GZ34 worship!
Engineer
US$47 at this time with 5 bids.
Cheers,
Roger
Peter Wieck
>
> US$47 at this time with 5 bids.
>
> Cheers,
> Roger
An NIB Dynaco-labeled tube sold for nearly US$200 some little bit ago.
That $47 ain't nothing yet. Funny to think I have a semester's tuition
to our local state college sitting in my spares box.
And the solid-state replacements sell in the US$30s or so including
the slow-start characteristics.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Fu Knee
Hi RATs!
These days, many feel emboldened to publicly insult every one they
don't like.
No matter how petty their deep, personal sense of outrage.
It is possible you are truly doing God's will, I guess.
Just seems like you are being a self righteous moron, to me.
But, hey, you started this thread.
Dig it or frig it.
It is a free country. No matter how low you wish to take it.
Happy Ears!
Al
PS An undercover agent in a nearby city was able to purchase sexual
access to a twelve year old girl. The price was $200.00. Some of us
know true outrage. The rest of you worry about the price. Ain't
freedom a bitch?
Engineer
It's up to $66 at this time with 6 bids.
Al, I don't know the would-be buyers so cannot claim to like or
dislike them but, as a group, I do think they are nuts... and, as you
will agree, freedom brings the right to be one!
The good news is that I have a couple of GZ34's in my tube inventory.
At this rate I can't afford to keep them... the opportunity cost is
getting too high!
Cheers,
Roger
Alex
And the solid-state replacements sell in the US$30s or so including
the slow-start characteristics.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Alex:
Never thought that someone would be imitating slow start. How do they do it?
MOSFET in series controlled via an optocoupler from an RC circuit powered
from an additional rectifier of the heater voltage?
Peter Wieck
My guess is a much simpler device based on thermistors. At the going
rate of something between $15 and $35, and given the range of sizes -
from about the size of a typical 'button' tube to nearly as large as
the glass original, there is not a whole lot of room inside to mess
about with cascaded MOSFETs.
Again, guessing, the cheaper versions are straight-up solid-state
diodes and maybe a couple of resistors across the filament pins
(maybe). But the more expensive versions claiming the slow-start
system use thermistors.
John Byrns
<fc5e95d2-6970-4748...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Peter Wieck <pf...@aol.com> wrote:
I don't understand how thermistors could provide "slow-start" for the B+
voltage, I would think the capacitor following the rectifier is still
going to charge up to nearly 1.41 times the RMS transformer secondary
voltage until the power tubes warm up and start drawing current from the
rectifier, thermistors or not? Perhaps it is all in how you choose to
define "slow-start".
--
Regards,
John Byrns
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Engineer
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:36:11 -0800 (PST), Engineer
>
> A cursory google indicates those prices are not at the 'nut' stage, at
> least as compared to the 'going price' on most places.
>
> >The good news is that I have a couple of GZ34's in my tube inventory.
> >At this rate I can't afford to keep them... the opportunity cost is
> >getting too high!
>
>
> If you want 'nuts', take a gander at this site's prices.
>
> https://www.tubeworld.com/5ar4.htm
>
> 1 tube $795) GZ34 Philips Miniwatt Holland NOS (rS1-55B=1955) SMOOTH
> SPOT WELDED PLATES - double D getter halos - original box
>
> They've got some GEs for a mere $60, though.
>
> Athttp://www.tubedepot.com/5ar4.htmlthe 'whatever NOS we have' is
> $139 each.
>
> Oh, no. When I went to check I just discovered my favorite tube
> source, radiodaze, is out of the tube business. Nuts.
>
> >Cheers,
> >Roger
Holy cathodes, Batman!
Alex
"Fran�ois Yves Le Gal" <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote in message
news:g3v3f5tpf6aeuscpq...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:14:44 -0800, "Alex" <apog...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Never thought that someone would be imitating slow start. How do they do
it?
>
> with temperature. Plus power R's if you need valve-like source R.
I see... Cheating... It might not start-up at all if the load is light,
e.g., output tube pulled out of the radio. However for typical applications
this thermistor solution is smart enough.
Peter Wieck
> "François Yves Le Gal" <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote in messagenews:g3v3f5tpf6aeuscpq...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:14:44 -0800, "Alex" <apogo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >Never thought that someone would be imitating slow start. How do they do
> it?
>
> > A couple of NTC thermistors in series. High initial resistance decreasing
> > with temperature. Plus power R's if you need valve-like source R.
>
> I see... Cheating... It might not start-up at all if the load is light,
> e.g., output tube pulled out of the radio. However for typical applications
> this thermistor solution is smart enough.
There are those who would suggest that using tubes is 'cheating'.
In any case the (a) resistor in the diode circuit could provide heat
if necessary. Further to this, the 15V +/- voltage drop across the two
diodes would be about right as well.
