A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE
Andre Jute
LIFE
by Andre Jute
Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
creation scheme in the history of the world. It starts with human
guilt, always a reliable tool for those who want to control our lives.
In this case the guilt is about the ease conferred by the motor car.
The control freaks made the motor car into a symbol of evil. A whole
bureaucracy with attendant scientific establishments and political
lobbies full of grimfaced activists sprang up to "control the
emissions". Unfortunately for them, the emissions of cars and trucks
were technically easy to control and in no time at all this entire
1960/70s version of the bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex
had very little to do except twiddle its thumbs and go before Congress
to ask for more money.
They needed a new crusade. This was "greenhouse gases", an enlargement
of a nutty fringe concern about a hole in the ozone layer in the
1950/60s. The greenhouse gases are many and complex, but the
bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex had no problem fixing on
CO2 as the evil pinup of their next target. It isn't the most
important greenhouse gas but what the hell, it was less risible to
explain to people than that "cows farting out methane threaten our
planet". Gradually this became a campaign against "global warming"
driven by manmade CO2 emissions.
Soon the canonical faith took shape: CO2 always drove global warming
but man -- oh, all that Christian guilt! -- was especially
destructive. In what seemed like minutes academics who wanted to be on
television were forecasting terrible storms, droughts, famines, a
rolling apocalypse, all due to manmade CO2. This was so successful a
tale that soon politicians felt they had to act, and the United
Nations set up the richly funded and humongously staffed IPCC, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The IPCC was a glorious
trough for all the snouts, including the littlest snouts, the
scientists squealing around the ankles of the bureaucrats for
handouts, called "research allocations". Every few years the IPCC
issued an "Assessment", no less than a policy document for top
politicians, presidents and prime ministers. Oh god, were the
scientists ever in their heaven: they were driving worldwide policy!
The scientists were guided by the experienced bureaucrats, of course,
and soon a system arose of "consensus", because to quibble in public
would endanger the political equilibrium and thus the funding. Nobody
noticed that "consensus" is by definition against the principles of
science, or that the intimidation and persecution of critics of
"global warming" that soon followed from "consensus" was deeply
inimical to the skepticism so essential to the continued conduct of
true science. If there was "consensus" -- if everyone was by
definition in agreement with the aims of the organisation and thus
with the findings -- there was no need for due diligence, for "peer
reviewers" who didn't know the authors of any article, for review of
source data, for review of statistical methods, in fact for any of
that superstructure of hardnosed questioning which meets a paper in
any other branch of science except only the climate and environmental
sciences.
Never mind, nobody who mentioned these uncomfortable truths would long
have a research grant, or a job, or any chance of being published, and
thus promotion and career would be gone. The system had come a full
circle. It was the richest closed shop on earth.
All this "science" about Global Warming (the capitals arrived by
stealth) was applied to making a variety of forecasts of how humans
were driving the planet to hell in a handbasket by CO2 emissions,
which in turn would cause global warming. These computer models were
trumpeted in the media as if they had perfect reality and scientific
respectability, but in fact they were based on very poor statistics
and had such a low level of confidence even from their creators, Joe
Public took only a decade or two to catch on that they were silly
toys, the pretentions of "scientists" and bureaucrats protected from
reality and scrutiny by new doctrines that environmentalist policies
should not be measure by any cost-benefit analysis, and that the
precautionary principle overrode all common sense and certainly the
absence of proof (of course it overrode the absence of proof: the
precautionary principle was designed specifically to override the
absence of proof). Enviromentalism was the new religion and no heresy
was permitted.
A major test of a statistical model which presumes to predict the
future is that it must, given a start date sometime in the past,
accurately map the intervening known period. But none of the vaunted
models of the future put forward by the IPCC as predictors of world
temperature a century or two hence could map out the past reliably.
These models fell down at many points and for many reasons. But, most
strikingly, all fell down badly at two historical points. They are
called the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries it was
much warmer than it has been ever since, including in the 20th
century, and the Little Ice Age, when shortly after the reign of
Elizabeth the First and for the period covering the rise of the
Industrial Revolution, people skated annually on the Thames.
The IPCC case, built into its models, is that manmade CO2 drives
global warming. But there was no exceptional CO2 emissions during the
Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were substantially higher for
centuries on end than they are today. And in the period that includes
the start of the Industrial Revolution, with all that coal being
burned and emitting CO2 like it was going out of fashion, instead of
heat wave, we get a couple of centuries of freezing temperatures!
Ouch! The models couldn't handle these "anomalies".
The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
the model -- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty. Other
models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
deep in the trough.
So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.
So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
looking for ways of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
"global warming" were at stake.
The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.
The IPCC immediately promoted Mann's deeply flawed study from a little
local aberration in tree rings to a global rise in temperature over
two millennia, most of the rise centred in the last decade of the
twentieth century. It was "proof" that human CO2 emissions drove
global temperature! Mann's hockey stick graph was the only one shown
to presidents and prime ministers on which to base environmental
policy costing trillions of taxpayers' money and shaping economies for
decades to come because that sort of fundamental change is not easy to
undo.
You might ask, what happened to the historical evidence of the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why, the IPCC declared
them Euro-centric phenomena. Self-styled "scientists" told this lie in
public. Anyone asking whether these multi-century historical events
happened in the rest of the world was suddenly treated as if he
committed a form of racism ("Euro-centrism"). The IPCC and its
"climate scientists" simply ignored a huge literature proving that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened on every
continent and in every ocean around the world at the same time. It was
as if any paper which was published by anyone except one of the IPCC's
accredited "climate scientists" not only wasn't true, but that it
didn't exist, and more, had no right to exist.
It took the IPCC seven years to discover that Mann's Hockey Stick is a
broken crutch. Neither they nor any of the "scientific reviewers" ever
asked to see Mann's raw data, no one checked his algorithm, no one
checked anything. But two tenacious Canadians, McIntyre and McKittrick
(who should get the Nobel Prize for this service to mankind), with the
help of the US Senate extracted the basic data from a reluctant Mann
and tried to replicate his hockey stick. They found his algorithm so
biased, it would generate hockey sticks from random noise... (That
just about defines zero reliability!) They found his specially
selected data heavily biased towards data with an inherent hockey
stick shape. When they updated the samples Mann worked with by going
to some of the same trees, they couldn't duplicate the hockey stick.
The Mann article in which the IPCC put such faith stood revealed as a
sham on every level.
Mann is discredited, but the IPCC still shows hockey-stick shaped
graphs, adding a new wrinkle: it just cuts off graphs that are
inconvenient in 1950, or whenever they start showing an
"inappropriate" trend.
***
The upshot of all these years of effort, all this money, all this
time, all this publicity, all this waste, is that "global warming" is
merely a matter of faith with "scientists" and bureaucrats with their
noses shamelessly in the public trough. The models are a joke, the
thousands of biased studies have proven nothing except that history is
resistant to revision, and only the committed faihful can now fail to
understand that the IPCC is political body which tells political lies
to hang on to power and funding; absolutely nothing to do with honest
science. The "consensus" maintained by intimidation is breaking down.
The IPCC and all its scientists have failed to prove that there is
global warming: The entire 20th century is cooler than the Medieval
Warm Period. The last decade of the 20th century is cooler than
centuries on end in the Medieval Warm Period.
The IPCC and all its scientists have failed to prove that CO2 --
either natural or manmade -- drives global warming: At a time of
increasing CO2 output from coal during the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution, there was the Little Ice Age for a couple of centuries.
The IPCC and all its scientists have disgraced themselves by trying
dishonesty to throw the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age,
which are historical and scientific truths, into the dustbin of their
bizarre ambition to prove a mirage.
Copyright 2009 Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Lord Valve
Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of "Jewish
physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you get no grant
money, of course. And Algore's getting paid handsomely for his
starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys carbon indulgences from
*himself* every time he flies his private jet somewhere to collect
a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest scam
on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time. I'm crossing
this to AGA, where green weenies, watermelons, hippies, and
otherwise clueless leftards congregate. Watch 'em froth!
Lord Valve
Globally Cool
Andre Jute
> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out that the
> Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of "Jewish
> physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you get no grant
> money, of course. And Algore's getting paid handsomely for his
> starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys carbon indulgences from
> *himself* every time he flies his private jet somewhere to collect
> a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
> swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest scam
> on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time. I'm crossing
> this to AGA, where green weenies, watermelons, hippies, and
> otherwise clueless leftards congregate. Watch 'em froth!
>
> Lord Valve
> Globally Cool
Globally cool? More likely than not, my lord Valve. But I'd rather
global warming and feed the poor: one of the most striking lines in
any IPCC report (and I've read them all, of course) says quite bluntly
that up to 2% of global warming will be good for us economically and
agriculturally. Hey, let's have it then before the Chinese grab all
the good things that come with pollution!
Andre Jute
Supertro-- I mean Supercool
Dave
> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out that
> the Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of "Jewish
> physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you get no grant
> money, of course. And Algore's getting paid handsomely for his
> starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys carbon indulgences from
> *himself* every time he flies his private jet somewhere to collect
> a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
> swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest
> scam on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time. I'm
> crossing
> this to AGA, where green weenies, watermelons, hippies, and
> otherwise clueless leftards congregate. Watch 'em froth!
>
> Lord Valve
> Globally Cool
Please explain why you are not in favor of reduced fossil fuel consumption.
Do you like acid rain, smog, air pollution? Do you like our reliance on
foreign oil? Are you against mass transit, or do you prefer traffic? Are
you against job creation?
Wait, let me guess...<crickets>
Claude V. Lucas
You forgot "Are you in favor of drowning puppies"
Rick N. Backer
off Andre. Jesus love you, Mother Mary thinks you're a wad.
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29f53538-dedc-4a46...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Rick N. Backer
news:4b03755a$0$1658$742e...@news.sonic.net...
We don't ask what we already know.
DGDevin
> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out that
> the Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of "Jewish
> physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you get no grant
> money, of course.
Fire good! Willie like fire! Willie cook food on fire. Fire keep Willie
warm when Denver buried in snow. Owwww! Fire hot, fire burn Willie!
Willie need to learn to hold food over fire on stick, not hand.
Les Cargill
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:57:33 -0500, "Dave" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>> Do you like acid rain, smog, air pollution?
>
>
Aw, c'mon. Can't we cripple it just a little? Please?
Dubner & Leavitt* were on Charlie Rose. They were talking
about some guy who has a *reasonably priced* way to
shift the albedo of the atmosphere, which would reflect
just a smidgen of sunlight back out into space. It's
completely reversible ( so if there's an "oops"),
involved pumping sulphur dioxide
into the stratosphere.
*superfreakonomics
"So basically what it�s trying to do, it�s a technological solution to
mimic a volcano.
We know that when really big volcanoes explode they send sulphuric ash
into the stratosphere, very high up, and what's happened - the most
recent one was 1991 at Mt Pinatubo - the sulphur dioxide mixes with
water vapour at that altitude and it circles the world and forms a kind
of a sunscreen that cooled global ground temperatures by more than one
degree for a period of a couple of years. "
Nobody is even looking at stuff like that. Because you
can take positive action, with measurable outcome, and...
Then you have to find another job.
--
Les Cargill
Trevor Wilson
>A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
> LIFE
> by Andre Jute
>
> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
> creation scheme in the history of the world. It starts with human
> guilt, always a reliable tool for those who want to control our lives.
> In this case the guilt is about the ease conferred by the motor car.
> The control freaks made the motor car into a symbol of evil. A whole
> bureaucracy with attendant scientific establishments and political
> lobbies full of grimfaced activists sprang up to "control the
> emissions". Unfortunately for them, the emissions of cars and trucks
> were technically easy to control and in no time at all this entire
> 1960/70s version of the bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex
> had very little to do except twiddle its thumbs and go before Congress
> to ask for more money.
>
> They needed a new crusade. This was "greenhouse gases", an enlargement
> of a nutty fringe concern about a hole in the ozone layer in the
> 1950/60s.
**Not even close. The GHG problem was first mooted by Fourier and then
Arrhenius in the 19th century. Both guys were exceptionally clever guys,
whose legacies we all enjoy today.
The greenhouse gases are many and complex, but the
> bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex had no problem fixing on
> CO2 as the evil pinup of their next target. It isn't the most
> important greenhouse gas
**Correct. It is the SECOND most important GHG. OTOH, it remains in the
atmosphere for many decades, unlike the most important GHG, which has an
atmospheric life measured in days. It is also the only GHG (apart from
methane) which has dramatically increased over the last 150 years. And, make
no mistake: A 30% increase is a substantial one.
but what the hell, it was less risible to
> explain to people than that "cows farting out methane threaten our
> planet".
