily to open
>> the whole door for her. Eventually we gave in, since our point has
>> been made, and there just outside the door was about half of a
>> ratsicle [2]. I guess she didn't want to get her dainty little feet
>> dirty by going through her door into it, and with the whole door open
>> she could make her way round it.
>
> I think it's just as likely that she wanted to share the yummy rat with
> you.
>
>
the door was open, possibly because she couldn't smell it in its frozen
state. Cats have to be able to smell their food in order to consider it
food.
steveski
[snip cat door stuff]
> That's quite possible, of course. But she showed no interest in it once
> the door was open, possibly because she couldn't smell it in its frozen
> state.
Or, perhaps, she'd achieved her objective of bringing it to your attention.
--
Steveski
Chris Zakes
Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from the
climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
implication that they doctored the numbers, threw out any data they
didn't like and otherwise cooked the books, how can we trust their
results?
What's the old computer programming phrase? "Garbage in, garbage out."
-Chris Zakes
I hallucinate gently for a living.
-Terry Pratchett
Lee
> On 10 Dec 2009 14:10:34 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> to write:
>
>> On 10 Dec 2009, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:05:12 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Winterbay <peter....@gmail.com> to write:
>>>
>>>> Chris Zakes skrev:
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's why it's called "Global Climate Change" instead...
>>>>
>>>> /Winterbay
>>>
>>> Yeah, they switched to that term when things *stopped* getting warmer.
>>> It makes it easier to blame humans for the vagaries of the weather. (I
>>> can remember back in the 1970s when global *cooling* was the big
>>> bugaboo.)
>>
>> As I understand it, the *global* temperature is increasing.
>>
>> On a *local* level, the effect is simply that the climate's gone mad.
>>
>> Think of the ice caps as an ice-cube and the oceans as a glass of water.
>> As the temperature increases, the ice melts. As the ice melts, the water
>> gets colder.
>>
>> (Disclaimer: I made up that analogy myself and IANAClimatologist, so
>> there's every possibility it's a hideous over-simplification.)
>
> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from the
> climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
> implication that they doctored the numbers, threw out any data they
> didn't like and otherwise cooked the books, how can we trust their
> results?
>
> What's the old computer programming phrase? "Garbage in, garbage out."
>
> -Chris Zakes
>
> I hallucinate gently for a living.
>
> -Terry Pratchett
You need to look at analysis of those emails by someone other than a
sceptic...
--
Lee
April Goodwin-Smith
<snip>
> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from
> the climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
> implication that they doctored the numbers, threw out any
> data they didn't like and otherwise cooked the books, how
> can we trust their results?
>
Wait ... somebody hacks into email accounts that don't belong
to them - and you expect them to make an honest report about
what they found?
> What's the old computer programming phrase? "Garbage in,
> garbage out."
>
Yes, yes; very true.
April.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from the
> climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
> implication that they doctored the numbers,
You mean because they call a data analysis tool a "trick"?
I've got a hypothetical scenario in my head, in which a climate change
sceptic talks to people in other scientific disciplines:
CCS: So how do you decipher all this radio telescope data to find
quasars?
Astronomer: Well, the trick is...
CCS: Oh, it's a *trick*, is it? [Goes off, firmly convinced that quasars
don't exist]
> threw out any data they didn't like
It's true the e-mails discuss the possibility of preventing certain
papers from being in the 2004 IPCC report. But, in the event, those
papers *were* in the report, and there's no evidence any actual attempt
was made to stop them. Scientists are allowed to express frustration
through hyperbole in the privacy of their own e-mails, surely?
> and otherwise cooked the books, how can we trust their
> results?
"You can't fake spring coming earlier, or trees growing higher up on
mountains, or glaciers retreating for kilometres up valleys, or shrinking
ice cover in the Arctic, or birds changing their migration times, or
permafrost melting in Alaska, or the tropics expanding, or ice shelves on
the Antarctic peninsula breaking up, or peak river flow occurring earlier
in summer because of earlier snowmelt, or sea level rising faster and
faster, or any of the thousands of similar examples."
- Michael La Page, New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-
climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html
--
Dave
People say nothing rhymes with orange, but it doesn't.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:40:48 +1100, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from the
>> climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
>> implication that they doctored the numbers, threw out any data they
>> didn't like and otherwise cooked the books, how can we trust their
>> results?
> You need to look at analysis of those emails by someone other than a
> sceptic...
The trouble is, from the perspective of a climate-change sceptic, a non-
sceptic is a climate-change believer. And he's not going to trust one of
*them* to analyse the e-mails...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
<Global warming e-mails>
Hey, weird coincidence, guess what today's Arthur, King of Time And Space
is about?
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/2031.htm
Large Dave
interested in the provable facts, in other words the science. The
scientific consensus (IPCC et al) is that a) climate change is real and
b) that there is a 90% probability that most of it is man-made.
Typical of the climate change *deniers* is that they concentrate on two
or three emails from the thousands that were hacked and play down the
existing data.
Why let the science get in the way of a good conspiracy theory :-)
--
Large Dave
This space accidentally left blank
Lesley Weston
we cleared it up.
Lesley Weston
> accurate description than 'warming', which sounds nice and benign
> (everyone enjoys warm weather, right?). 'Global overheating'
> would be a more accurate description yet, and one I think we'll
> see come into use.
>
> The physical reality is that, because we've killed too many
> CO2-consuming trees to make room for too many CO2-producing
> humans, we have too much CO2. And it's creating an infrared
> barrier that's causing excess solar energy to be retained instead
> of radiated off harmlessly into space. Once it reaches a
> certain point -which it has almost done- all the frozen methane
> will start releasing and *really* thicken up that infrared
> barrier.
>
> The effect of the current overheating is the disruption of
> traditional local climate patterns, with wilder swings and -to
> humans- screwy weather as a new homeostasis is developed, a
> homeostasis that is quite unlikely to support our human
> overpopulation or, for that matter, high-order life of any kind.
> It's hard to live when one cannot breathe and there's too little
> fertile land for crops.
>
> But we'll not likely have to worry about that very long since
> with enough methane in the atmosphere Earth will (Hawking's
> prediction) come to resemble Venus: 400F or so and sulphuric
> acid rain.
Or perhaps it's real enough but not quite that extreme. I finally found
the e-mails themselves, rather than the cherry-picked snippets and
endless opinions about them that everybody has been using as their data
in this debate. They're at:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
There are an awful lot of them. My opinion, gleaned from sampling only
and worth as little on this topic as that of anyone else other than the
participants, is that most of the e-mails are as innocent as claimed,
being the usual chit-chat and politicking among scientists, but a few
are quite sinister.
>
> (b) The only people worried about global cooling were the ones
> who got their information from places like the Daily Mail, The
> Sun, National Inquirer, and similar.
And several highly-respected SF writers (Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle
and Michael Flynn) who did their research thoroughly before writing
/Fallen Angels/. It's a most enjoyable book, well worth reading whatever
your religious convictions either way.
> Actual climate scientists
> were not worried about it except as something that might happen
> prematurely but still in the distant future.
Some of them, anyway.
> As Lovelock says, we should all be frightened out of our tiny
> minds because we're allowing our politicians and ruling classes
> to kill us all.
Can't argue with that, though it has a broader application than he might
have meant.
Lesley Weston
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Lesley Weston
Chris Zakes
caused Large Dave <Da...@nospam.invalid> to write:
>Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 11 Dec 2009, Lee <tard...@gmail.com.remove> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:40:48 +1100, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from the
>>>> climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
>>>> implication that they doctored the numbers, threw out any data they
>>>> didn't like and otherwise cooked the books, how can we trust their
>>>> results?
>>
>>> You need to look at analysis of those emails by someone other than a
>>> sceptic...
>>
>> The trouble is, from the perspective of a climate-change sceptic, a non-
>> sceptic is a climate-change believer. And he's not going to trust one of
>> *them* to analyse the e-mails...
>>
>As I are one, I must point out that us skeptics (with a k) are only
>interested in the provable facts, in other words the science. The
>scientific consensus (IPCC et al) is that a) climate change is real and
>b) that there is a 90% probability that most of it is man-made.