Patrick Turner
Probably the issue of delayed B+ or slowed B+ turn on has been
discussed a thousand times during my last 9 years at this group.
I've forgotten much of what was said.
In my latest amp project I have a remote PSU for 2 x 60W SE amps with
6 x 6550 in each.
The anode supply is +484V at 700mA and there is a screen/driver/input
supply of +430V at 150mA.
I don't use GZ34 for the B+ supply because I would need about 5 of
them.
I do have some two pairs of 6A rated Si diodes in series on each side
of the 410V-0-410V HT winding.
Why would anyone use GZ34, ever?
For the 700mA anode supply there is a 4 ohm resistance in series with
the diodes before they charge two 60uF motor start caps in series
which gives 30uF. Then I have a 2.5H choke feeding 705uF made up of 6
x 470uF 350V caps.
Then there are two 36 ohm 20W R from the 705uF feeding two lots of
470uF made up from 4 in series/parallel and this gives a fairly
resonance free supply to each 60W channel.
I also have a 1uF +100 ohm R series network across the choke which
makes it have a damped parallel resonance at 100Hz and thus reduces
100Hz ripple after C2 by about 15dB; ie, it makes the L act as though
is was 10H not 2.5H.
The choke has 18 ohms dcr.
The only delay I have is a 25 ohm R in series with the 240V mains
input to the 1.1kVA power tranny I have. After 4 seconds when the B+
has risen to about 70% of its final initial value of 550V the relay
closes and another slight surge with inrush current happens when the B
+ goes to 550V.
After about 12 seconds the 6550 cathodes begin emission and the the B+
gracefully sags to the wanted 484V.
The ripple voltage at the 30uF of C1 is about 50Vrms. But for the time
the initial charge up is occuring the dc outflow from C1 is large even
with the 25 ohms and so the ripple voltage is also quite high. The
peak charge current is somewhat low because of this arrangement. I
could have had a large value cap for C1 and allowed the C1 voltage to
stay at about +550V then I'd have needed a dropping resistance to get
my wanted +484V, and that would have produced 46W of wasted heat so it
was far better to just use C1 caps that have high reactance values,
53ohms in this case, and allow the rectifier output Vdc to be a bit
low. Reactances don't dissipate heat. My supply runs nice and cool.
There is a small amount of transformer noise.
Should a tube decide to conduct far more Idc than it should, the amp
will turn off, but if the protect circuit fails then the extra Idc
could go to 1.2A with just one 6550 becoming saturated. The ripple
voltage would go much higher and B+ would sag, and the there is a 4A
fuse between HTwinding CT and 0V. Plus a mains fuse of 4A. Both a fast
blow types.
About all I needed was the delay R of 25 ohms which also restricts the
large currents when you have to heat up cold cathode filaments when
the dcr is low.
I don't see any reason to have a greater inrush delay than I do.
In a Quad-II amp with GZ34 or GZ32, the B+ surges up to about +440V
well before the output KT66 turn themselves on.
So the tube rectifier does not delay B+ at all.
I tried using a GZ34 in series with B+ to make a slow turn on series
diode after using Si diodes into 100uF with a further RC following
filter. It was pointless because the B+ still went way up before the
OP tubes pulled it down to about 380V at the OPT CT.
The simplest way to have adelay if you must is to uses voltage
doubler supply where one might have a 200Vac HT winding which can be
controlled by an easy to get 240V rated mains relay. Then the delay
can be made for 20 seconds, and you have hot tubes and there is a
considerable inrush to charge up a bunch of caps as well as the
initial flow of Ia in the tubes with wobbles and surges as the whole
driver/input amp comes alive as well. So one might need to have some
series R to slow this process and avoid excessive peak charge currents
to allow a useful fuse value.
Its not too hard to have two resistances in series with the 200Vac HT
winding and shunt one at 10 seconds and the other 6 seconds later.
This allows two fairly slow step ups of the B+.
I hate mains thermistors after seeing so many of them fail dismally in
amps. If you turn off an amp while the thermistor is hot and then on
again soon afterwards, the purpose of the thermistor is lost, as the
extra current can make them overheat, maybe explode.
After building SE amps with 6 x 6550in each I realised that one MIGHT
get nice sound with a single 6550 but when you use 6 of them you
vanquish all doubt.
Patrick Turner.
Alex
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:2b72ca40-867f-4017-afc4-
In my latest amp project I have a remote PSU for 2 x 60W SE amps with
6 x 6550 in each.
The anode supply is +484V at 700mA and there is a screen/driver/input
supply of +430V at 150mA.
Alex:
In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design, possession, sale
and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall be made illegal...
Peter Wieck
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 02:55:05 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner> Go mercury...
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercury_Arc_Valve%...
>
> 125KV, thusands of amps...