**Technically speaking, it is not cow's farts that are the problem. Most of
their methane emissions occur through gut bacteria and is emitted from the
other end of the animal.
Gradually this became a campaign against "global warming"
> driven by manmade CO2 emissions.
**Hardly surprising. That's where the evidence leads. We caused the extra
30% of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, it is our fault.
>
> Soon the canonical faith took shape: CO2 always drove global warming
> but man
**Bollocks! No one said anything of the sort. There are and have been many
drivers of climate on the planet. CO2 is ONE influence.
-- oh, all that Christian guilt! -- was especially
> destructive. In what seemed like minutes academics who wanted to be on
> television were forecasting terrible storms, droughts, famines, a
> rolling apocalypse, all due to manmade CO2.
**It seems that they're not so wrong. We, here in Australia, see the effects
all too clearly. As do those in the Southern US and many other areas.
This was so successful a
> tale that soon politicians felt they had to act, and the United
> Nations set up the richly funded and humongously staffed IPCC, the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control.
**Not as richly funded as these guys:
Exxon
Shell
Texaco
BHP
Et al
There are VERY considerable resources behind the climate change deniers. No
real science to speak of, but huge chunks of money. Enough money to get
people to do and say anything. Naturally, the scientific illiterates and the
religious morons will cling on to any hope and dream, rather than face the
truth.
The IPCC was a glorious
> trough for all the snouts, including the littlest snouts, the
> scientists squealing around the ankles of the bureaucrats for
> handouts, called "research allocations". Every few years the IPCC
> issued an "Assessment", no less than a policy document for top
> politicians, presidents and prime ministers. Oh god, were the
> scientists ever in their heaven: they were driving worldwide policy!
**I see. Tell us about Prof Lindzen and his income of more than
US$2,500.00/day, paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie. The same Lindzen
who claimed that tobacco smoke was harmless. The fossil fuel industry is
using EXACTLY the same tactics used by the tobacco industry for decades. It
was a successful model and they have emulated it.
>
> The scientists were guided by the experienced bureaucrats, of course,
**Well, no, they weren't. The scientists sounded the alarm LONG before any
politicians accepted the facts (the 19th contury, in fact). Don't let that
little fact get in the way of your rhetoric though. Are you still reading
from the fossil fool playbook?
> and soon a system arose of "consensus", because to quibble in public
> would endanger the political equilibrium and thus the funding.
**Nope. What arose was a realisation amongst educated people that there is a
significant problem. The uneducated and those with an agenda, dispute those
facts.
Nobody
> noticed that "consensus" is by definition against the principles of
> science, or that the intimidation and persecution of critics of
> "global warming" that soon followed from "consensus" was deeply
> inimical to the skepticism so essential to the continued conduct of
> true science. If there was "consensus" -- if everyone was by
> definition in agreement with the aims of the organisation and thus
> with the findings -- there was no need for due diligence, for "peer
> reviewers" who didn't know the authors of any article, for review of
> source data, for review of statistical methods, in fact for any of
> that superstructure of hardnosed questioning which meets a paper in
> any other branch of science except only the climate and environmental
> sciences.
**Bollocks. Climate science IS peer-reviewed. Read the IPCC reports, for a
start.
>
> Never mind, nobody who mentioned these uncomfortable truths would long
> have a research grant, or a job, or any chance of being published, and
> thus promotion and career would be gone. The system had come a full
> circle. It was the richest closed shop on earth.
**Nope. This guy is MUCH richer (he earns roughly the same amount as 400 ~
500 scientists):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/business/15pay.html?_r=1
He earns enough to pay one prominent denier more than US$2,500.00 per day.
There's a whole lot of cash in the oil (coal, gas, etc) industry.
>
> All this "science" about Global Warming (the capitals arrived by
> stealth) was applied to making a variety of forecasts of how humans
> were driving the planet to hell in a handbasket by CO2 emissions,
> which in turn would cause global warming. These computer models were
> trumpeted in the media as if they had perfect reality and scientific
> respectability, but in fact they were based on very poor statistics
**Certainly, the figures are speculation, as we are headed into uncharted
territory.
> and had such a low level of confidence even from their creators, Joe
> Public took only a decade or two to catch on that they were silly
> toys, the pretentions of "scientists" and bureaucrats protected from
> reality and scrutiny by new doctrines that environmentalist policies
> should not be measure by any cost-benefit analysis, and that the
> precautionary principle overrode all common sense and certainly the
> absence of proof (of course it overrode the absence of proof: the
> precautionary principle was designed specifically to override the
> absence of proof). Enviromentalism was the new religion and no heresy
> was permitted.
**Not so. Unscientific gobbledegook is not permitted. Peer-reviewed science
is always permitted.
>
> A major test of a statistical model which presumes to predict the
> future is that it must, given a start date sometime in the past,
> accurately map the intervening known period. But none of the vaunted
> models of the future put forward by the IPCC as predictors of world
> temperature a century or two hence could map out the past reliably.
**No need. We know the conditions of the past. We don't know the future.
>
> These models fell down at many points and for many reasons. But, most
> strikingly, all fell down badly at two historical points. They are
> called the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries it was
> much warmer than it has been ever since, including in the 20th
> century
**Over a localised area, yes. It was not a planet-wide event.
, and the Little Ice Age, when shortly after the reign of
> Elizabeth the First and for the period covering the rise of the
> Industrial Revolution, people skated annually on the Thames.
**And again.
>
> The IPCC case, built into its models, is that manmade CO2 drives
> global warming.
**Bollocks. I suggest you actually READ the IPCC reports (IN FULL), before
you make such idiotic and demonstrably false proclamations. The IPCC takes
ALL the known climate drivers into account. That includes things like water
vapour, methane, variations in Solar flux and a host of other stuff. The
IPCC reports are mindbogglingly comprehensive. I am not surprised that you
have failed to read them. They are, after all, highly scientific reports.
Somethign you appear to lack familiarity with.
But there was no exceptional CO2 emissions during the
> Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were substantially higher for
> centuries on end than they are today.
**So fucking what? The PRESENT warming is due to excessive CO2 levels. That
does not mean that CO2 was necessarily the driver of past climate change.
And in the period that includes
> the start of the Industrial Revolution, with all that coal being
> burned and emitting CO2 like it was going out of fashion, instead of
> heat wave, we get a couple of centuries of freezing temperatures!
> Ouch! The models couldn't handle these "anomalies".
**The dawn of the industrial revolution, saw a couple of things:
1) A GRADUAL increase in CO2 levels (not the massive and instant change you
claim).
2) A huge increase in smoke, which actually blocks the effects of CO2.
>
> The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
> for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
> the model
**No, they're not.
- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty.
**Repeat after me:
CO2 IS _ONE_ DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING.
CO2 IS _ONE_ DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING.
CO2 IS _ONE_ DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING.
There are many drivers of global warming. CO2 is one.
Other
> models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
> historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
> and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
> an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
> deep in the trough.
**Bollocks. Read the IPCC reports and stop parroting the lies you've been
fed. The IPCC reports exmine Solar variability.
>
> So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
> But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
> looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
> industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
> appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.
**Nope. It's the scientists vs. the fossil fuel lobby and the idiots. It's
not faith. It's science vs. money and stupidity.
>
> So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
> looking for ways of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and the
> Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
> truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
> modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
> longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
> Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
> that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
> record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
> entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
> result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
> upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
> revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
> figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
> bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
> "global warming" were at stake.
**Yadda, yadda, yadda. Read the damned IPCC reports and learn something.
Read them IN FULL.
>
> The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
> Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
> new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
> very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
> he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
> examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
> to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
> IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.
**The MBH98 reconstruction has been dealt with many times. I suggest you get
with the programme and move on.
<SNIP> Bleating bullshit.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Fu Knee
Humans discovered every problem known to man. Most importantly, they
are searching for more. Trying to claim that only a long, full life
has value is lovely. But, a bit dismissive of all those who die young
due to famine, flood, disease, Earthquake, fire, weather, war, and,
the ever threatening "black hole" of human thought, boredom.
Yes, this planet is not a constant. Never was, never is, never will
be. But, there were never any good old days to go back to, neither.
All work is "makework". There is no grand plan, we just don't want to
die. Scientific research is fun, especially if you can get someone to
pay you to do it.Trying to stop others doing naughty deeds is fun,
too. Everybody does it. There may be some lack of focus on exactly
what naughty is, but, cruel and unusual punishment is always the
funnest part, anyhow.
______
I got a nice old amp in yesterday's mail. Ebay baby, with the
shipping, cost less than my last bank fee. Language is tricky, as I
truly doubt it was my last bank fee.
At the tender age of 62, I am still learning amazing new ways to
reward my bank.
Anyway, huge power transformer, 5U4-G, 6J5, and a pair of 6V6GT
driving a lovely little round can output transformer. Not sure of the
vintage, but the writing on the caps appears to be Sanscrit. Chassis
may be bent box steel plate. The mass of exteral connections suggest
it was once at home in a console "Entertainment Center".
______
"Entertainment Center" used to be Saturday night at the city hall.
Ages 13-17 only. They played loud rock'n'roll records and a 6 ounce
bottle of Coca-Cola was a nickel. Free admission. Really popular. You
could stand around watching the girls' boobs grow as they danced.
______
Happy Ears!
Al
Ian Bell
> A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
> LIFE
> by Andre Jute
>
> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
> creation scheme in the history of the world.
Spot on Andre. In the UK they were growing grapes in the North of
England during the medieval warm period. The famous Vine Street in
London is named because that is what it was full of at that time.
The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
temperature increases by about 800 years. Oh look, its about 800 years
since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for an increase
in CO2.
Cheers
Ian
Stephen Cowell
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote
> "Dave" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>Please explain why you are not in favor of reduced fossil fuel
>>consumption.
>
> Because, despite it's flaws, I think modern society is still better
> than living in caves.
False dichotomy... the fallacy of the excluded middle.
First, you have to get them to think.
Good
Luck
!
__
Steve
.
Dave
>>> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out
>>> that the Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of
>>> "Jewish physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you
>>> get no grant money, of course. And Algore's getting paid
>>> handsomely for his starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys
>>> carbon indulgences from *himself* every time he flies his private
>>> jet somewhere to collect
>>> a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
>>> swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest
>>> scam on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time. I'm
>>> crossing
>>> this to AGA, where green weenies, watermelons, hippies, and
>>> otherwise clueless leftards congregate. Watch 'em froth!
>>>
>>> Lord Valve
>>> Globally Cool
>>
>> Please explain why you are not in favor of reduced fossil fuel
>> consumption.
>
> than living in caves.
Bzzt! You've just discredited yourself entirely. The usual straw man
argument.
> An exaggeration? Well, the same nuts who want to eliminate every
> viable energy source don't want you cutting trees for shelter or heat
> either.
>
>> Do you like acid rain, smog, air pollution?
>
> No, and those thing are addressable without destroying the economy.
Straw man.
>> Do you like our reliance on
>> foreign oil?
>
> No, which is why we should be developing the multi-hundred years worth
> of energy resources sitting right under our own feet.
That would continue to pollute our environment.
>> Are you against mass transit, or do you prefer traffic?
>
> "Mass transit" doesn't go when and where I want and it's unlikely ever
> to because I don't live in a multi-story sardine cane sandwiched
> in-between a hundred other multi-story sardine cans.
Another bogus argument. If the mass transit doesn't exist, of course it
won't take you where you want. And once again, no one is suggesting it's
the answer in every case. It's IN ADDITION to our present system.
>> Are
>> you against job creation?
>
> If you want "job creation' just pay everyone to move rocks back and
> forth, or any other useless task.
Straw man.
> "Job creation" that wastes resources is simply wasting resources.
That's right, which is why we should move away from fossil fuels. Renewable
energy employs more people than fossil fuel systems, WITHOUT wasting
resources.
>> Wait, let me guess...<crickets>
>
> I'll ask you one. Do you like the idea of skyrocketing electricity
> costs? Because that's what out Dear Leader promise his cap and trade
> program will cause.
Skyrocketing? I'm not sure that that's the case. However, if people like
you hadn't been resisting the gradual switch to renewables over the past 40
yrs, we wouldn't be in the position of having to take the more urgent action
that's required.
Trevor Wilson
"Ian Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:he10du$nfm$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> Andre Jute wrote:
>> A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
>> LIFE
>> by Andre Jute
>>
>> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
>> creation scheme in the history of the world.