"Scientific consensus"... by that logic, the sun goes around the
earth, and phlogiston is what causes things to burn.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Lesley Weston
> "Chris Zakes" wrote
> <snip>
>> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from
>> the climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
>> implication that they doctored the numbers, threw out any
>> data they didn't like and otherwise cooked the books, how
>> can we trust their results?
>>
>
> Wait ... somebody hacks into email accounts that don't belong
> to them - and you expect them to make an honest report about
> what they found?
It's odd, but that does seem to be the emphasis of the News stories -
that the hacking was illegal, so we don't need to take any notice. Which
doesn't mean that the new believers in what the e-mails reveal are any
more to be trusted. But there's this:
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/764.page#4265
Particularly:
"If my emails discussed how to massage statistical data to make my pet
theory appear more plausible (eg
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt)
or discussed how to avoid complying with FOI requests (eg
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=485&filename=1106338806.txt
and
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt)
or how to remove from office a critic of my work (eg
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt)
then I might expect to be considered conspiratorial should they ever be
seen.
And if I discussed possibly fraudulent activities regarding funding (eg
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1&filename=826209667.txt)
now, that would get me into hot water."
Lesley Weston
> On 11 Dec 2009, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from the
>> climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
>> implication that they doctored the numbers,
>
> You mean because they call a data analysis tool a "trick"?
The issue is not so much "trick", which probably does mean "neat
maneuver" as claimed, it's more "to hide the decline".
>
> I've got a hypothetical scenario in my head, in which a climate change
> sceptic talks to people in other scientific disciplines:
>
> CCS: So how do you decipher all this radio telescope data to find
> quasars?
> Astronomer: Well, the trick is...
> CCS: Oh, it's a *trick*, is it? [Goes off, firmly convinced that quasars
> don't exist]
There is a whole discipline devoted to saying things in such a way that
they can't possibly be misinterpreted. It seems to be struggling.
>
>> threw out any data they didn't like
I've spent my entire life around scientists, and to some extent I am one
myself, so I have some idea of how it works. I know for certain that
fibroblasts on a micro-grooved surface will align themselves with the
grooves and stretch themselves out to improbable lengths, because I did
all the work for those studies myself, including analysing the data. I
also know for certain that a certain toothpaste will relieve bad breath
slightly (but significantly) better than its competitors, because I did
all the data manipulation for those studies [1].
But I am not certain that anything that I personally didn't work on is
accurately portrayed, in any field including my own. Consider what
Hubble did when his data didn't match his preconceived ideas of how the
universe works. Or what happened to Mendel's data when his assistant
monks were so anxious to please their beloved Abbot. [2]
>
[1] My boss collaborated with several colleagues on disparate subjects
where their different disciplines could interact effectively.
[2] If that is the explanation. Certainly the numbers he got are
impossible with so little data, though the conclusions he drew are
generally held to be the truth now.
Gid Holyoake
generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> As I are one, I must point out that us skeptics (with a k) are only
> interested in the provable facts, in other words the science. The
> scientific consensus (IPCC et al) is that a) climate change is real and
> b) that there is a 90% probability that most of it is man-made.
Ermm.. sort of.. there is a fairly clear consensus that climate change
is real, and that man's activities are certainly playing some part in
it..
As I see it the main problem most skeptics have is not so much with the
science but with the proposed solutions..
> Typical of the climate change *deniers* is that they concentrate on two
> or three emails from the thousands that were hacked and play down the
> existing data.
>
> Why let the science get in the way of a good conspiracy theory :-)
The problem is not with the science, but with the scientists.. alas,
the scientists are human and, therefore, as prone as anyone else to
letting their prejudices take over from reason..
As far as I'm concerned, the principal factors that man has been
responsible for are:
Population growth: Up until the late 19th century, the human population
of the planet was fairly stable. Developments in health and hygiene
since then have resulted in much lower infant mortality rates, coupled
with greater longevity. The growth in population from 1900 (approx 1.6
billion) to now (approx 6 billion) has been quite marked, and, indeed,
correlates quite nicely with the famous "hockey stick" graph.
Deforestation: Forests are, without doubt, a carbon sink. We need a
comprehensive reforestation programme to replace the dwindling tropical
rainforests, and to plant forests in *all* suitable non-productive
land.
Urbanisation: In most parts of the planet, we have already gone past
the point where there are more city dwellers than rural dwellers.
Cities are very convenient for those who inhabit them, but cause no end
of localised climate issues.
Energy production: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon back into the
cycle from which it was removed millions of years ago. On its own, it
wouldn't have a great deal of effect in all likelihood, but, when
coupled with the other factors mentioned above, causes its effects to
be thrown into a greater relief than might otherwise be the case.
--
Gid
Current Project: Bragdy'r Ddraenen Wen
(if it ever stops raining for long enough)
Bernard Peek
> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/764.page#4265
>
> Particularly:
>
> "If my emails discussed how to massage statistical data to make my pet
> theory appear more plausible (eg
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt)
> or discussed how to avoid complying with FOI requests (eg
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=485&filename=1106338806.txt
> and
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt)
> or how to remove from office a critic of my work (eg
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt)
> then I might expect to be considered conspiratorial should they ever be
> seen.
I've read the first fifty emails chronologically, plus these ones you
reference here. I haven't seen anything that supports your arguments. In
particular none of these referenced articles contain what you claim they do.
--
Bernard Peek
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>> "Chris Zakes" wrote
>> <snip>
>>> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from
>>> the climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
>>> implication that they doctored the numbers, threw out any
>>> data they didn't like and otherwise cooked the books, how
>>> can we trust their results?
>>>
>>
>> Wait ... somebody hacks into email accounts that don't belong
>> to them - and you expect them to make an honest report about
>> what they found?
>
> It's odd, but that does seem to be the emphasis of the News stories -
> that the hacking was illegal, so we don't need to take any notice.
Really? I haven't seen a single news story that says that. I've seen ones
that say "This is it: proof that it's all a hoax!" and ones that say "Um,
it isn't, actually."
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> A.Reader wrote:
>> (b) The only people worried about global cooling were the ones
>> who got their information from places like the Daily Mail, The
>> Sun, National Inquirer, and similar.
>
> And several highly-respected SF writers (Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle
> and Michael Flynn) who did their research thoroughly before writing
> /Fallen Angels/. It's a most enjoyable book, well worth reading
> whatever your religious convictions either way.
I suspect my mileage may vary. I recall several reviews of this book
questioning the strange idea the authors have that the environmentalist
is the natural enemy of the science fiction fan, and was unfavourably
reminded of certain elements of Pournelle and Niven's "Footfall".
Lee
also at
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
which is likely to be more lawyer-resistant
--
Lee
Chris Zakes
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> to write:
FWIW, California Senator Barbara Boxer *has* said that the hacking
should be treated as a criminal matter: "You call it 'Climategate'; I
call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
CCA
wrote:
> Now that the cat has taken to popping in and out through her new
> cat-door so enthusiastically
I'm glad to hear this :-) I thought she'd get used to it after a
while!
CCA
Lesley Weston
wrote it, that's not a really surprising claim. I liked /Footfall/ too -
what's supposed to be wrong with it?
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/764.page#4265
>>
>> Particularly:
>>
>> "If my emails discussed how to massage statistical data to make my pet
>> theory appear more plausible (eg
>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt)
>> or discussed how to avoid complying with FOI requests (eg
>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=485&filename=1106338806.txt
>> and
>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt)
>> or how to remove from office a critic of my work (eg
>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt)
>> then I might expect to be considered conspiratorial should they ever
>> be seen.
>
> I've read the first fifty emails chronologically, plus these ones you
> reference here. I haven't seen anything that supports your arguments.
Which ones?
> In
> particular none of these referenced articles contain what you claim they
> do.
>
What would that be?
Lesley Weston
when you consider that we live in two very different countries.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 11 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A.Reader wrote:
>>
>>>> (b) The only people worried about global cooling were the ones
>>>> who got their information from places like the Daily Mail, The
>>>> Sun, National Inquirer, and similar.