Yabbut.... REALLY noisy!
Patrick Turner
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 02:55:05 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> <i...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercury_Arc_Valve%...
>
> 125KV, thusands of amps...
So when you have a choke input supply with two of those 125KV
thingies, what size is the choke?
And after the choke, would i have to use electrolytics or would
polypropylene caps souind better?
Patrick Turner.
Ian Bell
I would recommend two 8ft by 4ft sheets of 20 gauge aluminium separated
by an oil cloth.
Cheers
Ian
Patrick Turner
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:27:13 -0800, "Alex" <apogo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design, possession, sale
> >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall be made illegal...
>
> :-)
>
> BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W incandescent light bulbs...
If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse heating of
the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are already well
into the danger zone.
We are a species that fouls its own nest, and does too little too late
to avoid a problem that is slow to affect us.
Anyway, the amps I have just made consume about 500W when used. But
the switch many ppl are making towards "digital" amplifiers, class D,
which are 96% efficient is offsetting the effect steam engines that I
am still making in tiny numbers. I didn't have any children which is
the worst thing anyone could do to a planet. There are too many ppl
doing too many things that are destructive here already. If we all
just didn't breed for 25 years and spent the time instead fixing the
major problems we'd be OK but it ain't never gonna happen. Most of the
young are driven uncontrolably to fuck.
I liked to fuck when I was young but I wasn't going to breed unless
everything looked like it would work out. It never did for me. Much of
the time I wondered what on earth was the point of breeding. Everyone
who doesn't breed leaves more in the world for those who do. So If I
make a few tube amps, so what?
People are buying houses here which are twice the size of those their
parents bought 30 years ago. The way ppl live generally even though
they don't have any interest in hi-fi seems to consume much more
energy than 30 years ago and in fact each succeeding generation seems
to want more and more than the last which helps prove that the more
they get, the more they want and the less satisfied they become.
Lightbulbs are about to be completely outlawed here. But ligthing is
only 10% of the problem. The real problem is hot water and air
conditioning and travelling and farming and all the other things.
If we had 6 billion people living like they did 100 years ago their
energy per head might have been 50W/hr.
But now everyone wants to have access to 2kW/hr to sustain a modern
western way of life.
What goes up must come down, and if we dig up vast amounts of carbon
which took millions of years to be buried underground and send it
skyward in a couple of centuries then the temperature will rise, and
our cleverness will backfire us down.
I think things will get increasingly unstable with oscillations in
temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much warmer
climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years because the
earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another 1/2 billion
years. Our species will get a kick or two in the butt before then
though, and from the boot we made ourselves.
Patrick Turner.
Don Pearce
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
You are talking about global cooling? You appear to be suggesting that
it would be a good idea to make it happen even quicker than it is
right now.
d
Patrick Turner
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:51:51 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> <i...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
> >So when you have a choke input supply with two of those 125KV
> >thingies, what size is the choke?
>
>
> Eight chokes in wells with a secondary water cooling system. They want you
> to believe that they are generators, but they are chokes for the ultimate
> single ended amplifier... Two megawatts from a single Eimac bottle !
Class C?
>
> http://www.triodeel.com/cemco.jpg
>
> >And after the choke, would i have to use electrolytics or would
> >polypropylene caps souind better?
>
> Paper in oil is the only way to go.
> :-)
And I guess the girl's name is Harmonic Desirabelle, no?
But is it not becomming a trend to send power long distance along
transmission lines with DC currents?
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 07:23:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Global cooling may be appear to be happening.
What I suggested was that there will be instability with the climate
as it progresses to a settled state of being hotter.
The instability will be periods of years where we think its trending
hotter, and then cooler, before finally settling on being a lot
hotter. In 1976 I recall many said that the global pollution we are
spewing skywards would cause an ice age. To some extent the
particulate matter that is circulating in the air as a result of
mankind's activities is causing cooling, or a reduction of the rate of
heating. Although many might say we are on a cooling trend now I think
the records will show that arctic ice and antarctic ice is undergoing
a net depletion and only if the ice caps were undergoing a substantial
net increase could we say there is real cooling. If you look at
glacial retreat around the world, there is further evidence of gradual
warming.
If the average T rises 0.05 degrees a year, it takes 100 years to go 5
degrees average warmer. The amount of yearly increase seems trifling,
and to not even be happening. But 100 years is a tiny amount of time
compared to say when the last ice age occurred, or to when the last
hot age where there was no ice caps and sea levels were 100M higher.
Because the changes to the CO2 % levels look set to trend up for 50
years despite the slow addoption of alternatives like nuclear power
and solar power with collectors the size of Texas, ppl will have to
get used to hotter weather. Many ppl now like it hot, and thrive in
hot climates; older folks retire to Miami, or from southern cool
cities like Melbourne to Brisbane. But in 50 years Brisbane may have
weather like Jakata, and with major cyclones each year. And the
coastal cities and towns which cost so much for previous generations
to build will be subject to major flooding. There isn't much evidence
of sea level rise yet. But once that process gets underway it will
panick a lot of people.