>
> Spot on Andre. In the UK they were growing grapes in the North of England
> during the medieval warm period. The famous Vine Street in London is named
> because that is what it was full of at that time.
>
> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
> temperature increases by about 800 years.
**Does it? Got some evidence to support that? I've examined the data and it
shows nothing of the sort.
Oh look, its about 800 years
> since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for an increase
> in CO2.
**Well, yes, we are. As the planet warms, it will cause an outgassing of CO2
from the oceans. Soon after, we'll see the release of massive quantities of
methane from the permafrost. Then we'll be screwed and nothing we can do
will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway. A 7 degree C rise is
not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the planet will be unihabitable as
a result.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Andre Jute
wrote:
> "Ian Bell" <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
So, basically, according to you, Trevor, the four hoursemen of the
apocalypse are just turning the corner at the end of your block.
I hope they don't skid in the corner and fall before they get to you,
and thereby deprive you of the satisfaction of being right.
Will there be time to say farewell to you before they scythe you down
or freeze you or frizzle you or whatever is this week's hobbyhorse of
the trendy apocalyptics?
Andre Jute
Guzzlin' gaz and kickin' ass -- Bumper sticker on self-mocking
American SUV
Andre Jute
LOL. Don't expect the global warmies to smile: you're preaching heresy
right in their faces. -- AJ
Andre Jute
> "Entertainment Center" used to be Saturday night at the city hall.
> Ages 13-17 only. They played loud rock'n'roll records and a 6 ounce
> bottle of Coca-Cola was a nickel. Free admission. Really popular. You
> could stand around watching the girls' boobs grow as they danced.
How do you know you're old? When you remember the firmness and texture
before names... -- AJ
Andre Jute
Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
matter:
> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
> <SNIP> Bleating bullshit.
Poor Trev, totally out of his depth when confronted by the facts!
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
On Nov 18, 9:25 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Too Long in the Wasteland
> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article.
>>
>
>
>
>
I guess the couple of thousand other scientists and scholars are
idiots compared to this guy's resume of adventures :
" Born in Oudtshoorn, South Africa, Andre Jute was educated at the
Universities of Stellenbosch (South Africa) and Adelaide. He has had a
variety of occupations and interests, including advertising (he became a
partner in an advertising company at the age of 23 and retired at 26),
intelligence officer, racing driver, big game hunter, actor, critic of
theatre, music and art, magazine editor, public relations officer and
professional gambler. "
Trevor Wilson
**Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
degree C rise seems certain. By the end of the next century, the rise will
accelerate.
I hope they don't skid in the corner and fall before they get to you,
and thereby deprive you of the satisfaction of being right.
Will there be time to say farewell to you before they scythe you down
or freeze you or frizzle you or whatever is this week's hobbyhorse of
the trendy apocalyptics?
**As you well know, things will happen slowly (on a human scale). On a
geologic scale, the progress is simply breathtakingly fast.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
matter:
> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
**Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your admission
that I am correct.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Pearce
Any chance of you resetting your Outlook Express so it quotes
properly? You are screwing every thread you contribute to.
d
DGDevin
That's just the sort of person Willie finds persuasive when it comes to
science, someone not burdened with a lot of excess academic knowledge about
a particular subject like say climatology. Hell, in Willie's world a cab
driver or barber with some funny stories to tell is a more persuasive source
of scientific insight than some egghead who went to school an extra ten
years just to string some letters after his name.
RichL
> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out that
> the Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of "Jewish
> physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you get no grant
> money, of course. And Algore's getting paid handsomely for his
> starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys carbon indulgences from
> *himself* every time he flies his private jet somewhere to collect
> a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
> swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest
> scam on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time.
Poor Willie thinks Al Gore has input into decisions as to what
scientific research is funded.
Sorry, Wilbur. Your rant is nonsense. Al doesn't get paid a cent for
any input into these decisions. He *may* in principle have had a tad of
influence when he was V.P., but no more.
I wouldn't *want* him in on it. He doesn't know the details like the
real scientists do.
Carbon indulgences have nothing to do with the research end of things,
either. They're simply a political compromise. Not a very good one in
my humble estimation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the
science.
Trevor Wilson
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4b058273....@news.eternal-september.org...
**Only to idiots who use Google Groups. I'll see what I can do. OE doesn't
like Google Groups for some reason.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Andre Jute
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:18a691f9-3944-4f06...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
> Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
> my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
> matter:
>
> > I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
>
> and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
>
> **Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
>
> I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your admission
> that I am correct.
Dream on!
Andre Jute
>> >... we'll be screwed and nothing we can do
>> > will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway. A 7 degree
>> > planet will be unihabitableas a result.
Andre Jute replied in a caring, sharing voice:
>> So, basically, according to you, Trevor, the four hoursemen of the
>> apocalypse are just turning the corner at the end of your block?
Wilson:
> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
> degree C rise seems certain.
You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people. So
that's no problem, if one can believe these clowns.
> By the end of the next century, the rise will
> accelerate.
They couldn't forecast a cool decade directly after a hot decade, but
they want us to believe they can forecast a century ahead? Er, Trevor,
if some clown asked you to invest money on such a basis, what would
you say to him and how hard would you kick his arse?
> I hope they don't skid in the corner and fall before they get to you,
> and thereby deprive you of the satisfaction of being right.
>
> Will there be time to say farewell to you before they scythe you down
> or freeze you or frizzle you or whatever is this week's hobbyhorse of
> the trendy apocalyptics?
>
> **As you well know, things will happen slowly (on a human scale). On a
> geologic scale, the progress is simply breathtakingly fast.
Crap. We are a long, long way from any historical extreme of either
CO2 or temperature. See
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
Looks like those guys on the big black horses aren't coming for you
yet, Trev. I'm relieved; I know Patrick will be too. We don't when
them to start bush fires when they flash you off.
In fact, it looks like they're not coming until the Sun settles all
accounts on some day 5 billion years into the future.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Ian Bell
> "Ian Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:he10du$nfm$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
>>> LIFE
>>> by Andre Jute
>>>
>>> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
>>> creation scheme in the history of the world.
>> Spot on Andre. In the UK they were growing grapes in the North of England
>> during the medieval warm period. The famous Vine Street in London is named
>> because that is what it was full of at that time.
>>
>> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
>> temperature increases by about 800 years.
>
> **Does it? Got some evidence to support that? I've examined the data and it
> shows nothing of the sort.
>
yes it does, I have examined it and that is exactly what is shows.
> Oh look, its about 800 years
>> since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for an increase
>> in CO2.
>
> **Well, yes, we are. As the planet warms, it will cause an outgassing of CO2
> from the oceans. Soon after, we'll see the release of massive quantities of
> methane from the permafrost. Then we'll be screwed and nothing we can do
> will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway. A 7 degree C rise is
> not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the planet will be unihabitable as
> a result.
>
>
Rubbish.
Cheers
Ian
Ian Bell
I now, and I don't care. The STUPID thing is that it IS heresy.
Cheers
Ian
Peter Wieck
> I now, and I don't care. The STUPID thing is that it IS heresy.
Funny thing about heresy - that it is heretical does not necessarily
make it true or untrue. And, in the same way as it applies to the
existence of God (as we are in the realm of religion as only religion
is amenable to heresy) Pascal's Wager also applies to Global Warming.
God either exists or does not exist. Small modifications to one's
behavior based on the possibility of such existance costs very little
- almost nothing at all if one subscribes to the Social Contract in
any case. The alternative is not to be contemplated.
Global Warming does not have precisely the same consequences, of
course - but the sentiment is the similar. Now, as very most everyone
here has a) never missed a meal other than by choice and b) is
comfortably well fixed for the present and foreseeable future we are
mostly separated from any such consequences actual or apocryphal. As
is always the case in these things - the shortages will be divided
amongst the peasants. So why change? Why even discuss it or even think
about it. But small changes to one's behavior based on a possibility
may have significant consequences - and the cost of such changes are
again very nearly nil if one subscribes to the Social Contract in the
first place.
Peter WIeck
Melrose Park, PA
Rick N. Backer
news:OM-dnSbukswEG5nW...@supernews.com...
female dolphin from rec. audiofools.tubes. What better sources of fact
could you possibly expect to come up with than that.
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Ian Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:he10du$nfm$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
>>>> LIFE
>>>> by Andre Jute
>>>>
>>>> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
>>>> creation scheme in the history of the world.
>>> Spot on Andre. In the UK they were growing grapes in the North of
>>> England during the medieval warm period. The famous Vine Street in
>>> London is named because that is what it was full of at that time.
>>>
>>> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
>>> temperature increases by about 800 years.
>>
>> **Does it? Got some evidence to support that? I've examined the data and
>> it shows nothing of the sort.
>>
>
> yes it does, I have examined it and that is exactly what is shows.
**Saying is does, is not the same as supplying the evidence. I accapt that
you are unable to supply evidence to support your claim.
>
>> Oh look, its about 800 years
>>> since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for an increase
>>> in CO2.
>>
>> **Well, yes, we are. As the planet warms, it will cause an outgassing of
>> CO2 from the oceans. Soon after, we'll see the release of massive
>> quantities of methane from the permafrost. Then we'll be screwed and
>> nothing we can do will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway.
>> A 7 degree C rise is not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the planet
>> will be unihabitable as a result.
>>
>>
>
> Rubbish.
**I hope you're right. Sadly, the evidence shows you are not.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> >... we'll be screwed and nothing we can do
>>> > will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway. A 7 degree
>>> > C riseis not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the
>>> > planet will be unihabitableas a result.
>
> Andre Jute replied in a caring, sharing voice:
>>> So, basically, according to you, Trevor, the four hoursemen of the
>>> apocalypse are just turning the corner at the end of your block?
>
> Wilson:
>> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
>> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
>> degree C rise seems certain.
>
> You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people.
**"a 2% temperature rise"? Really? Cite the page number and which report.
Explain what 2% implies. Is that 2% relative to Absolute zero? ie: 2%
of -273 degrees.
Further: 2 degrees C rise will certainly benefit SOME occupants of this
planet. No doubt about that. The people of Greenland will be the big
winners. The people of Southern Australia, much of the US, Africa, Southern
Europe will be screwed however. The animals that cannot move too far, nor
fast, nor evolve quickly, will have big problems.
Oh yeah: Cite the page numbers where the IPCC claims that a "2% (whatever
the Hell that means) temperature rise would be beneficial to the earth and
its plants and people".
So
> that's no problem, if one can believe these clowns.
>
>> By the end of the next century, the rise will
>> accelerate.
>
> They couldn't forecast a cool decade directly after a hot decade, but
> they want us to believe they can forecast a century ahead?
**I suggest you study up on the term: "trend". The TREND is to higher
temperatures. Fluctuations over days, months or even a decade do not
necessarily represent a trend.
Er, Trevor,
> if some clown asked you to invest money on such a basis, what would
> you say to him and how hard would you kick his arse?
**I already have invested my money into the fact of global warming.
>
>> I hope they don't skid in the corner and fall before they get to you,
>> and thereby deprive you of the satisfaction of being right.
>>
>> Will there be time to say farewell to you before they scythe you down
>> or freeze you or frizzle you or whatever is this week's hobbyhorse of
>> the trendy apocalyptics?
>>
>> **As you well know, things will happen slowly (on a human scale). On a
>> geologic scale, the progress is simply breathtakingly fast.
>
> Crap. We are a long, long way from any historical extreme of either
> CO2 or temperature. See
> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
>
**You don't do much research, before you type, do you?
These guys own the World Climate Report site:
http://www.westernfuels.org/index.cfm
BTW: They accept that CO2 is a GHG.
> Looks like those guys on the big black horses aren't coming for you
> yet, Trev. I'm relieved; I know Patrick will be too. We don't when
> them to start bush fires when they flash you off.
**I realise that English may not be your first language, but, perhaps you
could re-state what you are trying to say in some kind of English that most
of us are familiar with.
>
> In fact, it looks like they're not coming until the Sun settles all
> accounts on some day 5 billion years into the future.
**Global warming will not end life on this planet. It will make it far less
comfortable though.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
RichL
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:44:03 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out
>>> that the Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of
>>> "Jewish physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you
>>> get no grant money, of course. And Algore's getting paid
>>> handsomely for his starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys
>>> carbon indulgences from *himself* every time he flies his private
>>> jet somewhere to collect
>>> a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
>>> swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest
>>> scam on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time.