>>> And several highly-respected SF writers (Larry Niven, Jerry
>>> Pournelle and Michael Flynn) who did their research thoroughly
>>> before writing /Fallen Angels/. It's a most enjoyable book, well
>>> worth reading whatever your religious convictions either way.
>>
>> I suspect my mileage may vary. I recall several reviews of this book
>> questioning the strange idea the authors have that the
>> environmentalist is the natural enemy of the science fiction fan, and
>> was unfavourably reminded of certain elements of Pournelle and
>> Niven's "Footfall".
>>
> But have you read it? All I said is that it's enjoyable. Considering
> who wrote it, that's not a really surprising claim. I liked /Footfall/
> too - what's supposed to be wrong with it?
I find my enjoyment of books to be inversely proportionate to how utterly
wrongheaded I find their polemic (if they don't *have* a polemic, that's
fine, but from everything I've heard, "Fallen Angels" does).
And frankly, I've never been entirely sure why Niven's such a big deal; I
wasn't a huge fan of Ringworld, either.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/764.page#4265
>>>
>>> Particularly:
>>>
>>> "If my emails discussed how to massage statistical data to make my
>>> pet theory appear more plausible (eg
>>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=12541083
>>> 38.txt) or discussed how to avoid complying with FOI requests (eg
>>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=485&filename=110633880
>>> 6.txt and
>>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=110745430
>>> 6.txt) or how to remove from office a critic of my work (eg
>>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=110632246
>>> 0.txt) then I might expect to be considered conspiratorial should
>>> they ever be seen.
>>
>> I've read the first fifty emails chronologically, plus these ones you
>> reference here. I haven't seen anything that supports your arguments.
>
> Which ones?
>
>> In
>> particular none of these referenced articles contain what you claim
>> they do.
>>
> What would that be?
s/you/the person you quote.
But I suspect you knew that.
Lesley Weston
> In article <nKGdnaF18Kde3b_W...@bt.com>, Large Dave
> generously decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> As I are one, I must point out that us skeptics (with a k) are only
>> interested in the provable facts, in other words the science. The
>> scientific consensus (IPCC et al) is that a) climate change is real and
>> b) that there is a 90% probability that most of it is man-made.
>
> Ermm.. sort of.. there is a fairly clear consensus that climate change
> is real, and that man's activities are certainly playing some part in
> it..
>
> As I see it the main problem most skeptics have is not so much with the
> science but with the proposed solutions..
>
>> Typical of the climate change *deniers* is that they concentrate on two
>> or three emails from the thousands that were hacked and play down the
>> existing data.
>>
>> Why let the science get in the way of a good conspiracy theory :-)
>
> The problem is not with the science, but with the scientists.. alas,
> the scientists are human and, therefore, as prone as anyone else to
> letting their prejudices take over from reason..
Very much so IME. Which is sad, given what Science is supposed to be,
but there you are. That's one of the unfortunate points about the
present scandal: it brings Science into disrepute yet again.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the principal factors that man has been
> responsible for are:
>
> Population growth: Up until the late 19th century, the human population
> of the planet was fairly stable.
The Black Death cut the population of Europe by about two thirds. I
haven't checked, so I don't know if there was a corresponding change in
the mean global temperature.
> Developments in health and hygiene
> since then have resulted in much lower infant mortality rates, coupled
> with greater longevity.
I assume you're not arguing that this is a Bad Thing. Certainly, for
this and other reasons, peoples controlling their own populations by
voluntary means is a Good Thing; the best way to achieve this is to
educate women, according to current thinking (but I can't find the
references).
> The growth in population from 1900 (approx 1.6
> billion) to now (approx 6 billion) has been quite marked, and, indeed,
> correlates quite nicely with the famous "hockey stick" graph.
Which is now in doubt again. This does not necessarily mean that mankind
is not influencing the mean global temperature, just that it is now once
again less than certain.
>
> Deforestation: Forests are, without doubt, a carbon sink. We need a
> comprehensive reforestation programme to replace the dwindling tropical
> rainforests, and to plant forests in *all* suitable non-productive
> land.
If the people living there want them.
>
> Urbanisation: In most parts of the planet, we have already gone past
> the point where there are more city dwellers than rural dwellers.
> Cities are very convenient for those who inhabit them, but cause no end
> of localised climate issues.
That can be fixed without losing the benefits of city life.
>
> Energy production: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon back into the
> cycle from which it was removed millions of years ago. On its own, it
> wouldn't have a great deal of effect in all likelihood, but, when
> coupled with the other factors mentioned above, causes its effects to
> be thrown into a greater relief than might otherwise be the case.
That can also be fixed, and there are plenty of practical ideas being
applied effectively to do so.
The bottom line is "Waste not, want not". Whether or not our burning
fossil fuel is causing or will cause all these terrible things to
happen, we still shouldn't be using fuel we don't need. Another benefit
of using renewable fuels is that they tend to be much cleaner than
fossil fuels, so pollution (particles, toxins etc., not carbon) is
considerably reduced.
Lesley Weston
She seems very keen on it. I think the tipping point was when she
realised that she couldn't be stopped from going out whenever she wants.
We haven't told her yet about the locking thing that we'll use on Halloween.
Paul Jamison
"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDFB13C3D887da...@130.133.1.4...
a matter of personal taste. On the other hand, what little I've read of
Pournelle's work I haven't cared for at all.
Having said that, I've read "Footfall" and "Fallen Angels" and, yes, both
contain polemics. In FA, the authors seem mainly to be
anti-anti-Rationalist - one of the government advisors is a cardboard cutout
of a Crystallist - and in both books, skiffy fans are indeed heroes.
As far as the global warming issue, I'd argue for common sense. But my
"common sense" may not agree with other's "common sense". My common sense
essentially embraces "Better safe than sorry". Some folks don't like that.
Bernard Peek
>
> And frankly, I've never been entirely sure why Niven's such a big deal; I
> wasn't a huge fan of Ringworld, either.
>
Niven't reputation is almost entirely due to his early stuff. Ringworld
dates from around the start of his decline.
--
Bernard Peek
Large Dave
In addition to the Nebula award in 1970 [1] and the Hugo and Locus
awards in 1971 [2] for Ringworld, Niven won the Hugo Award for Best
Short Story for "Neutron Star" in 1967. He won the same award in 1972,
for "Inconstant Moon", and in 1975 for "The Hole Man". In 1976, he won
the Hugo Award for Best Novelette for "The Borderland of Sol".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Niven
Not bad for a decline:-)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
>
> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDFB13C3D887da...@130.133.1.4...
>> And frankly, I've never been entirely sure why Niven's such a big
>> deal; I wasn't a huge fan of Ringworld, either.
>>
> Personally, I enjoyed Ringworld and several of Niven's short stories.
> That's a matter of personal taste. On the other hand, what little I've
> read of Pournelle's work I haven't cared for at all.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I *liked* Ringworld, I just wasn't sure why it
was one of The Greatest Science Fiction Novels Of All Time. Then again, I
had pretty much the same reaction to Dune. (Well, almost the same. The
difference is that in Dune I completely lost track of what was going on
halfway through, leafed back to try and work it out, and suddenly
realised I wasn't sure I cared any more...)
I don't think I've *seen* anything by Pournelle without Niven.
> Having said that, I've read "Footfall" and "Fallen Angels" and, yes,
> both contain polemics. In FA, the authors seem mainly to be
> anti-anti-Rationalist - one of the government advisors is a cardboard
> cutout of a Crystallist - and in both books, skiffy fans are indeed
> heroes.
Well, I've got nothing against skiffy fans being seen as heroes 8-). I
just get the impression that the writers have a definition of Heroic
Skiffy Fan that doesn't include me.
Daniel Orner
I've always wondered why people aren't concentrating more on finding
clean, renewable automobile fuel and power source rather than having a
sort of complex dance involving the whole "carbon" issue. We *will* have
to do this eventually, because coal and gasoline will simply run out at
some point in the future, especially as more developing countries get
onboard.
--
http://roleplayingjew.blogspot.com/ - An Orthodox Jew who plays Japanese
role-playing games? Strange but true!
Paul Jamison
Paul
Lesley Weston
the course of saying that people should make their own minds up. I'm not
espousing either side in this argument.