>>
>> Poor Willie thinks Al Gore has input into decisions as to what
>> scientific research is funded.
>>
>> Sorry, Wilbur. Your rant is nonsense. Al doesn't get paid a cent
>> for any input into these decisions. He *may* in principle have had
>> a tad of influence when he was V.P., but no more.
>
> film have no influence.
On political decisions, perhaps. On scientific research, very little.
LV's talking grant money. I reviewed scientific grant applications
during a substantial portion of my career. One thing's for sure,
scientists in that position don't like political interference, whether
it comes from the left or the right.
Andre Jute
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
> >> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
> >> degree C rise seems certain.
Andre Jute replied helpfully:
> > You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> > IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> > rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people.
Wilson:
> **"a 2% temperature rise"? Really? Cite the page number and which report.
Jute:
But, my dear Trevor, you're the one who claims to have read the IPCC
reports and to have such faith in them. Now we catch you being totally
ignorant a pivotal passage!
Here's a hint. The year is 2001 and the passage you're searching for
reads:
“in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2% Celsius.”
Of course, that's what the scientists said in the main body of the
report. By the time the lying bureaucrats of the IPCC finished with
it, in the Summary for Policy Makers this positive statement had been
weaseled round to say the very opposite: “an increase in global mean
temperature of up to a few degrees C would produce a mixture of
economic gains and losses in developed countries”. That negative
statement is not what the scientists said: that's entirely a
bureacratic, political invention.
Wilson:
> Explain what 2% implies. Is that 2% relative to Absolute zero? ie: 2%
> of -273 degrees.
Jute:
Trying some weaseling of your own, eh Trevor?
> Further: 2 degrees C rise will certainly benefit SOME occupants of this
> planet. No doubt about that. The people of Greenland will be the big
> winners. The people of Southern Australia, much of the US, Africa, Southern
> Europe will be screwed however.
Totally unsupported, unfounded speculation. The US, Southern Europe
and quite a bit of Africa is nicely "developed", thank you. You're
like some religious fundamentalist, Trevor, lashing out with denials
at anything that even remotely undermines your faith in your
irrational religion of global warming, even when spoken by its high
priests.
>The animals that cannot move too far, nor
> fast, nor evolve quickly, will have big problems.
Animals die all the time. Climate change is the norm. It is natural.
There's more weaseling and chiseling from our Trev but I'm getting
bored with him, so I snipped it. The above example does perfectly by
itself to illuminate his gross ignorance and his asinine stubbornness,
not to mention his religious fervour for global warming.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
RichL
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:32:02 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:44:03 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out
>>>>> that the Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of
>>>>> "Jewish physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you
>>>>> get no grant money, of course. And Algore's getting paid
>>>>> handsomely for his starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys
>>>>> carbon indulgences from *himself* every time he flies his private
>>>>> jet somewhere to collect
>>>>> a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
>>>>> swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest
>>>>> scam on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time.
>>>>
>>>> Poor Willie thinks Al Gore has input into decisions as to what
>>>> scientific research is funded.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Wilbur. Your rant is nonsense. Al doesn't get paid a cent
>>>> for any input into these decisions. He *may* in principle have had
>>>> a tad of influence when he was V.P., but no more.
>>>
>>> You are living in a dream world if you think Al Gore and his fantasy
>>> film have no influence.
>>
>> On political decisions, perhaps.
>
>
> Are you nuts?
>
>> On scientific research, very little.
>> LV's talking grant money.
>
> fund grants?
Politics certainly enters in to decisions as to how much money to
allocate to various research areas. But at the individual proposal
level, it matters very little.
>> I reviewed scientific grant applications
>> during a substantial portion of my career. One thing's for sure,
>> scientists in that position don't like political interference,
>> whether it comes from the left or the right.
>
> Good luck on getting a 'climate' grant that's not global warming.
From where I sit, there isn't much out there in the "anti"-global
warming arena that would qualify as legitimate science. You don't see
much funding for grants based on proposals that claim to "disprove"
Einstein's special relativity, either.
"WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Council of the American Physical Society has
overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society's 2007
Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about
global warming.
"The Council's vote came after it received a report from a committee of
eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a
petition submitted by a group of APS members. The petition had requested
that APS remove and replace the Society's current statement. The
committee recommended that the Council reject the petition.
"The committee also recommended that the current APS statement be
allowed to stand, but it requested that the Society's Panel on Public
Affairs (POPA) examine the statement for possible improvements in
clarity and tone. POPA regularly reviews all APS statements to ensure
that they are relevant and up-to-date regarding new scientific findings.
"Appointed by APS President Cherry Murray and chaired by MIT Physicist
Daniel Kleppner, the committee examined the statement during the past
four months. Dr. Kleppner's committee reached its conclusion based upon
a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research. APS
members were also given an opportunity to advise the Council on the
matter. On Nov. 8, the Council voted, accepting the committee's
recommendation to reject the proposed statement and refer the original
statement to POPA for review."
_____
That's the ultimate peer review.
Stephen Cowell
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:2jo8g55p7osuiql33...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:01:08 -0600, "Stephen Cowell"
> <stephenleeN...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote
>>> "Dave" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Please explain why you are not in favor of reduced fossil fuel
>>>>consumption.
>>>
>>> Because, despite it's flaws, I think modern society is still better
>>> than living in caves.
>>
>>False dichotomy... the fallacy of the excluded middle.
>
> And just where did I say those were the only two choices?
About the time you abused the apostrophe in the
sentence beginning 'Because...'. Are you attempting
to un-say it?
> And don't say I 'implied' it either because I clearly 'implied' the
> opposite in the next sentence you neglected to include.
Sorry, I quit reading after that honker. Here's your next
sentence...
> An exaggeration? Well, the same nuts who want to eliminate every
> viable energy source don't want you cutting trees for shelter or heat
> either.
More hyperbole, signifying nothing. Amazing how
much you can type and still make no sense. I won't
bother asking for a cite from someone that wants to
'eliminate every viable energy source'.
> But since we're on 'the middle' perhaps you could explain just what
> level of 'man caused' CO2 emissions the greenies say would be
> perfectly fine. I don't mean what their 'current target' is, I mean
> perfectly fine.
Well, you see, in order to do that, you'd have to rewrite
your request so that it makes sense. I can't address
things like 'greenies', or 'perfectly fine'... anyone in here
translate this for me? Native Bubba speaker? Even BSL?
__
Steve
.
Les Cargill
Specific experiments, involving a bomber and a cesium clock were done to
verify *general* relativity. Special relativity is, more or less,
tautological ( although the bomber tests also involved special
relativistic effects, too, as I recall).
That was approximately 45, 50 years after the 1905 papers were
published. Hanson came around about what, 1989?
It's still not falsifiable.
<snip>
> _____
>
> That's the ultimate peer review.
>
>
It's an expression of enlightened self-interest. This is people glomming
on to Al Gore's Powerpoint presentation and nothing more.
--
Les Cargill
RichL
There's a lot that's not strictly falsifiable that we accept as
legitimate science. Like economics, for instance.
>
> <snip>
>> _____
>>
>> That's the ultimate peer review.
>>
>>
>
> It's an expression of enlightened self-interest. This is people
> glomming on to Al Gore's Powerpoint presentation and nothing more.
Nonsense. Few in the APS (or on the committee that considered the
issue) stand to benefit from taking a stand one way or another. Dan
Kleppner, the chair of the committee, has a stellar reputation. These
folks are leaders, not followers.
The APS, specifically the Panel On Public Affairs and the Forum on
Physics and Society, were deeply involved in this issue long before it
caught Al Gore's eye.
Sometimes I think the general public is confused as to who constitutes
the *tail* and who constitutes the *dog*.
Trevor Wilson
Trevor's ignorance of his own bible is hanging out again:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
> >> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A
> >> 2
> >> degree C rise seems certain.
Andre Jute replied helpfully:
> > You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> > IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> > rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people.
Wilson:
> **"a 2% temperature rise"? Really? Cite the page number and which report.
Jute:
But, my dear Trevor, you're the one who claims to have read the IPCC
reports and to have such faith in them. Now we catch you being totally
ignorant a pivotal passage!
**I see no such passage.
Here's a hint. The year is 2001 and the passage you're searching for
reads:
�in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2% Celsius.�
**There is no such passage. Further: "2% Celcius" makes no sense. Try and
explain it in English.
Of course, that's what the scientists said in the main body of the
report. By the time the lying bureaucrats of the IPCC finished with
it, in the Summary for Policy Makers this positive statement had been
weaseled round to say the very opposite: �an increase in global mean
temperature of up to a few degrees C would produce a mixture of
economic gains and losses in developed countries�. That negative
statement is not what the scientists said: that's entirely a
bureacratic, political invention.
**Here is YOUR claim:
"You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people. So
that's no problem, if one can believe these clowns."
YOu need to cite the PAGE NUMBERS that refer to the following:
"2% temperature rise"
and
"would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people"
Cite the damned page numbers.
Wilson:
> Explain what 2% implies. Is that 2% relative to Absolute zero? ie: 2%
> of -273 degrees.
Jute:
Trying some weaseling of your own, eh Trevor?
**Actually, it is you who continue to obfuscate. Cite the damned page
numbers.
> Further: 2 degrees C rise will certainly benefit SOME occupants of this
> planet. No doubt about that. The people of Greenland will be the big
> winners. The people of Southern Australia, much of the US, Africa,
> Southern
> Europe will be screwed however.
Totally unsupported, unfounded speculation.
**Well, no, it's not. We're already witnessing the effects right now.
The US, Southern Europe
and quite a bit of Africa is nicely "developed", thank you. You're
like some religious fundamentalist, Trevor, lashing out with denials
at anything that even remotely undermines your faith in your
irrational religion of global warming, even when spoken by its high
priests.
>The animals that cannot move too far, nor
> fast, nor evolve quickly, will have big problems.
Animals die all the time. Climate change is the norm. It is natural.
**Sure it is, but the rate at which it is occuring is beyond anything we
have experienced.
There's more weaseling and chiseling from our Trev but I'm getting
bored with him, so I snipped it.
**Of course you snipped it. You can't answer the questions, nor can you cite
the requested page numbers. SOP for you.
The above example does perfectly by
itself to illuminate his gross ignorance and his asinine stubbornness,
not to mention his religious fervour for global warming.
I'll replace your snippage:
--
> Wilson:
>> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
>> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
>> degree C rise seems certain.
>
> You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people.
**"a 2% temperature rise"? Really? Cite the page number and which report.
Explain what 2% implies. Is that 2% relative to Absolute zero? ie: 2%
of -273 degrees.
Further: 2 degrees C rise will certainly benefit SOME occupants of this
planet. No doubt about that. The people of Greenland will be the big
winners. The people of Southern Australia, much of the US, Africa, Southern
Europe will be screwed however. The animals that cannot move too far, nor
fast, nor evolve quickly, will have big problems.
Oh yeah: Cite the page numbers where the IPCC claims that a "2% (whatever
the Hell that means) temperature rise would be beneficial to the earth and
---
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Les Cargill
I could not have provided a better example of the destructive
power of that sort of thing.
>> <snip>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> That's the ultimate peer review.
>>>
>>>
>> It's an expression of enlightened self-interest. This is people
>> glomming on to Al Gore's Powerpoint presentation and nothing more.
>
> Nonsense. Few in the APS (or on the committee that considered the
> issue) stand to benefit from taking a stand one way or another.
I don't buy that for a second. Sorry. And I suppose all those people
have completely reviewed *all* the data, and been given extensive
instruction in sensitivity and perturbation analysis of the models?
> Dan
> Kleppner, the chair of the committee, has a stellar reputation. These
> folks are leaders, not followers.
>
> The APS, specifically the Panel On Public Affairs and the Forum on
> Physics and Society, were deeply involved in this issue long before it
> caught Al Gore's eye.
>
Well, fair enough. So where's the actual engineering to it, rather
than simply inventing broken versions of Pigovian tax regimes?
We used to be a country where these things were addressed by people
with pocket protectors and slide rules, not by suits.
> Sometimes I think the general public is confused as to who constitutes
> the *tail* and who constitutes the *dog*.
>
>
That's no accident. And I used "Al Gore's powerpoint" metaphorically,
because it was pretty ... bad. I'd give it the name "tail".
Educated people are just as subject to such things as anyone else. The
debates in 19th Century Britain about colonialism are pretty
interesting, and some heavyweight names were on both sides.
--
Les Cargill
William Asher
You have a problem that is common to nearly all climate skeptics, total
ignorance of known physics. While it is all fine to postulate that the
rise in atm. CO2 is due to something else than burning of fossil fuels,
you cannot ignore physics in explaining what that might be. If the CO2
is coming out of the ocean, as you suggest implicitly, the isotopic
signature is wrong. That's one major flaw in your argument. Even if you
can resolve the isotope problem, which is highly unlikely, the second is
that if it came out of the ocean, there is a major upwelling unaccounted
for that is responsible, or one that is known has intensified enough to
ventilate more deep-ocean CO2. There is no evidence that any of the
large eastern boundary upwellings have intensified in the last 200 years,
and with the advent of satellite measurements of sea surface temperature,
we know for a fact there are no new upwelling areas. So there is no way
you can get CO2 out of the ocean, and even if you did the isotopic
composition would be wrong.
So until you can resolve those issues, you are really sounding like a
crackpot rather than a heretic.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> Ian Bell <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:he23sr$2ms$2...@localhost.localdomain:
All that gobbledygook, my dear Asher, is just another way of saying,
"We can't prove CO2 causes temperature rise, but we'd really, really,
really, really like it to be guilty." The last time the *will* of a
bunch of scientists became a political matter, before the current
global warming scam, it was called Lysenkoism. Look it up, sonny.
Bullshit, however you dress it up in undigested scientific-sounding
guano, is still bullshit.
Andre Jute
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> **There is no such passage.
Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
Andre Jute
No more Trevor, please, until you first learn to use google -- at
least that!
Trevor Wilson
> What the scientists wrote:
> "in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
> global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
>
> What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
> "an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
> produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
>
> Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
>> **There is no such passage.
>
> Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
**There is no such passage which says what you ORIGINALLY claimed. I note
that you have adjusted your claim.
>
> Andre Jute
> No more Trevor, please, until you first learn to use google -- at
> least that!
**Here you your claim:
"You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people."
I note that you fundamentally altered that original claim. Address that
clain the questions I made WRT to it. I note your continued inability
address my points and questions. They are repeated below:
---
Rick N. Backer
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:06:13 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>flipper wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:57:33 -0500, "Dave" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>> Do you like acid rain, smog, air pollution?
>>>
>>> No, and those thing are addressable without destroying the economy.
>>>
>>
>>Aw, c'mon. Can't we cripple it just a little? Please?
>
> Already done that.
>
>
>>Dubner & Leavitt* were on Charlie Rose. They were talking
>>about some guy who has a *reasonably priced* way to
>>shift the albedo of the atmosphere, which would reflect
>>just a smidgen of sunlight back out into space. It's
>>completely reversible ( so if there's an "oops"),
>>involved pumping sulphur dioxide
>>into the stratosphere.
>>
>>*superfreakonomics
>>
>>http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/books/superfreakonomics+causes+a+climate+storm/3416332
>>
>>"So basically what it's trying to do, it's a technological solution to
>>mimic a volcano.
>>
>>We know that when really big volcanoes explode they send sulphuric ash
>>into the stratosphere, very high up, and what's happened - the most
>>recent one was 1991 at Mt Pinatubo - the sulphur dioxide mixes with
>>water vapour at that altitude and it circles the world and forms a kind
>>of a sunscreen that cooled global ground temperatures by more than one
>>degree for a period of a couple of years. "
>>
>>Nobody is even looking at stuff like that. Because you
>>can take positive action, with measurable outcome, and...
>>
>>Then you have to find another job.
>
> I'd love to see the data from validation tests on a couple of other
> Class M planets.
>
Now you think we're on an episode of Star Trek. Way to go trawler bait.
Andre Jute
wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9edb25da-fa8d-46e7...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What the scientists wrote:
> > "in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
> > global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
>
> > What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
> > "an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
> > produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
>
> > Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> >> **There is no such passage.
>
> > Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
>
> **There is no such passage which says what you ORIGINALLY claimed. I note
> that you have adjusted your claim.
You can blow all the moke you like, pal, but I am under no obligation
to explain the IPCC to you just because you don't like what their
scientists wrote, or even the watered down version the bureaucrats
published in the SPM. Once more, for God, King and Country, heh-heh:
What the scientists wrote:
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
What the IPCC bureaucrats watered it down to:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> **There is no such passage.
Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 -- look it up, if you know how.
You're now in the position of some obsessed self-flagellator who, not
liking what is in the authenticated text, denies the gospel.
Enjoy!
Yup, either the IPCC books are the gospel, dear old Trev, or you're
global warming denier. Which is it?
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly
William Asher
> The last time the *will* of a
> bunch of scientists became a political matter, before the current
> global warming scam, it was called Lysenkoism. Look it up, sonny.
Actually, the last time the will of a bunch of scientists became a
political matter was Reagan's SDI. Now that was money down a rat hole.
--
Bill Asher
DGDevin
> From where I sit, there isn't much out there in the "anti"-global
> warming arena that would qualify as legitimate science. You don't see
> much funding for grants based on proposals that claim to "disprove"
> Einstein's special relativity, either.
Careful Rich, paranoia is central to the how these Birthers and Teabaggers
and Flat-Earthers think. If you point out that few real scientists
subscribe to their looney-tunes beliefs you're only confirming to them how
enormous the global warming conspiracy is.
DGDevin
>>> Because, despite it's flaws, I think modern society is still better
>>> than living in caves.
>>
>> Bzzt! You've just discredited yourself entirely. The usual straw
>> man argument.
>
> Just exactly what 'argument' do you imagine was made? Or are you
> trying to argue I 'would' prefer living in caves?
You stated that you believe modern society is preferable to living in caves,
as if it's an either-or choice with nothing possible somewhere in the
middle--it's a logical fallacy.
> You declaring 'straw man' doesn't make it so.
True, it's your practice of arguing against positions nobody expressed that
makes it so, like claiming there are people who want to eliminate every
viable source of energy, or suggesting people who are concerned about
man-made climate change are risking a return to a stone-age culture.
>>>> Do you like acid rain, smog, air pollution?
>>>
>>> No, and those thing are addressable without destroying the economy.
>>
>> Straw man.
>
> Please learn another 'buzz word'.
But it's a fair reaction to what you did in suggesting that the destruction
of the economy would be the outcome of anti-pollution measures you
disapprove of. If you don't want to be accused of it, stop doing it.
> There's nothing 'straw man' about noting one can address pollution
> issues, as we've been doing, without pouring the baby out with the
> bath water.
The straw man was your statement that "destroying the economy" is what will
happen if people you disagree with get their way. You seem to have
difficulty expressing yourself without indulging in theatrical
hyperbole--that naturally raises the suspicion that you don't have a very
strong case to begin with so you pound the table instead.
William Asher
> On Nov 19, 5:16�am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9edb25da-fa8d-46e7...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>>
>> > What the scientists wrote:
>> > "in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
>> > global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees]
>> > Celsius"
>>
Full quote from the draft:
�Published estimates indicate that increases in global mean temperature
would produce net economic losses in many developing countries for all
magnitudes of warming studied, and that the losses would be greater in
magnitude the higher the level of warming. In many developed countries,
net economic gains are projected for global mean temperature increases up
to roughly 2�C. Mixed or neutral net effects are projected in developed
countries for temperature increases in the approximate range of 2 to 3�C,
and net losses for larger temperature increases. The projected
distribution of economic impacts is such that it would increase the
disparity in well being between developed countries and developing
countries, with the disparity growing with higher temperatures. The more
damaging impacts estimated for developing countries reflects, in part,
their lesser adaptive capacity.�
(IPCC 2001b:Summary for Policymakers, original government draft, 2.6.,
SE:301)
Here's what the IPCC actually published:
"Notwithstanding the limitations expressed above, based on a few
published estimates, increases in global mean temperature would produce
net economic losses in many developing countries for all magnitudes of
warming studied (low confidence), and losses would be greater in
magnitude the higher the level of warming (medium confidence). In
contrast, an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few �C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries
(low), with economic losses for larger temperature increases (medium
confidence). The projected distribution of economic impacts is such that
it would increase the disparity in well-being between developed countries
and developing countries, with disparity growing for higher projected
temperature increases (medium confidence). The more damaging impacts
estimated for developing countries reflects, in part, their lesser
adaptive capacity relative to developed countries. [7.2.3]"
from Section 2.8 of the Summary for Policymakers from IPCC, TAR, WG2
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/005.htm
Not quite as rosy an assessment as some suggest, especially considering
that the "less than 2 C increase" in the draft is less than what is now
projected to happen under any realistic CO2 emission control strategy.
And in the final report, unlike the draft, the IPCC rates all of those
estimates as low confidence. These changes are the result of the
politicians watering down the conclusions of the scientists.
--
Bill Asher
Don Pearce
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:4b058273....@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:24:18 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:18a691f9-3944-4f06...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
>>>Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
>>>my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
>>>matter:
>>>> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
>>>
>>>and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
>>>
>>>**Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
>>>
>>>I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your admission
>>>that I am correct.
>>
>> Any chance of you resetting your Outlook Express so it quotes
>> properly? You are screwing every thread you contribute to.
>
>**Only to idiots who use Google Groups. I'll see what I can do. OE doesn't
>like Google Groups for some reason.
No, I'm talking about the lack of a ">" at the beginning of quoted
lines and the presence of "**" at the beginning of your text (as you
just did on that reply). That is what screws up threaded news readers.
I don't receive any feeds from Google Groups users - I have them
excluded.
d
Ian Bell
> "Ian Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:he23r6$2ms$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "Ian Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:he10du$nfm$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
>>>>> LIFE
>>>>> by Andre Jute
>>>>>
>>>>> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
>>>>> creation scheme in the history of the world.
>>>> Spot on Andre. In the UK they were growing grapes in the North of
>>>> England during the medieval warm period. The famous Vine Street in
>>>> London is named because that is what it was full of at that time.
>>>>
>>>> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
>>>> temperature increases by about 800 years.
>>> it shows nothing of the sort.
>>>
>> yes it does, I have examined it and that is exactly what is shows.
>
> **Saying is does, is not the same as supplying the evidence. I accapt that
> you are unable to supply evidence to support your claim.
>
Ditto
>>> Oh look, its about 800 years
>>>> since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for an increase
>>>> in CO2.
>>> **Well, yes, we are. As the planet warms, it will cause an outgassing of
>>> CO2 from the oceans. Soon after, we'll see the release of massive
>>> quantities of methane from the permafrost. Then we'll be screwed and
>>> nothing we can do will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway.
>>> A 7 degree C rise is not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the planet
>>> will be unihabitable as a result.
>>>
>>>
>> Rubbish.
>
> **I hope you're right. Sadly, the evidence shows you are not.
>
>
That's the whole point, there IS no credible evidence to support AGW or
global warming for that matter.
Chers
Ian
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:he23sr$2ms$2...@localhost.localdomain:
>
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 2:30 pm, Ian Bell <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
>>>> temperature increases by about 800 years. Oh look, its about 800
>>>> years since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for
>>>> an increase in CO2.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>> LOL. Don't expect the global warmies to smile: you're preaching
>>> heresy right in their faces. -- AJ
>>
>> I now, and I don't care. The STUPID thing is that it IS heresy.
>
> You have a problem that is common to nearly all climate skeptics, total
And you have a problem that is common to nearly all climate alarmists, a
persistent need to to personally vilify skeptics. These internet
'discussions' go nowhere.
While it is all fine to postulate that the
> rise in atm. CO2 is due to something else than burning of fossil fuels,
> you cannot ignore physics in explaining what that might be. If the CO2
> is coming out of the ocean, as you suggest implicitly, the isotopic
> signature is wrong. That's one major flaw in your argument. Even if you
> can resolve the isotope problem, which is highly unlikely, the second is
> that if it came out of the ocean, there is a major upwelling unaccounted
> for that is responsible, or one that is known has intensified enough to
> ventilate more deep-ocean CO2. There is no evidence that any of the
> large eastern boundary upwellings have intensified in the last 200 years,
> and with the advent of satellite measurements of sea surface temperature,
> we know for a fact there are no new upwelling areas. So there is no way
> you can get CO2 out of the ocean, and even if you did the isotopic
> composition would be wrong.
>
> So until you can resolve those issues, you are really sounding like a
> crackpot rather than a heretic.
>
See what I mean? As soon as you learn to be civil I will have a
conversation with you.
Cheers
Ian
Tom Sherman °_°
the purpose of government is to make those with capital richer, while
suppressing labor.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Patrick Turner
> A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
> LIFE
> by Andre Jute
>
> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
> creation scheme in the history of the world.