Lesley Weston
read /Fallen Angels/.
Lesley Weston
Lesley Weston
And certainly not me, I don't even go to DW conventions. Still it's fun
to read about them (both kinds), especially in something so well-written
and entertaining, and I have no objection to being told repeatedly that
as an SF reader I am a Superior Person.
GaryN
I have to agree. 'Fallen Angels'
http://www.baen.com/library/067172052x/067172052x.htm
is probably my least favourite N&P book, mostly because it's crap.
They do tend to recycle characters[1], although 'The Legacy of Heorot' (in
corroboration with Stepven Barnes) was a spectacularly good read.
gary
[1]cf. Mark Czescu (Lucifers Hammer), and Harry Reddington (Footfall).
--
"History is written by the winners which is why French history books are
blank from cover to cover"
The Pub Landlord.
GaryN
news:I6OdnXeGnI_AZL7W...@bt.com:
Gary looks at his pristine 1973 first edition hardback of 'Inconstant
Moon' (an anthology but WTF) and starts counting...:-)
Actually a damn good story...
gary
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
<Climate change>
>> The bottom line is "Waste not, want not". Whether or not our
>> burning fossil fuel is causing or will cause all these terrible things
>> to happen, we still shouldn't be using fuel we don't need. Another
>> benefit of using renewable fuels is that they tend to be much cleaner
>> than fossil fuels, so pollution (particles, toxins etc., not carbon)
>> is considerably reduced.
>>
>
> I've always wondered why people aren't concentrating more on finding
> clean, renewable automobile fuel and power source rather than having a
> sort of complex dance involving the whole "carbon" issue. We *will* have
> to do this eventually, because coal and gasoline will simply run out at
> some point in the future, especially as more developing countries get
> onboard.
>
There's that, and there's also the rather strange idea that rich
countries giving money to poor countries while they (the rich countries)
continue to release as much fossil-carbon as they want will somehow
reduce the amount of carbon released.
And now there's an even stranger idea that CO2 produced by industrial
processes burning fossil fuels should be captured (not a strange idea at
all, but wait) and /sequestered underground for ever/. There are any
number of ways to use the captured CO2 as the starting point for making
clean fuels, plastics etc., which would reduce dramatically the need to
burn fossil fuels in the first place.
And then there's the Athabasca tar sands. Extracting the oil from them
uses a lot of energy and is thus a no-no. But if that energy were
obtained from renewable sources such as solar and wind power, it would
become a much more feasible process, doing much less damage to the
environment and the people doing the relevant work than coal mining.
Assuming that the present Athabasca practices were cleaned up, as they
could be easily.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> I find my enjoyment of books to be inversely proportionate to how
>> utterly wrongheaded I find their polemic (if they don't *have* a
>> polemic, that's fine, but from everything I've heard, "Fallen Angels"
>> does).
>>
>> And frankly, I've never been entirely sure why Niven's such a big
>> deal; I wasn't a huge fan of Ringworld, either.
>>
> Different strokes. Tell you what, I'll read another Dan Brown if
> you'll read /Fallen Angels/.
Well, now I *certainly* won't read it. We may disagree a lot, but it's
not like I *hate* you or anything...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Paul Jamison wrote:
>> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDFD7D15E9EFda...@130.133.1.4...
>>> Well, I've got nothing against skiffy fans being seen as heroes 8-).
>>> I just get the impression that the writers have a definition of
>>> Heroic Skiffy Fan that doesn't include me.
>>>
>> Good point. It probably wouldn't include me either.
>
> And certainly not me, I don't even go to DW conventions. Still it's
> fun to read about them (both kinds), especially in something so
> well-written and entertaining, and I have no objection to being told
> repeatedly that as an SF reader I am a Superior Person.
But that's just it; the feeling I get is of being told repeatedly that if
I was the Right Kind of SF reader I'd be a Superior Person, but as a
hippy vegetarian eco-freak, I'm decidedly not.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> And then there's the Athabasca tar sands. Extracting the oil from them
> uses a lot of energy and is thus a no-no. But if that energy were
> obtained from renewable sources such as solar and wind power, it would
> become a much more feasible process, doing much less damage to the
> environment and the people doing the relevant work than coal mining.
> Assuming that the present Athabasca practices were cleaned up, as they
> could be easily.
There was a peice about this in last week's New Scientist. The cover image
was a rather alarming picture of half an Earth being pushed through a lemon
squeezer to get the last drops of oil out, but IIRC the article itself was
fairly upbeat about the environmental considerations, just doubtful on the
practicalities.
Alec Cawley
> Yes, but... with the revelations of the various emails from the
> climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the
> implication that they doctored the numbers, threw out any data they
> didn't like and otherwise cooked the books, how can we trust their
> results?
>
> What's the old computer programming phrase? "Garbage in, garbage out."
This weeks New Scientist says that the corrections the put in were
perfectly normal, compensating for different instruments etc. other
sources I have seen said that while they did not actually doctor the
numbers, they did choose start and end points which favoured their
viewpoint. They *may* have exceeded the bounds or the proper in trying
to stop contradictory papers published, and one person may have
suggested deleting uncomfortable emails, which would definitely be
wrong. However, several sources tell me that there was on large scale
distortion or fabrication, mostly just some heated language and
unfortunate use of words. For example, does the word "trick" mean
"falsification" or "clever technique"? And they were under the
impression, rightly or wrongly, that they were being deliberately
harassed by people from then opposite camp e.g. 50 Freedom of
Information requests for their raw data within one week, to distract
them from their work.
Even so, this is only one out of a large number of research groups
working on the problem, all of which are coming to broadly the same
conclusion. Even if there has been misconduct by this team, which is far
from proven, it does not invalidate all the other research.
Alec Cawley
>
> Urbanisation: In most parts of the planet, we have already gone past
> the point where there are more city dwellers than rural dwellers.
> Cities are very convenient for those who inhabit them, but cause no end
> of localised climate issues.
According to The Economist, we passed that point for the whole planet
some time this year, so far as can be judged.
Alec Cawley
> I've always wondered why people aren't concentrating more on finding
> clean, renewable automobile fuel and power source rather than having a
> sort of complex dance involving the whole "carbon" issue. We *will* have
> to do this eventually, because coal and gasoline will simply run out at
> some point in the future, especially as more developing countries get
> onboard.
Coal won't run out for a long time - 400 years was one figure I saw
quoted. Oil definitely will run out, and possibly quite soon. A person
at the top of the International Energy Agency, which is generally on the
optimistic, industry-favouring, side, quotes 2020 as a likely date for
peak oil, without generating shouts of "Rubbish" from the usual sources.
This was for "conventional" oil wells, excluding tar sands etc. There
is a whole lot more "oil" in tar sands, available if (a) the price rises
back to last year's peak and a bit more (more than about $150 a barrel)
and (b) we don't care about C02, because it takes about half or even
more of the energy in the oil to extract it, so each barrel delivered to
the refinery makes two or three to the atmosphere by teh time it is
finally burned. The oil industry doesn't really mind high prices, so
long as they don't rise too fast ad make people all conservationist:
higher prices means more profits at the same margin. And when the tar
sands run out, they can make liquid fuel out of coal - at a price and
with a lot more C)2. So, /if it were not for Climate Change/, we could
be complacent. But that is a huge if - one which more people are
agreeing we cannot accept.
Alec Cawley
>
> And now there's an even stranger idea that CO2 produced by
> industrial processes burning fossil fuels should be captured (not a
> strange idea at all, but wait) and /sequestered underground for ever/.
> There are any number of ways to use the captured CO2 as the starting
> point for making clean fuels, plastics etc., which would reduce
> dramatically the need to burn fossil fuels in the first place.
Not without putting back in the energy you took out in burning it - you
essentially have to convert the C-O bonds back into C-H, which gets you
back to square one.
> And then there's the Athabasca tar sands. Extracting the oil from
> them uses a lot of energy and is thus a no-no. But if that energy were
> obtained from renewable sources such as solar and wind power, it would
> become a much more feasible process, doing much less damage to the
> environment and the people doing the relevant work than coal mining.
> Assuming that the present Athabasca practices were cleaned up, as they
> could be easily.