Andre starts his long post by stating the obvious in similar fashion
as when cities became unmangable because of the piles of horse manure.
People welcomed cars which put those in the horse transport business
out of a job.
A car became a lot cheaper to own than a horse. And a waching machine
a lot easier to deal with than a slave or servant.
So we have freedom from horse manure, but never any shortage of
bullshit.
Andre goes on to explain how a study of the Medieval Warm period and
Little Ice Age show that wide temp changes had no relation to changes
in CO2, even when they should have. The onset of the industrial
revolution spewd much CO2 but T fell.
BUT, the effect of mankind and the effect of early industrial
revolution on CO2 levels were totally insignificant. Any changes to
CO2 by mankind before 1900 was totally insignificant, as was the
efects of deforestation and other evironmental rape. The rape really
got underway in the 20th century.
So whatever caused the MWP and LIA may have had nothing whatsoever to
do with CO2 IMHO.
Today, mankind's pollution activities including CO2 is hundreds or
more times the levels of 1850.
I have heard several pll say that the world is now buring in the
eqivalent of 1,000 barrels of oil a second, or a super tanker full
every 20 minutes, presumably including coal burning.
A barrel of oil is 158 litres. So that's ( 1,000 x 158L x 86,400
seconds ) litres per day.
Or roughly 13.6 billion litres per day.
Since there are about 6.2 billion ppl on the planet, each person uses
2.2 Litres of fuel daily.
Its very difficult to see how 2.2L per day by everyone is causing GW,
but each year it becomes 803L, or about 600Kg and the weight of CO2
produced is about 1,200Kg. ( C + O2 = CO2 ).
The weight of the atmosphere is 5.3 E18 Kg, or 5.3 x
1,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
If we divide this by 6.2 x 1,000,000,000 people we get 0.86 x
1,000,000 tonnes of air per person.
So everyone has 860,000 tonnes of air in which to fart in any way they
want to.
At present weight of CO2 per person at 380PPM = 325 tonnes.
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/
If each person is adding 1.2 tonnes a year, it is adding 0.37% of what
is already there.
Before 1850 when the world population may have been 2 billion, the CO2
per person was MUCH less because there was at least 3 times the weight
of air per person, and the amount of CO2 each person produced maybe
120Kg per year, not 1,200Kg as it may be now, so each man sent up
0.012 of what was already there, assuming the CO2 % was around 250PPM.
Its difficult to see how a 0.37% CO2 increase each year could make any
change to temperature.
But I ain't no expert on the air, but there is a formula for finding
out the temperature of a given amount of air exposed to solar
radiation and with a given amount of CO2 present and water vapour
etc.
But after another 100 years we look like increasing CO2 despite the
word fests and C trading and population will grow and the CO2 increase
compounds and maybe we could easily double what's already there now.
If what we send up mainly stays up there then are we not in huge
trouble?
The problem with CO2 is that its like shit that won't rot, and nobody
wants to stop shitting or carry the can.
Patrick Turner.
> The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
> for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
> the model -- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty. Other
> models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
> historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
> and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
> an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
> deep in the trough.
>
> So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
> But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
> looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
> industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
> appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.
>
> So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
> looking for ways of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and the
> Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
> truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
> modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
> longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
> Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
> that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
> record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
> entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
> result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
> upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
> revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
> figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
> bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
> "global warming" were at stake.
>
> The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
> Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
> new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
> very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
> he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
> examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
> to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
> IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.
>
> The IPCC immediately promoted Mann's deeply flawed study from a little
> local aberration in tree rings to a global rise in temperature over
> two millennia, most of the rise centred in the last decade of the
> twentieth century. It was "proof" that human CO2 emissions drove
> global temperature! Mann's hockey stick graph was the only one shown
> to presidents and prime ministers on which to base environmental
> policy costing trillions of taxpayers' money and shaping economies for
> decades to come because that sort of fundamental change is not easy to
> undo.
>
> You might ask, what happened to the historical evidence of the
> Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why, the IPCC declared
> them Euro-centric phenomena. Self-styled "scientists" told this lie in
> public. Anyone asking whether these multi-century historical events
> happened in the rest of the world was suddenly treated as if he
> committed a form of racism ("Euro-centrism"). The IPCC and its
> "climate scientists" simply ignored a huge literature proving that the
> Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened on every
> continent and in every ocean around the world at the same time. It was
> as if any paper which was published by anyone except one of the IPCC's
> accredited "climate scientists" not only wasn't true, but that it
> didn't exist, and more, had no right to exist.
>
> It took the IPCC seven years to discover that Mann's Hockey Stick is a
> broken crutch. Neither they nor any of the "scientific reviewers" ever
> asked to see Mann's raw data, no one checked his algorithm, no one
> checked anything. But two tenacious Canadians, McIntyre and McKittrick
> (who should get the Nobel Prize ...
>
> read more »
Lord Valve
> And while we're on Greenie Fascists, I don't give a tinker's dam how
> many SUVs you claim a pet is 'equivalent' to, stay the hell away from
> my dog or you'll have both teeth and bullets to worry about.
WTF??
That's a new one on me - got a link?
LV
WB
>> public
>> relations officer and professional gambler. "
>
> That's just the sort of person Willie finds persuasive when it comes to
> science, someone not burdened with a lot of excess academic knowledge about
> a particular subject like say climatology.
Another moron who discovered how to post a comment
on an internet usenet group or a "blog" ... now they
are "an" expert" to quote.
Patrick Turner
> On Nov 18, 3:26 am, Lord Valve <detri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out that the
> > Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of "Jewish
> > physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you get no grant
> > money, of course. And Algore's getting paid handsomely for his
> > starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys carbon indulgences from
> > *himself* every time he flies his private jet somewhere to collect
> > a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
> > swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest scam
> > this to AGA, where green weenies, watermelons, hippies, and
> > otherwise clueless leftards congregate. Watch 'em froth!
>
> > Lord Valve
> > Globally Cool
>
> Globally cool? More likely than not, my lord Valve. But I'd rather
> global warming and feed the poor: one of the most striking lines in
> any IPCC report (and I've read them all, of course) says quite bluntly
> that up to 2% of global warming will be good for us economically and
> agriculturally. Hey, let's have it then before the Chinese grab all
> the good things that come with pollution!
>
> Andre Jute
> Supertro-- I mean Supercool
Its of no surprise that LV and our dear Andre concur on global warming
and give their version of benefits acruing from it.
Then why are the Chinese so intent on not bothering to copy what
Detroit produced or what BMW produced, and to try to go straight to
electric cars?
The Chinese also want 300 nuclear power stations. They are quite
prepared to pay for them. The chinese are not proud of the infamous
pollution hanging over most big Chinese cities. The majority of the
800 million workers in China with a frugal way of life will beaver
away for another 20 years to build up their nation while the US
crumbles. They enjoy the challenge. I saw a report about their
developments on nuclear power station technology which suggest they
will be very safe, very cheap, and easy to build in a variety of
sizes. Well you may ask why chinese amps are so bad; all the bright
chinese lads are working on the nation's real challenges.
The last thing most people want is global warming and I suspect those
who are global warming skeptics such as LV and Andre are already well
outnumbered. I recommend they sit back and go with the flow if they
wish to enjoy a better future than the past, and not talk about how
they think they are being swindled by a bunch scams and false
arguments, and having thus hating to pay huge bills in future for
electricity, food, water and oil.
Meanwhile In Oz, they have added another grade of danger days for
bushfires. In many places they have roadside graded signs with
adjustable arrows pointing to low, medium, high and "EXTREME" on the
far right of the red scale. But now it has "CATASTROPHIC" added to the
scale where the authorities can say nobody should stay at home to try
to stop a fire should it occur near your house. Fires killed 173 in
Victoria last season and it might happen again this season.
And in many places in SE Oz, fresh November records have been set for
hot weather well over 30C and 40C for the last couple of springtime
weeks. It was about 39C in my shed today, and I had to quit. In many
areas of Oz there has not been any real relief from the last drought
lasting many years and we are set for the next Elnino cycle, or
drought cycle complete with no rain and extreme temperatures. So Oz is
being fried right now, and the yearly food production trend is DOWN.
There ain't enough rain and its too hot.
The poor could always be well fed if the amount of food in the world
was equitably distributed. The average fat American or Australian eats
twice the amount that the poor eat, and the American wastes enough to
feed a poor person. And he eats far too much meat. At present, grain
stockpiles around the world are on the decline, and I cannot see how
food supplies will increase with rise in T.
Food production relies on oil for fertilizer, pesticides, and tractor
fuel. Notice how American oil production has gone down and the US
relies on the Middle East. That isn't something anyone likes in the
US, considering how some members of Saudi Arab families behave. So all
private transport by oil burners should be shut down and only
electrics allowed if there are nuclear stations to power them. The oil
should be saved for food production only, unless of course we discover
how to make electric tractors, and produce all those chemicals without
oil. But there'd be riots if baricades went across highways. So
business must lead with changes that are profitable so ppl are weaned
off coal and oil if we want the weather to stop getting worse, but
change will be too slow.
But maybe the GW doubters subconsciously WANT all those hordes of
little brown poor people to damn well starve. Its understandable
because every man wants his genes to be spread better than any other
man's genes, and if the other man starves, then your kids do better in
the future because they inherit more of the world. But I hear the
Chinese and other emerging countries are buying up vast tracts of
arrable land in poor countries to boost their food supplies. If the
land is owned by the Chinese, or western multinational companies they
control the production, and the poor in the little afro nation get a
pittance for sweating in the fields, and they stay poor and hungry.
The talks at Copenhagen will be yet more aspirational talks. I doubt
many large CO2 production facilities like coal fired power stations,
aluminium plants and private car transport will be closed down. I've
heard the Chinese policy is "first get rich, then clean up" but I
think the weather will worsen for much human activity, and we won't be
able to addapt to the speed of weather changes. We don't know any way
to remove the CO2 we put up there.
Of course the Chinese produce a huge amount of cheap junk eagerly
purchased by Americans and Australians. The Chinese cannot afford to
clean up their act because Americans and Australians don't pay them
enough for their goods. Meanwhile the Chinese goods could be MUCH
cheaper if the western middle men and store owners didn't take such a
huge %, but they do; for anything made in China costing $20 in a shop
here, the Chinese maybe get only $2.
Oh how some in China must hate us. Jolida amps fetch huge prices in US
and Oz stores, but the Chinese factory gets so little. But we tell
them to stop polluting......
We are a species that rarely prevents anything. We act after a crisis,
and never to prevent one. All for a good deal which is so often a good
swindle. And when a solution to a crisis is applied, then after the
crisis is over we set ourselves up for another one because we are
stuck in our ways. The Global Finance Crisis is an example and the
banks and money cunts are already arming up to fight the proposed new
regulations considered by governments.
Here there are all these industry lobbyists trying to get government
compensation for carbon pollution, or get exemptions to schemes for
carbon reductions. The whole process is to be voted on soon by the
Senate. It looks like the proposed legislation will be rejected by the
Senate for the second time, and this could bring on an election. Then
the People decide.
Bring it on.
But I have no faith in the process. Nobody really wants to bite the
bullet.
If you turn off the cabon tap in any society now it would be fucked.
Patrick Turner.
snip a considerably long read ....
AMuzi
f u cn rd ths u cn rd gurglgoops
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Bill Sornson
But who would want to?
Don's right. Trevor's posts are all-but-unreadable because it's nearly
impossible to discern new text from old (never mind attribution).
Bill "Jute's more patient than I" S.
Dave
Sill waiting for you to explain why you're opposed to reducing fossil fuel
consupmtion.
DGDevin
>> You stated that you believe modern society is preferable to living
>> in caves,
>
> Quite true, I do.
>
>> as if it's an either-or choice with nothing possible somewhere in the
>> middle--it's a logical fallacy.
>
> The logic fallacy is yours in imagining a supposed argument not made.
It's the reasonable interpretation of what you posted, because if that isn't
what you meant then there was no point in writing it the way you did.
Further on you suggest your hyperbole is a fair response to similar ranting
from the other side, which makes it odd that you deny the plain meaning of
your words in the first place. If you're going to admit to yelling slogans,
why not just do that at the start?
>>> You declaring 'straw man' doesn't make it so.
>>
>> True, it's your practice of arguing against positions nobody
>> expressed that makes it so, like claiming there are people who want
>> to eliminate every viable source of energy,
>
> The only currently viable sources capable of supplying the energy
> demands of a 'modern society' are fossil fuels and nuclear. Both are
> summarily rejected by the 'environmental movement'.
Oh, really, so all those hydro-electric megawatts don't count for some
reason? This too illustrates how over-the-top your rhetoric is, since
nobody is suggesting that first thing Monday we shut down all the nuclear
plants and stop burning oil, gas and goal. Of course the environmental
movement (why do you put those two words in quotation marks?) wants to
reduce reliance on those sources of energy and transition to other forms.
But you make it sound like they want to throw the switch right now and leave
us freezing in the dark--typical of your theatrical rhetoric.
> It's no 'straw man'.
>
>> or suggesting people who are concerned about
>> man-made climate change are risking a return to a stone-age culture.
>
> No, that interpretation is your construction, not what I said.
>
> Anyone could have asked just what the hell I meant by that but, noooo
As you have just demonstrated that is a pointless exercise since you deny
the plain meaning of your own words and then circle around to repeating the
same thing.
> But I'll tell you anyway. I was making a general principle by using
> examples so extreme as to be indisputable. I.E. I prefer the benefits
> of a developed modern society to a lesser developed one.
Yelling louder doesn't make your position more convincing much less
"indisputable."
> I prefer cars to horses. I prefer homes with central air and heat to
> homes without. I prefer a plentiful food supply to food shortages. I
> prefer 5 cent per kWh electricity to 20 cent per kWh electricity. I
> could go on but...
And we're back to the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy with some
straw-man thrown in for good measure. Did anyone argue they wanted to
return to using horses for transportation? Did anyone argue against central
heating? Did anyone argue in favor of food shortages? No, no and no? Then
why are you again making statements that argue against something nobody else
expressed?
The price of electricity is the only valid point in that rant, but as was
recently demonstrated when gas hit five bucks a gallon many Americans tend
to conserve only when the price of something becomes painful. My folks grew
up in the Great Depression, so I was raised to turn off lights when they
aren't needed, and if something breaks I try to fix it rather than just buy
a new one, and so on. I don't believe that it's an injustice putting on a
sweater rather than turning up the thermostat, or insulating the attic
rather than installing a bigger furnace. In other words conservation is a
reasonable middle ground between modern society and living in caves. We are
going to pay more for electricity regardless of which party is in office,
maybe that will motivate us to think about the phantom load in our homes
caused by consumer electronics which are never truly turned off and account
for five to ten percent of the power we consume. If you think it's your
*right* as an American to cheap gas and cheap electricity and cheap
everything else and that you're entitled to waste as much as you
please--sorry, but history is about to slap you upside the head.
Increasingly such waste is going to cost you.
And so on, the rest is just the same pointless exercise--you didn't say what
you said and if you did it's cool because the other guys say silly stuff
too. Do0d, grow up.
William Asher
> See what I mean? As soon as you learn to be civil I will have a
> conversation with you.
Tut tut, I thought since you were so preenily snarky you could take a
little ribbing. Anyway, this is going to work out great, because I won't
have a conversation with you until you learn science.
--
Bill Asher
DGDevin
> I'm a Star Trek fan, sometimes using allusions to it for color, and
> you're apparently familiar enough with it to know exactly what was
> meant but, like a twat, choose to babble twaddle rather than address
> the point made.
You should stick with the Trekkie stuff, it makes more sense than most of
what you post and at least it's mildly entertaining.
William Asher
> I disagree. SDI was corporate welfare for the well connected. After
> all, the purpose of government is to make those with capital richer,
> while suppressing labor.
That was why it got funded, but it got started because Teller woke up with
a woody for the first time in years and had to do something with it. So he
used it to dial Reagan.
--
Bill Asher
Lord Valve
Well boy howdy, son - you can wait, shit, or go blind - all the same to me..
I'll be glad to reply, as soon as you quote any post
I made where I said anything like that. In fact, I'm
in *favor* of reducing fossil fuel consupmtion (sic) -
*yours*. More for me that way. What I'm really in favor of
is *increasing* fossil fuel *production* - we got shitloads
of it right here, fuck the towelheads. If you can build
cars that get better mileage and emit less pollution,
you go right ahead and do it - but if they're made outta
steel you can read through and get pWn3D in a head-on
with a garbage can, don't expect any sane person to
buy the fucking things. You ecotards scream bloody
murder every time someone proposes something
sensible like using our own oil or building nuke power
plants - so hop on your goddamn unicycle (after all,
two wheels would be wasteful...all those extra bearings,
petroleum lubricants, rubber, etc.) and pedal your
lame ass off to Europe with the rest of the Green
Weenies, watermelons, commies and other losers.
What's next - everybody gotta wear a fuckin' propellor
beany with an alternator in it, hooked up to a lithium
cell in their shirt pockets? And if the wind blows, you
gotta stick your head out the window? Fucking geniuses,
and you bought the biggest hustle in world history - not
a single one of you has addressed any of the issues
raised in Andre Jute's article - not the cooked data,
flawed statistical models, bent algorithms, bad collection
mechanisms, you name it. Nah, all you clueless fucks
can do is mumble "LV bad, LV stupid, LV rightwinger,
ugh, ugh..."
If you're really so concerned about CO2, do the planet
a favor and stop breathing. And get your hands out of
people's fucking pockets, because if you don't you may
find out that the imaginary problems you're attempting to
"solve" with other people's gold and silver will be solved
for you - permanently - with lead and steel instead.
http://www.bikepainter.com/hopey-changey.jpg
http://www.bikepainter.com/unknownorigins.jpg
Lord Valve
Cheerfully posted from the People's Republic of Obamastan
(Occupied United States of God Damn America)
BaaaaaarrrrrRRRRAAAACCCCCCKKK!! <Safety!!>
O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake,
A merica!
Don't forget to nark this fishy post to fl...@whitehouse.gov!
http://logo.cafepress.com/5/356074.6784415.jpg
AMuzi
>>>> snip
>>>>> snip
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>> snip
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> No, I'm talking about the lack of a ">" at the beginning of quoted
>>> lines and the presence of "**" at the beginning of your text (as you
>>> just did on that reply). That is what screws up threaded news
>>> readers. I don't receive any feeds from Google Groups users - I have
>>> them excluded.
> AMuzi wrote:
>> f u cn rd ths u cn rd gurglgoops
Bill Sornson wrote:
> But who would want to?
> Don's right. Trevor's posts are all-but-unreadable because it's nearly
> impossible to discern new text from old (never mind attribution).
> Bill "Jute's more patient than I" S.
Well, that's a different subject; 'content'.
Or lack thereof.
DGDevin
>>> I'm a Star Trek fan, sometimes using allusions to it for color, and
>>> you're apparently familiar enough with it to know exactly what was
>>> meant but, like a twat, choose to babble twaddle rather than address
>>> the point made.
>>
>> You should stick with the Trekkie stuff, it makes more sense than
>> most of what you post
>
> If you're claiming to have read "most" of what I've posted then that
> claim makes you either an idiot or a liar
Fine, ***most of what I've seen you post*** -- feel better now?
> as "most" of what I've
> posted on AGW has been backed up by peer reviewed papers as well as
> articles from the 'high priest' AGW web site RealClimate.org.
Uh huh.
>> and at least it's mildly entertaining.
>>
>
> That was it's intent, along with the entirely valid point that I tend
> to be a bit cautious about experimenting with the atmosphere of the
> only inhabitable planet around these parts.
If your intent is to be amusing then why do you have a hissy fit when
someone points out that something you've written is logic-challenged? We
all make mistakes, and there is no cash penalty for admitting you phrased
something poorly. You come across as one of those Usenet warriors who takes
himself waaaaay too seriously. Maybe try loosening your helmet strap a bit
'cause you're really not going to save the world one Usenet post at a time
no matter how hard you try.
DGDevin
>> And so on, the rest is just the same pointless exercise--you didn't
>> say what you said and if you did it's cool because the other guys
>> say silly stuff too. Do0d, grow up.
>
> I am the world's foremost expert on my own opinion so on that score
> you are automatically doomed to lose.
Yikes, one of those. Okay sport, you have a fine old time throwing around
labels like "fascist" when someone disagrees with you. Meanwhile the
grownups are talking, you go play with your Star Trek action figures and try
not to hurt yourself, we'll call you when it's time for dinner.
[Makes circular motion beside head with index finger]
Les Cargill
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:06:13 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> flipper wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:57:33 -0500, "Dave" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>> Do you like acid rain, smog, air pollution?
>>> No, and those thing are addressable without destroying the economy.
>>>
>> Aw, c'mon. Can't we cripple it just a little? Please?
>
> Already done that.
>
>
>> Dubner & Leavitt* were on Charlie Rose. They were talking
>> about some guy who has a *reasonably priced* way to
>> shift the albedo of the atmosphere, which would reflect
>> just a smidgen of sunlight back out into space. It's
>> completely reversible ( so if there's an "oops"),
>> involved pumping sulphur dioxide
>> into the stratosphere.
>>
>> *superfreakonomics
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/books/superfreakonomics+causes+a+climate+storm/3416332
>>
>> "So basically what it�s trying to do, it�s a technological solution to
>> mimic a volcano.
>>
>> We know that when really big volcanoes explode they send sulphuric ash
>> into the stratosphere, very high up, and what's happened - the most
>> recent one was 1991 at Mt Pinatubo - the sulphur dioxide mixes with
>> water vapour at that altitude and it circles the world and forms a kind
>> of a sunscreen that cooled global ground temperatures by more than one
>> degree for a period of a couple of years. "
>>
>> Nobody is even looking at stuff like that. Because you
>> can take positive action, with measurable outcome, and...
>>
>> Then you have to find another job.
>
> I'd love to see the data from validation tests on a couple of other
> Class M planets.
>
> That goes for 'global warming' too.
<Raises eyebrow>
Fascinating.
--
Les Cargill
Bill Sornson
Ian Bell
You just can't help yourself can you. 'Conversation' over.
Cheers
Ian
Stephen Cowell
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote
> <stephenleeN...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's your next
>>sentence...
>>
>>> An exaggeration? Well, the same nuts who want to eliminate every
>>> viable energy source don't want you cutting trees for shelter or heat
>>> either.
>>
>>More hyperbole, signifying nothing. Amazing how
>>much you can type and still make no sense.
>
> My dog doesn't understand it either.
Not suprised. That you tried, I mean.
>> I won't
>>bother asking for a cite from someone that wants to
>>'eliminate every viable energy source'.
>
> You are free to cite an 'acceptable' alternate energy source capable
> of supplying current energy demands, if there was such a thing.
Have a gander at this month's Scientific American...
if you can stomach such a communist rag.
>>> But since we're on 'the middle' perhaps you could explain just what
>>> level of 'man caused' CO2 emissions the greenies say would be
>>> perfectly fine. I don't mean what their 'current target' is, I mean
>>> perfectly fine.
>>
>>Well, you see, in order to do that, you'd have to rewrite
>>your request so that it makes sense. I can't address
>>things like 'greenies', or 'perfectly fine'... anyone in here
>>translate this for me? Native Bubba speaker? Even BSL?
>
> I guess that makes you just about the most ignorant person I've run
> across.
They wish... oh, how they wish! They wish
that their feelings had a factual basis. It *feels*
so right to demand that there's no way to change
modern society... and yet, it's changing right in
front of their eyes. Anyone, from a credentialed
scientist to a flower-waving hippie, is a 'greenie'.
They *all* have the same agenda, even when they
demonstrably don't.
__
Steve
.
Patrick Turner
> Dave wrote:
> > Lord Valve wrote:
> > > flipper wrote:
>
> > >> And while we're on Greenie Fascists, I don't give a tinker's dam how
> > >> many SUVs you claim a pet is 'equivalent' to, stay the hell away from
> > >> my dog or you'll have both teeth and bullets to worry about.
>
> > > WTF??
>
> > > That's a new one on me - got a link?
>
> > > LV
>
> > Sill waiting for you to explain why you're opposed to reducing fossil fuel
> > consupmtion.
>
> Well boy howdy, son - you can wait, shit, or go blind - all the same to me..
Your anti green ideology is going to leave you stranded like a polar
bear in a sweat because there isn't any more ice.
In time nuclear will become quite popular; it doesn't take much effort
these days to make the plants safe and much better than the Russian
Chernoble crap which has given nuclear such a bad name. China looks
certain to make the best and cheapest reactors soon. They want to
build 300 of them. And they are in no rush to copy any Detroit motor
design or BMW design; there are plans by the Chinese to bypass the
status quo to something better.
Electric cars will whip the arse of any petrol car soon. You'll want
one, and you won't mind kissing a greenie's arse.