I could do with some evidence for that last statement. I think it could
be done, but easily is not the adverb I would choose. Last weeks New
Scientist had a feature on this very subject, and they classed
extracting the tar sands /cleanly/ as a far-out development. There were
some not-quite-so-dirty options in the nearer future.
Bernard Peek
> Coal won't run out for a long time - 400 years was one figure I saw
> quoted. Oil definitely will run out, and possibly quite soon. A person
> at the top of the International Energy Agency, which is generally on the
> optimistic, industry-favouring, side, quotes 2020 as a likely date for
> peak oil, without generating shouts of "Rubbish" from the usual sources.
We have already passed one of the inflection-points. We have already run
out of the oil that is cheapest to extract, so from now on the cost of
oil is going to go up.
--
Bernard Peek
Chris Zakes
Well... a "better safe than sorry" approach only works to a point.
Beyond that, you end up spending your entire life hiding under the
bed.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I hallucinate gently for a living.
-Terry Pratchett
Chris Zakes
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
>Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:Xns9CDEA1729F84Cda...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> On 11 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A.Reader wrote:
>>
>>>> (b) The only people worried about global cooling were the ones
>>>> who got their information from places like the Daily Mail, The
>>>> Sun, National Inquirer, and similar.
>>>
>>> And several highly-respected SF writers (Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle
>>> and Michael Flynn) who did their research thoroughly before writing
>>> /Fallen Angels/. It's a most enjoyable book, well worth reading
>>> whatever your religious convictions either way.
>>
>> I suspect my mileage may vary. I recall several reviews of this book
>> questioning the strange idea the authors have that the environmentalist
>> is the natural enemy of the science fiction fan, and was unfavourably
>> reminded of certain elements of Pournelle and Niven's "Footfall".
>>
>
>I have to agree. 'Fallen Angels'
>http://www.baen.com/library/067172052x/067172052x.htm
>is probably my least favourite N&P book, mostly because it's crap.
>
>They do tend to recycle characters[1], although 'The Legacy of Heorot' (in
>corroboration with Stepven Barnes) was a spectacularly good read.
>
>gary
Tastes differ, of course. For me, "Legacy of Heorot" was barely
readable once, then went into the "back to the used bookstore" pile.
"Fallen Angels", on the other hand I've probably read a dozen times or
more.
Bob Larter
> On 12 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>>> On 11 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A.Reader wrote:
>>>
>>>>> (b) The only people worried about global cooling were the ones
>>>>> who got their information from places like the Daily Mail, The
>>>>> Sun, National Inquirer, and similar.
>>>> And several highly-respected SF writers (Larry Niven, Jerry
>>>> Pournelle and Michael Flynn) who did their research thoroughly
>>>> before writing /Fallen Angels/. It's a most enjoyable book, well
>>>> worth reading whatever your religious convictions either way.
>>>
>>> I suspect my mileage may vary. I recall several reviews of this book
>>> questioning the strange idea the authors have that the
>>> environmentalist is the natural enemy of the science fiction fan, and
>>> was unfavourably reminded of certain elements of Pournelle and
>>> Niven's "Footfall".
>>>
>> who wrote it, that's not a really surprising claim. I liked /Footfall/
>> too - what's supposed to be wrong with it?
>
> I find my enjoyment of books to be inversely proportionate to how utterly
> wrongheaded I find their polemic (if they don't *have* a polemic, that's
> fine, but from everything I've heard, "Fallen Angels" does).
Primarily, it's pro-science. It's been long enough since I last read it
that I don't remember the political persuasion of the Bad Guys. I will
say that it's one of my least favourite Niven/Pournelle books.
> And frankly, I've never been entirely sure why Niven's such a big deal; I
> wasn't a huge fan of Ringworld, either.
If you didn't like Ringworld, you're unlikely to like any of Niven's stuff.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
Odd. My reactions to those books was pretty much the opposite of yours.
I've certainly read Legacy many more times than Angels.
Bob Larter
> CCA wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 3:53�pm, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> Now that the cat has taken to popping in and out through her new
>>> cat-door so enthusiastically
>>
>> I'm glad to hear this :-) I thought she'd get used to it after a
>> while!
>
> She seems very keen on it. I think the tipping point was when she
> realised that she couldn't be stopped from going out whenever she wants.
> We haven't told her yet about the locking thing that we'll use on
> Halloween.
<grin> The first time you lock it, expect to be kept up by the sound of
her head-butting the door.
Chris Zakes
The bad guys were "Greens" with a mix of other new-age types. The
basic plotline (for the folks who *haven't* read it) is that:
1. The Greens have taken over most of the world's governments and
enacted laws and policies to halt global warming. They've been so
effective that they've triggered a new ice age.
This government is also moderately repressive--in the winter
thermostats may not be set warmer than 55 degrees F, artwork must be
approved by the National Endowwment for the Arts, technophilia isn't a
crime *per se* but you're unlikely to get raises or promotions, modems
must be licensed, etc.
2. The heroes are a pair of astronauts from a small orbiting colony
who get shot down while on a "dip trip" scooping air for their space
station. They're rescued by a bunch of SF fans and taken on a
cross-country jaunt to try to find a way to ge them back into orbit,
while dodging the government minions who are trying to capture them.
For anybody who's interested, the book is online here:
http://www.baen.com/library/067172052x/067172052X.htm
GaryN
What's wrong with being a hippy vegetarian eco-freak SF reader? In certain
ways that does put you in the Superior Person category (IMO anyway).
Crippled omnivore biker eco-freaks SF readers like myself are probably the
wrong sort, but I enjoy it...:-)
GaryN
@mid.individual.net:
ISTR a section in the uncut edition of 'The Forever War' by Joe Haldeman
entitled "How you going to keep them off the farm" in which city life has
become so grim that people start organising Kibbutz-type communes in the
country.
Grow your own food, raise your own livestock, rely on renewable energy for
the few electrical devices and defend yourselves against intruders. Oddly
enough certain members of my family have already started doing this, albeit
for different reasons, so I've got a bolthole if (or rather when) it all
goes tits up.
GaryN
news:4b25c3f8$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
I think the thing that disappointed me was that somehow the book read as
if the authors had got round a table and had a conversation along the
lines of:
"The publishers want another book"
"OK then, let's cobble together all the bits we didn't use in previous
books"
"Yeah but we need something new and current"
"How about if we put in something about climate change"
"That should do it"
Having written some classic books this one, IMO, is a bit of a turkey.
gary
Lesley Weston
Lesley Weston
you did you'd find that its portrayal of /all/ SF fans, in all our weird
and wonderful variety, is sympathetic to put it mildly.
Lesley Weston
I'm happy with them both, apart from the basic premise of LOH that when
the humans discover intelligent sophonts on the planet they are
colonising, their reaction is to figure out ways to wipe out the
competition. It's sort of semi-fixed in the sequel, but it's still made
clear that the humans are the Good Guys despite their behaviour towards
their rivals. But the writing is excellent in all of them, and that goes
a long way with me.
Lesley Weston
doubtful about the practicalities of using various non-food sources to
make alcohols for fuel. Now there is a whole bunch of pilot plants
making significant quantities by a variety of methods, and a few of them
have already gone commercial. So one can probably be upbeat about the
whole thing with the tar sands, including the practicalities.
[1] There must be a title for the relevant discipline, but I can't think
of it.
GaryN
news:hg5oao$20qn$1...@mud.stack.nl:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Jamison wrote:
>>>> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9CDFD7D15E9EFda...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>>>> Well, I've got nothing against skiffy fans being seen as heroes
>>>>> 8-). I just get the impression that the writers have a definition
>>>>> of Heroic Skiffy Fan that doesn't include me.
>>>>>
>>>> Good point. It probably wouldn't include me either.
>>> And certainly not me, I don't even go to DW conventions. Still it's
>>> fun to read about them (both kinds), especially in something so
>>> well-written and entertaining, and I have no objection to being told
>>> repeatedly that as an SF reader I am a Superior Person.
>>
>> But that's just it; the feeling I get is of being told repeatedly
>> that if I was the Right Kind of SF reader I'd be a Superior Person,
>> but as a hippy vegetarian eco-freak, I'm decidedly not.
>>
> Not really. I know we've agreed that you don't have to read it, but if
> you did you'd find that its portrayal of /all/ SF fans, in all our
> weird and wonderful variety, is sympathetic to put it mildly.
>
I would suggest, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, that what
Lesley is saying is that there's room for all of us. As long as we
retain our individual, sometimes argumentative, views then we can damn
well say what we like. Possibly we may occasionally make someone think
slightly differently about things.
It'd be a bloody boring NG if we all agreed about everything all the
time!
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>
>> And now there's an even stranger idea that CO2 produced by
>> industrial processes burning fossil fuels should be captured (not a
>> strange idea at all, but wait) and /sequestered underground for ever/.
>> There are any number of ways to use the captured CO2 as the starting
>> point for making clean fuels, plastics etc., which would reduce
>> dramatically the need to burn fossil fuels in the first place.
>
> Not without putting back in the energy you took out in burning it - you
> essentially have to convert the C-O bonds back into C-H, which gets you
> back to square one.
But without releasing any further fossil carbon. The input energy comes
from renewable sources like wind and/or solar farms, so there's a net gain.
>
>> And then there's the Athabasca tar sands. Extracting the oil from
>> them uses a lot of energy and is thus a no-no. But if that energy were
>> obtained from renewable sources such as solar and wind power, it would
>> become a much more feasible process, doing much less damage to the
>> environment and the people doing the relevant work than coal mining.
>> Assuming that the present Athabasca practices were cleaned up, as they
>> could be easily.
>
> I could do with some evidence for that last statement. I think it could
> be done, but easily is not the adverb I would choose. Last weeks New
> Scientist had a feature on this very subject, and they classed
> extracting the tar sands /cleanly/ as a far-out development. There were
> some not-quite-so-dirty options in the nearer future.
So the principle is sound, it's just a matter of degree. Like so many
technologies in their early days. I didn't see the NS article that you
and David mention - I don't read the dead-trees edition, and I guess it
must have been one of the on-line articles that they demand money for.
Lesley Weston
Four hundred years really isn't so long on the historical scale and even
the Athabasca Tar Sands aren't infinite, so that doesn't change the
reality that fossil fuels will run out. So it makes sense to develop
alternate fuels now, before there's a shortage. Oil companies are
already diversifying, just as tobacco companies did when they realised
that sooner or later everybody is going to stop smoking, voluntarily or
otherwise.
But some oil companies are funding research and production for their
rival technologies, which is even more sensible since it will keep them
in the game. So they'll still be making their obscene levels of profit
by grinding the usual faces, but they won't be destroying our planet
while doing so.
Lesley Weston
> On 13/12/2009 4:36 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> CCA wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 3:53�pm, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Now that the cat has taken to popping in and out through her new
>>>> cat-door so enthusiastically
>>>
>>> I'm glad to hear this :-) I thought she'd get used to it after a
>>> while!
>>
>> She seems very keen on it. I think the tipping point was when she
>> realised that she couldn't be stopped from going out whenever she wants.
>> We haven't told her yet about the locking thing that we'll use on
>> Halloween.
>
> <grin> The first time you lock it, expect to be kept up by the sound of
> her head-butting the door.
>
GaryN
I think it would be fair to say that in LOH the Grendels discovered the
humans. IIRC it is also mentioned, during an autopsy on the second
animal, that they may be intelligent but not sapient - there is a
difference. Cats are intelligent but I'd draw the line at sapient.
That minor difference has never stopped humans killing dolphins and
whales; which aren't 15 foot long semi-aquatic predators with a meat-
grinder jaw, glandular supercharger and the ability to withstand
colossal amounts of damage.
Sorry if that was a spoiler for anyone who hasn't read the book.
I actually saw LOH as far more of a 'how do people bear up under
pressure?' novel than an 'Oh No - the aliens are coming'. The human
element (particularly the HI) is actually dealt with rather well. Also
thought the life cycle was quite neat and the "Oh F**k what have we
done" factor was spot on.
The sequel, IMO, was somewhat weak.
Lesley Weston
> On 13/12/2009 4:36 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> CCA wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 3:53�pm, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Now that the cat has taken to popping in and out through her new
>>>> cat-door so enthusiastically
>>>
>>> I'm glad to hear this :-) I thought she'd get used to it after a
>>> while!
>>
>> She seems very keen on it. I think the tipping point was when she
>> realised that she couldn't be stopped from going out whenever she wants.
>> We haven't told her yet about the locking thing that we'll use on
>> Halloween.
>
> <grin> The first time you lock it, expect to be kept up by the sound of
> her head-butting the door.
>
dead rat (whole, thank gods) in the spare room, so she's figured out how
to bring things through the cat-door. That cat is altogether too smart.
Or perhaps the rat figured out how to work the cat-door, and she was
waiting for it in the warm.
GaryN
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And then there's the Athabasca tar sands. Extracting the oil from
>>> them uses a lot of energy and is thus a no-no. But if that energy
>>> were obtained from renewable sources such as solar and wind power,
>>> it would become a much more feasible process, doing much less damage
>>> to the environment and the people doing the relevant work than coal
>>> mining. Assuming that the present Athabasca practices were cleaned
>>> up, as they could be easily.
>>
>> There was a peice about this in last week's New Scientist. The cover
>> image was a rather alarming picture of half an Earth being pushed
>> through a lemon squeezer to get the last drops of oil out, but IIRC
>> the article itself was fairly upbeat about the environmental
>> considerations, just doubtful on the practicalities.
>>
> IANAoil engineer [1], but until a year or two ago the NS and others
> were doubtful about the practicalities of using various non-food
> sources to make alcohols for fuel. Now there is a whole bunch of pilot
> plants making significant quantities by a variety of methods, and a
> few of them have already gone commercial. So one can probably be
> upbeat about the whole thing with the tar sands, including the
> practicalities.
>
> [1] There must be a title for the relevant discipline, but I can't
> think of it.
>
Stupidity?
Wasting alcohol for making fuel is like eating grapes without fermenting
them first:-)
On a more serious note alcohol fuelled engines are possible but nobody
ever bothered to make them efficient, and oil is still required to
lubricate the bits. It would probably be possible to use vegetable oil
but who needs to when there's so much of that mineral oil around?
GaryN
Ummm, Reality Check. Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Crack, Amphetamine Sulphate
and Marijuana use is illegal (UK).
Noticed anyone who was using the above stopping - voluntarily or
otherwise?
It doesn't stop - just becomes more expensive. (And no I don't use any
of the above). I smoke standard tobacco and I enjoy a drink or two; I
am far less likely to stop if someone tries to force me to do so - I
have problems with authority. Technically, as I work from home
sometimes, I'm not allowed to smoke in my own house as it counts as a
place of work.
In this country we have increasingly stupid, unenforceable laws which
nobody can be arsed to either comply with, enforce, or even be arsed to
take notice of. Probably to take our attention away from the bastards
who are actually creaming it.
Lee
>
> Four hundred years really isn't so long on the historical scale and even
> the Athabasca Tar Sands aren't infinite, so that doesn't change the
> reality that fossil fuels will run out. So it makes sense to develop
> alternate fuels now, before there's a shortage. Oil companies are
> already diversifying, just as tobacco companies did when they realised
> that sooner or later everybody is going to stop smoking, voluntarily or
> otherwise.
>
> But some oil companies are funding research and production for their
> rival technologies, which is even more sensible since it will keep them
> in the game. So they'll still be making their obscene levels of profit
> by grinding the usual faces, but they won't be destroying our planet
> while doing so.
>
Have you seen the recent TopGear UK bit about the Honda Clarity? [1]
Hydrogen fuel cell powered, normal car size and style. Only available (for now)
in california, because thats the only place they've put in hydrogen filling pumps.
Looks like the future to me!
plus, hydrogen is *relatively* simple to produce - electricity from a renewable
source plus seawater.
Its a little fiddly to transport and store, but they're working on it.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOVaHFUQASE
--
Lee
Paul Jamison
"Lee" <tard...@one.of.the.free.providers.com> wrote in message
news:op.u4xz7...@lee-tuckwells-macbook.local...