The road systems won't be dug up or replaced with train tracks or
potato fields. Electric cars will become SO popular, and they'll be
more cars on the road but less pollution and no CO2.
And I have not even mentioned hydrogen power.
Burning coal and oil was OK for a very small population for awhile but
an utterly hopeless idea for the population of 10billion in 2060.
You'll learn to see that solar and wind and geothermal power is great,
and that oil should only be used for farming for the tractors,
pesticides and fertilizers. But in time the tractors will become
electric. You may not learn anything, but your kids sure will; they'll
have to.
YOU will have to pay more for the changes to lessen carbon usage.
Nobody will apologize to you for the inconvenience of the bigger
power, food, water and electricity bills. You'll feel swindled, and
you'll complain about Obama, but nobody is listening to you. Anything
could happen though; someone could shoot Obama. Maybe you'd like to
see him dead.
OK, but America will vote for another like him.
Stop fucken whinging when you've had it so good with all those cheap
products from China made by ppl for wages less than a pittance.
Things could have been worse though had we had a nuclear war during
the Cold War.
Oh, and BTW, if you don't work out for 8 hours solid a week or ride a
bicycle for that long a week and you eat all that crap US food, then
don't say I didn't warn you about your old age ill-health. What
Americans are so slow to learn is that the food industry and lobby
exists to rip ppl off by force feeding them "processed food" which was
whole and nutricious when it left the farm, but it has been converted
t 1,001 garbage products full of sugar and salt and chemicals which
leave a huge % of the the US population obese, and like zombies who
don't realize the trouble they are in.
I like being Green Minded, I like being frugal and telling all those
bullshit artists what to do with their ill conceived ideas about how
to live so badly.
Meanwhile November new high temperature records in Sth Aust, Victoria
and NSW are being set while bushfires are breaking out all over.
You wanna tell me greenhouse warming ain't happening? You'd be taking
the Egyptian Solution. You'd be standing in De Nial.
Pardon us while we laugh at you.
Patrick Turner.
> http://www.bikepainter.com/hopey-changey.jpghttp://www.bikepainter.com/unknownorigins.jpg
>
> Lord Valve
> Cheerfully posted from the People's Republic of Obamastan
> (Occupied United States of God Damn America)
> BaaaaaarrrrrRRRRAAAACCCCCCKKK!! <Safety!!>
>
> O ne
> B ig
> A ss
> M istake,
> A merica!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cv4mbm
>
> Don't forget to nark this fishy post to f...@whitehouse.gov!
>
> http://logo.cafepress.com/5/356074.6784415.jpg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
RichL
>>> Good luck on getting a 'climate' grant that's not global warming.
>>
>> From where I sit, there isn't much out there in the "anti"-global
>> warming
>
> That's the typical AGW word game. No one is disputing temperature.
> What's disputed is the cause, distribution of the cause, and the
> consequences.
>
>> arena that would qualify as legitimate science.
>
> Of course not since anything other than the presumed conclusion is
> automatically declared heretical.
>
> I'd bet you've not looked at anything but 'rebut' ridicule articles.
>
> Here, try a few hundred.
>
>
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Wow.
Flip, you almost had me there. Of course, I then downloaded a bunch of
the articles that were available in PDF format. Tomorrow I'll sample
some that were abstracts only, since I can get the actual articles at
work.
Here's what I found:
1. Many of the articles do NOT support "skepticism of "man-made" global
warming at all, unlike the claim made by Popular Technology. They are
efforts to reconcile minor inconsistencies, such as the well-known
surface temperature vs. satellite measurements conundrum.
2. Download some of these papers yourself and head toward the
"Acknowledgment" sections in them. There you'll find info on who
supported the research. Some of what I found: National Science
Foundation, U.S. Department of Energy, as well as equivalent Canadian
agencies.
3. There are some pretty prestigious academic institutions represented
there, as well as some decent scientific journals.
So much for the conspiracy to weed out heretics.
So much for the impossibility of getting grants from government
institutions that fund the "heretical" view of global warming.
Still, the subset of these papers that represent true deviation from the
conventional wisdom, big-picture-wise, represent but a small fraction of
the overall volume of scientific papers concerning the issue.
Nevertheless, the scientific process is working as it should. From what
I see here, a minority of this "minority" is trying to get its view
across through legitimate scientific research as opposed to sniping at
Al Gore, etc., they are having their papers published in legitimate
journals, getting support from appropriate funding agencies, not being
drummed out of the prestigious institutions that they represent.
Your fiction of politics overruling science, the APS being dominated by
politics, "Good luck on getting a 'climate' grant that's not global
warming", it's all crumbling, Flip. It's nonsense.
But it was mighty nice of you to provide the detailed documentation that
demonstrates that!
William Asher
news:niqbg5ps9ivth6075...@4ax.com:
> On 19 Nov 2009 04:18:01 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Ian Bell <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:he23sr$2ms$2...@localhost.localdomain:
>>
>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> On Nov 18, 2:30 pm, Ian Bell <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
>>>>> temperature increases by about 800 years. Oh look, its about 800
>>>>> years since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for
>>>>> an increase in CO2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> LOL. Don't expect the global warmies to smile: you're preaching
>>>> heresy right in their faces. -- AJ
>>>
>>>
>>> I now, and I don't care. The STUPID thing is that it IS heresy.
>>
>>You have a problem that is common to nearly all climate skeptics,
>>total ignorance of known physics. While it is all fine to postulate
>>that the rise in atm. CO2 is due to something else than burning of
>>fossil fuels, you cannot ignore physics in explaining what that might
>>be. If the CO2 is coming out of the ocean, as you suggest implicitly,
>>the isotopic signature is wrong. That's one major flaw in your
>>argument.
>
> Not so.
>
> Let's us take a simplified model of the expected CO2 partial pressure
> balance between ocean and atmosphere and, for the purpose of
> illustration, magically remove all other CO2 sources.
>
> Now induce a perturbation, from what ever means or source, to the
> ocean, in this case to cause an out gassing. Atmospheric CO2 will rise
> until balance is reestablished.
>
> Now, introduce an alternate source of CO2 emission. That alternate
> source will provide some portion of the CO2 that would otherwise come
> from the oceanic out gassing and if it has an identifiable signature
> it will 'show up' as being the atmosphere, since that is where it is
> directly vented, but it's fallacious to argue that is the 'cause' of
> atmospheric increase.
>
> Or, put another way, regardless of the driver the 'man made' CO2
> signature will always show up in the atmosphere because that's where
> it's directly vented.
>
>> Even if you
>>can resolve the isotope problem, which is highly unlikely, the second
>>is that if it came out of the ocean, there is a major upwelling
>>unaccounted for that is responsible, or one that is known has
>>intensified enough to ventilate more deep-ocean CO2. There is no
>>evidence that any of the large eastern boundary upwellings have
>>intensified in the last 200 years, and with the advent of satellite
>>measurements of sea surface temperature, we know for a fact there are
>>no new upwelling areas.
>
> Only if you can show the model is flawless with no unknowns.
>
> I submit that the 'missing carbon' problem is prima facie evidence
> there is, at the very least, 'something' unknown.
>
> Good luck.
>
>> So there is no way
>>you can get CO2 out of the ocean, and even if you did the isotopic
>>composition would be wrong.
>>
>>So until you can resolve those issues, you are really sounding like a
>>crackpot rather than a heretic.
>
> And you're sounding like a 'true believer' rather than the
> investigative skeptic all scientists should be.
There is a *huge* difference between being a skeptic and completely
failing to recognize the difference between a physically plausible theory
that fits the available empirical evidence and wild speculation
constructed simply to provide an alternative scenario without regard to
how it might fit into the available observations.
Your theory above fits into the latter category. Mass balance
calculations for the total anthropogenic CO2 source are not off by large
margins, so the expected atmospheric isotopic composition is known and
matches the observations. This provides nearly incontravertible evidence
that there are no additional sources of CO2 that are driving the
atmospheric increase. Specifically, if the ocean was the source for the
atmospheric increase, the measured atmospheric isotopic signature would
not match the calculations based on anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There
would also be no way to explain why the oceans are gaining CO2.
The isotopic issue explained:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-
that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
http://tinyurl.com/r5pau
Ocean CO2 mass balance:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-
recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
http://tinyurl.com/2nzry9
As for the "missing sink," terrestrial biologists are closing the hole.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708/full/climate.2007.35.html
Anyway, yeah, I'm skeptical of most arguments put forth by climate
skeptics because they tend ot to be well grounded in physics, chemistry,
and ignore most of the available data. Now if someone were to come along
and demonstrate that CO2 didn't absorb IR radiation because god has put
little "afdbs" around each CO2 molecule in the troposphere or that CO2 in
the atmosphere only emitted longwave blackbody radiation upwards due to
little space aliens holding the molecules in position, I would rethink my
position on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. But you heretics
aren't at that level of sophistication in your theory, although many of
your ideas are as realistic as the two I've proposed.
Oh, and tell Ian he still needs to solve the isotope problem and the
circulation problem. I would myself but he turns out to have remarkably
thin skin for a self-professed heretic. Imagine if Gallileo had just
gone off in a sulk the first time someone told him he was wrong. Well, I
guess it's getting hard to find decent heretics these days.
--
Bill Asher
Trevor Wilson
"Ian Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:he36ai$cbv$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Ian Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:he23r6$2ms$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> "Ian Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:he10du$nfm$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>>>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>> A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
>>>>>> LIFE
>>>>>> by Andre Jute
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive
>>>>>> job
>>>>>> creation scheme in the history of the world.
>>>>> Spot on Andre. In the UK they were growing grapes in the North of
>>>>> England during the medieval warm period. The famous Vine Street in
>>>>> London is named because that is what it was full of at that time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
>>>>> temperature increases by about 800 years.
>>>> and it shows nothing of the sort.
>>>>
>>> yes it does, I have examined it and that is exactly what is shows.
>>
>> **Saying is does, is not the same as supplying the evidence. I accapt
>> that you are unable to supply evidence to support your claim.
>>
>
> Ditto
**On the contrary. I have presented my evidence. You have presented nothing.
>
>>>> Oh look, its about 800 years
>>>>> since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for an
>>>>> increase in CO2.
>>>> **Well, yes, we are. As the planet warms, it will cause an outgassing
>>>> of CO2 from the oceans. Soon after, we'll see the release of massive
>>>> quantities of methane from the permafrost. Then we'll be screwed and
>>>> nothing we can do will prevent this planet from hitting thermal
>>>> runaway. A 7 degree C rise is not an unreasonable expectation. Much of
>>>> the planet will be unihabitable as a result.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>
>> **I hope you're right. Sadly, the evidence shows you are not.
>>
>>
>
> That's the whole point, there IS no credible evidence to support AGW or
> global warming for that matter.
**Sure, except for all this pesky stuff:
* CO2 levels have risen faster in the last 150 years than at any time in the
last 600,000.
* Temperatures have risen faster in the last 150 years, than at any time in
the last 600,000.
* CO2 levels are around 30% higher than they were 200 years ago.
* CO2 is a known GHG of considerable significance (the second most
significant GHG, in fact).
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
TPS
> On Nov 20, 5:32 am, Lord Valve <detri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dave wrote:
> > > Lord Valve wrote:
> > > > flipper wrote:
>
> > > >> And while we're on Greenie Fascists, I don't give a tinker's dam how
> > > >> many SUVs you claim a pet is 'equivalent' to, stay the hell away from
> > > >> my dog or you'll have both teeth and bullets to worry about.
>
> > > > WTF??
>
> > > > That's a new one on me - got a link?
>
> > > > LV
>
> > > Sill waiting for you to explain why you're opposed to reducing fossil fuel
> > > consupmtion.
>
> > Well boy howdy, son - you can wait, shit, or go blind - all the same to me..
>
> Your anti green ideology is going to leave you stranded like a polar
> bear in a sweat because there isn't any more ice.
> In time nuclear will become quite popular; it doesn't take much effort
> these days to make the plants safe and much better than the Russian
> Chernoble crap which has given nuclear such a bad name. China looks
> certain to make the best and cheapest reactors soon. They want to
> build 300 of them. And they are in no rush to copy any Detroit motor
> design or BMW design; there are plans by the Chinese to bypass the
> status quo to something better.
Er, I'm no expert in the field, but the article I recently read about
nuke plants is that they take a hell of a lot of effort, even more
money paid to the giant contracting firms that build them, and about a
decade. There are quicker, more cost-effective (low tech) means to
energy efficiency, including many of the others you mention in your
post.