270-mile range isn't shabby.
I can see problems. What happens in a crash? Is it hazardous to transport a
tankful of liquid hydrogen around? More or less than with a tank of
hydrocarbon-based petrol? The filling-up process looks like it needs more
care than we're used to, but is that a bad thing? And, of course, getting
liquid hydrogen on your shoes can be messy.
But still - I was mightily impressed.
Alec Cawley
On the contrary - Brazil has a large number of vehicles running on >50%
alcohol mixtures. It still seems to need a bit of fossil fuel, but a
large slice of the fuel used for Brazil's private cars is alcohol from
sugar cane, of which Brazil produces a lot. And as for vegetable oils,
it appears that the processing necessary to convert used cooking oil
into fuel suitable for diesel engines can be done at home - if you don't
mind traveling the country smelling like a chippy.
Alec Cawley
As was pointed out at a lecture I wnet to given by an academic
specialist on the subject, hydrogen is an energy transport, not an
energy source. Hydrogen saves you from needing a long wire connected to
your car, or catenary pickups or third rails or whatever. But it does
nothing at all about the ultimate problem, of energy supply.
Alec Cawley
>
> I can see problems. What happens in a crash? Is it hazardous to transport a
> tankful of liquid hydrogen around? More or less than with a tank of
> hydrocarbon-based petrol? The filling-up process looks like it needs more
> care than we're used to, but is that a bad thing? And, of course, getting
> liquid hydrogen on your shoes can be messy.>
Provided you stay outdoors, it seems that hydrogen is, if anything,
safer than gasoline. If released it goes straight up, whereas gasoline
runs, burning, across the ground. Very dangerous if it leaks indoors -
if it cannot escape straight up, it will form very explosive pockets.
Which removes the garage under the house, for me at least. But given the
great outdoors, it gets out of the way fast. One disadvantage is that a
hydrogen flame is totally invisible, so you can walk or put a hand into
it without realising.
Alec Cawley
> I actually saw LOH as far more of a 'how do people bear up under
> pressure?' novel than an 'Oh No - the aliens are coming'. The human
> element (particularly the HI) is actually dealt with rather well. Also
> thought the life cycle was quite neat and the "Oh F**k what have we
> done" factor was spot on.
I got the impression (from him) that the life-cycle was designed by, or
in conjunction with, Jack Cohen (of SoD fame). He certainly claimed to
have designed the ecosystem for that and other books.
Alec Cawley
> On 13/12/2009 4:36 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> CCA wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 3:53�pm, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Now that the cat has taken to popping in and out through her new
>>>> cat-door so enthusiastically
>>>
>>> I'm glad to hear this :-) I thought she'd get used to it after a
>>> while!
>>
>> She seems very keen on it. I think the tipping point was when she
>> realised that she couldn't be stopped from going out whenever she wants.
>> We haven't told her yet about the locking thing that we'll use on
>> Halloween.
>
> <grin> The first time you lock it, expect to be kept up by the sound of
> her head-butting the door.
At least one of our cats regards the locking of the cat-flap as merely a
tedious formality. If he wants to go through, he will go through. We
have to put a board across to stop him.
The other, more timorous, nevertheless came through pretty well when
accidentally locked out and (we presume) being chased by something.
Bernard Peek
>> On a more serious note alcohol fuelled engines are possible but nobody
>> ever bothered to make them efficient, and oil is still required to
>> lubricate the bits. It would probably be possible to use vegetable oil
>> but who needs to when there's so much of that mineral oil around?
>
> On the contrary - Brazil has a large number of vehicles running on >50%
> alcohol mixtures. It still seems to need a bit of fossil fuel, but a
> large slice of the fuel used for Brazil's private cars is alcohol from
> sugar cane, of which Brazil produces a lot. And as for vegetable oils,
> it appears that the processing necessary to convert used cooking oil
> into fuel suitable for diesel engines can be done at home - if you don't
> mind traveling the country smelling like a chippy.
There are some difficulties though. In the current state of the market
running engines on gasohol is only economically viable if you have good
supplies of the right sort of feedstock. It's being done in the USA but
it only works because there is a government subsidy.
Similarly with biodiesel. The oil is paid for by the chippy who uses it
to first, then the waste product is used to make fuel. It's only
economically viable because the chip-shop subsidises the fuel.
Of course as oil gets to be more expensive, the economic forces change.
--
Bernard Peek
Bernard Peek
> I saw that and was quite impressed. The performance figures look good, and a
> 270-mile range isn't shabby.
>
> I can see problems. What happens in a crash? Is it hazardous to transport a
> tankful of liquid hydrogen around? More or less than with a tank of
> hydrocarbon-based petrol? The filling-up process looks like it needs more
> care than we're used to, but is that a bad thing? And, of course, getting
> liquid hydrogen on your shoes can be messy.
Hydrogen has a bad reputation but it's not really justified. It's
probably safer than petrol. But there are some serious problems with
using it.
Firstly you get less energy per unit weight than you do from oil, so you
need to carry more. Secondly you can only carry it as a gas because it
takes seriously low temperatures to liquefy it. That means you have to
have a pressurised tank, and to make that safe you have to make it
strong which means heavy. There has been a lot of work on metal hydrides
that store the gas inside their crystal structure. It's ferociously
expensive and even heavier than a pressurised tank.
My gut feeling is that hydrogen-fueled cars are an evolutionary
dead-end. What might work is some hybrid technologies.
You can add hydrogen to heavy oils and convert them to lighter molecules
that will burn in today's engines. It's a variation on catalytic
cracking that is already done to convert heavy oils to petrol. It would
be interesting to see whether that could be done in situ to recover oil
from tar-sands.
It also works if you heat organic matter in an atmosphere of hydrogen.
The hydrogen extracts the oxygen from cellulose and leaves hydrocarbons.
It's a variation on the process for extracting gas from coal. I'm pretty
sure that in the longer term this is the technology to back.
--
Bernard Peek
Lee
> On 14/12/09 19:45, Paul Jamison wrote:
>
>> I saw that and was quite impressed. The performance figures look good, and a
>> 270-mile range isn't shabby.
>>
>> I can see problems. What happens in a crash? Is it hazardous to transport a
>> tankful of liquid hydrogen around? More or less than with a tank of
>> hydrocarbon-based petrol? The filling-up process looks like it needs more
>> care than we're used to, but is that a bad thing? And, of course, getting
>> liquid hydrogen on your shoes can be messy.
>
> Hydrogen has a bad reputation but it's not really justified. It's
> probably safer than petrol. But there are some serious problems with
> using it.
>
> Firstly you get less energy per unit weight than you do from oil, so you
> need to carry more. Secondly you can only carry it as a gas because it
> takes seriously low temperatures to liquefy it. That means you have to
> have a pressurised tank, and to make that safe you have to make it
> strong which means heavy. There has been a lot of work on metal hydrides
> that store the gas inside their crystal structure. It's ferociously
> expensive and even heavier than a pressurised tank.
>
Judging by the fact that honda *has made it work*, i'd say these are not insurmountable problems.
Carbon Fibre can be used for lightweight pressure vessels, no idea what honda is doing though.
> My gut feeling is that hydrogen-fueled cars are an evolutionary
> dead-end. What might work is some hybrid technologies.
>
> You can add hydrogen to heavy oils and convert them to lighter molecules
> that will burn in today's engines. It's a variation on catalytic
> cracking that is already done to convert heavy oils to petrol. It would
> be interesting to see whether that could be done in situ to recover oil
> from tar-sands.
>
> It also works if you heat organic matter in an atmosphere of hydrogen.
> The hydrogen extracts the oxygen from cellulose and leaves hydrocarbons.
> It's a variation on the process for extracting gas from coal. I'm pretty
> sure that in the longer term this is the technology to back.
>
>
>
--
Lee
Lee
> Lee wrote:
>>
>> Have you seen the recent TopGear UK bit about the Honda Clarity? [1]
>> Hydrogen fuel cell powered, normal car size and style. Only available
>> (for now)
>> in california, because thats the only place they've put in hydrogen
>> filling pumps.
>>
>> Looks like the future to me!
>>
>> plus, hydrogen is *relatively* simple to produce - electricity from a
>> renewable
>> source plus seawater.
>>
>> Its a little fiddly to transport and store, but they're working on it.
>>
>> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOVaHFUQASE
>
> As was pointed out at a lecture I wnet to given by an academic
> specialist on the subject, hydrogen is an energy transport, not an
> energy source. Hydrogen saves you from needing a long wire connected to
> your car, or catenary pickups or third rails or whatever. But it does
> nothing at all about the ultimate problem, of energy supply.
>
well yes, but they say that in the film. Using a non-renewable as an energy
*source* is fundamentally doomed to fail eventually. by whatever means. i do
think we're going to have to move to completely renewable sources at some
point, may as well be now. Hydrogen seems to be a better, easier to transfer
to vehicles solution for energy storage than say batteries, and is MUCH simpler
to maintain than biodiesel, alcohol, or even current petrol cars. As they say
in the film, the (electric) motor has only one moving part.
--
Lee
Dom
<snip>
> It'd be a bloody boring NG if we all agreed about everything all the
> time!
I disagree. ;-)
--
Dom
Daibhid Ceanaideach
And he rarely seems to get credit from the authors involved (James White
was an exception, IIRC). From Ansible, back in 1993:
"Jack Cohen incautiously wrote in the Britannica Yearbook that he'd
invented various sf aliens like the brainy saurians in the Eden series.
Harry Harrison rushed in a stern correction, making it clear that he did
all the important inventing ('There are going to be these big lizards
called Yilan�!') while hired hand Jack had merely sorted out the biology,
biochemistry, physiology, and suchlike trivia. Dr Jack has since been
spotted fondling a giant syringe full of something greenly luminescent
and practising his line, 'Trust me, Harry, I'm a doctor....'"
--
Dave
People say nothing rhymes with orange, but it doesn't.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CE0D23B7CE02da...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> On 13 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Jamison wrote:
>>>> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9CDFD7D15E9EFda...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>>>> Well, I've got nothing against skiffy fans being seen as heroes
>>>>> 8-). I just get the impression that the writers have a definition
>>>>> of Heroic Skiffy Fan that doesn't include me.
>>>>>
>>>> Good point. It probably wouldn't include me either.
>>>
>>> And certainly not me, I don't even go to DW conventions. Still it's
>>> fun to read about them (both kinds), especially in something so
>>> well-written and entertaining, and I have no objection to being told
>>> repeatedly that as an SF reader I am a Superior Person.
>>
>> But that's just it; the feeling I get is of being told repeatedly
>> that if I was the Right Kind of SF reader I'd be a Superior Person,
>> but as a hippy vegetarian eco-freak, I'm decidedly not.
>>
>
> What's wrong with being a hippy vegetarian eco-freak SF reader?
IMO, nothing. But I get the impression the authors of Fallen Angels
disagree.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:40:28 +1100, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> to write:
> The bad guys were "Greens" with a mix of other new-age types. The
> basic plotline (for the folks who *haven't* read it) is that:
>
> 1. The Greens have taken over most of the world's governments and
> enacted laws and policies to halt global warming. They've been so
> effective that they've triggered a new ice age.
> This government is also moderately repressive--in the winter
> thermostats may not be set warmer than 55 degrees F, artwork must be
> approved by the National Endowwment for the Arts, technophilia isn't a
> crime *per se* but you're unlikely to get raises or promotions, modems
> must be licensed, etc.
That's the bit that gets me. I don't know a single technophobic
environmentalist. All the greens I know love gadgetry as much as they do
sf[1].
The "Eco-utopia" isn't a world where we've all gone back to living on
farms, it's one where we live in cities that, thanks to the wonders of
science, no longer produce any pollution.
[1]One of the reviews I mentioned essentially said "*Why* are science
fiction fans a plucky band of rebels? If the environmentalists really
took over, many science fiction fans would be *part* of that."
Janaina Rudberg
/Janaina
Chris Zakes
*In*the*story* there's a strong Luddite strain in the Greens--they
tend to blame technology for everything that's gone wrong. (Except
for one, who's a closet SF fan and wants to move all the polluting
industries into orbit.)
As one example, "air thieves"--the space station's dip trips to
replenish their air supply--and the "thousands of pounds" of air
they've taken from earth is the official explanation of why there's a
new ice age.
Ultimately, it's like the Shelob-vs-terrestrial spiders discussion;
since it's fiction, the authors can make things work any way they
want.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I hallucinate gently for a living.
-Terry Pratchett
GaryN
> On 14 Dec 2009, Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>
>>> I actually saw LOH as far more of a 'how do people bear up under
>>> pressure?' novel than an 'Oh No - the aliens are coming'. The human
>>> element (particularly the HI) is actually dealt with rather well.
>>> Also thought the life cycle was quite neat and the "Oh F**k what
>>> have we done" factor was spot on.
>>
>> I got the impression (from him) that the life-cycle was designed by,
>> or in conjunction with, Jack Cohen (of SoD fame). He certainly
>> claimed to have designed the ecosystem for that and other books.
>
> And he rarely seems to get credit from the authors involved (James
> White was an exception, IIRC).
<snip>
The life cycle in LOH was most definitely described/designed by Jack
Cohen as acknowledged below:-
Frontpiece from my 1987 hardback copy:
"Jack Cohen is one of the world's experts on fertility and reproduction.
He is also a rabid science fiction fan who - inspired by his knowledge
of the queerer forms of earthly life - constantly generates new concepts
for aliens. He tends to give his aliens away to whatever science
fiction writer is standing nearest.
He was at Larry Niven's house when he described an African frog with
nasty habits.
It's been a long time Jack. Thanks for waiting."
That looks to me like giving credit, and an apology, where it's due.
Lesley Weston
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>>> On 13 Dec 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Jamison wrote:
>>>>> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CDFD7D15E9EFda...@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>> Well, I've got nothing against skiffy fans being seen as heroes
>>>>>> 8-). I just get the impression that the writers have a definition
>>>>>> of Heroic Skiffy Fan that doesn't include me.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Good point. It probably wouldn't include me either.
>>>> And certainly not me, I don't even go to DW conventions. Still it's
>>>> fun to read about them (both kinds), especially in something so
>>>> well-written and entertaining, and I have no objection to being told
>>>> repeatedly that as an SF reader I am a Superior Person.
>>> But that's just it; the feeling I get is of being told repeatedly
>>> that if I was the Right Kind of SF reader I'd be a Superior Person,
>>> but as a hippy vegetarian eco-freak, I'm decidedly not.
>>>
>> you did you'd find that its portrayal of /all/ SF fans, in all our
>> weird and wonderful variety, is sympathetic to put it mildly.
>>
>
> I would suggest, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong,
You would be, but you're not.
> that what
> Lesley is saying is that there's room for all of us. As long as we
> retain our individual, sometimes argumentative, views then we can damn
> well say what we like. Possibly we may occasionally make someone think
> slightly differently about things.
That's it. Plus the point that Niven /et al/ are in favour of /all/ SF
fans, whatever part of the spectrum we occupy.
>
> It'd be a bloody boring NG if we all agreed about everything all the
> time!
I can't agree... (Well I can and do of course, but what else am I
supposed to say?)
Lesley Weston
But it's made clear in both books that they are indeed sapient. We even
have an interior monologue from time to time for the main Grendel in
each book.
>
> That minor difference has never stopped humans killing dolphins and
> whales;
Unfortunately, this is true.
> which aren't 15 foot long semi-aquatic predators with a meat-
> grinder jaw, glandular supercharger and the ability to withstand
> colossal amounts of damage.
>
> Sorry if that was a spoiler for anyone who hasn't read the book.
>
> I actually saw LOH as far more of a 'how do people bear up under
> pressure?' novel than an 'Oh No - the aliens are coming'. The human
> element (particularly the HI) is actually dealt with rather well. Also
> thought the life cycle was quite neat and the "Oh F**k what have we
> done" factor was spot on.
Oh indeed! As I said, I enjoyed the book, even with its questionable
premise.
>
> The sequel, IMO, was somewhat weak.
Not as good as the original, no, but I still enjoyed it.