I have lived here in Canberra since 1972, and have seen an overall
trend to many more days where C max goes over 30C, and to warmer
winters. Its been 15 years since I saw my swimming pool get an
overnight layer if ice. Before that I got it at least several nights a
year.
100 years is time enough for 4 generations of people to get used to
things getting hotter.
Large tracts of land will become available in the northern hemisphere
for development.
But methinks living in the tropics could get so wild during cyclone
seasons that many areas will be unviable.
Gradually many people will vote with their feet, and move away north
or south. This mainly means hordes of little brown people going where
they ain't welcome. If there are mas starvations, so be it; its just
Nature's way of dealing with a problem species. The Bible says the
Lord said go forth and multiply, and subjugate all of Nature to the
glory of God. This of course is utter BS, because God doesn't exist as
believers imagine he does. God is there all right but He, She, or It
don't give a shit about any of us. And we have gone forth, and we have
bred like rabbits, and the paddock is now full of rabbits, and it is
still nearly every marrying couple's dream to have children, and they
complain bitterly about the cost of living, ie, the cost of living
like a king and queen. They expect everyone else to do something about
the environment. They think they are doing their bit to stop using
light bulbs and stop using plastic shopping bags and even stop buying
tube amps. They prefer a massive TV set to play movies where the
sirens and police and explosions reign supreme. They buy a Toyota
Prious for $39,000 instead of something costing less to replace but
which is still fairly efficient. They will not buy a bicycle. Those
billions scraping along in 3rd world countries on motorcycles dream of
a car. But when you do the total picture of carbon accounting, all
the little people of the world in both rich and poor countries are
wanting fucken this and fucken that are net INCREASING CO2 emissions.
They are addicted to dreaming of a materially well off future, and
addicted to consumerism, and the more they get, the more insecure and
anxious they become so the more junk food they eat so national
waistline measurements are trending up like C02.
We are an extremely flawed species. We are like the farmer who comes
to his land, and leaves it in far worse condition then when he came.
Planet Earth is feeling sick and is getting a temperature. She might
have a good spew to get rid of us.
Patrick Turner.
John Byrns
<c4821a1a-b689-4da1...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
> I think things will get increasingly unstable with oscillations in
> temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much warmer
> climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years because the
> earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another 1/2 billion
> years.
There is always the chance that earth will be wiped out by a collision
with a giant space rock long before it is consumed by an expanding sun.
John Byrns
<36efbd3b-751a-4204...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:29�am, Fran�ois Yves Le Gal <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:51:51 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
> >
> > <i...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
> > >So when you have a choke input supply with two of those 125KV
> > >thingies, what size is the choke?
> >
> > Here is the choke room at a secret US
> > facility:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hoover_Dam%27s_g
> > en...
> >
> > Eight chokes in wells with a secondary water cooling system. They want you
> > to believe that they are generators, but they are chokes for the ultimate
> > single ended amplifier... Two megawatts from a single Eimac bottle !
I would bet that it takes two of those Eimac bottles to make Two
megawatts, actually in excess of 8 megawatts peak power.
> Class C?
> >
> > http://www.triodeel.com/cemco.jpg
Do you remember the type number on that "bottle"? If it is a triode I
would bet that they are connected as a Doherty linear amplifier, not
class C. If it is a tetrode they are probably connected as a screen
modulated Doherty amplifier, again not really class C.
IIRC these tubes were used in a high power AM broadcast transmitter
built by Continental Electronics, I think I have the Continental catalog
sheet for this transmitter somewhere around here, or am I totally
confused about where this tube was used, having a senior moment?
Ian Iveson
> >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design,
> >possession, sale
> >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall
> >be made illegal...
>
> Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the
> LAW.
> :-)
>
> BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W
> incandescent light bulbs...
If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse
heating of
the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are
already well
into the danger zone.
**Only if you believe he knows the truth. Are you sure he
said we are, rather than possibly, or probably? It's hardly
an exact science. It is not good propoganda to say that we
are already beyond some point of no return, obviously, coz
ppl will give up and redouble their profligacy. May as well
die happy.
We are a species that fouls its own nest, and does too
little too late
to avoid a problem that is slow to affect us.
**Everything fouls its own nest. We had a nice caustic
atmosphere until it was trashed by a previous bunch of
witless organisms.
Anyway, the amps I have just made consume about 500W when
used. But
the switch many ppl are making towards "digital" amplifiers,
class D,
which are 96% efficient is offsetting the effect steam
engines that I
am still making in tiny numbers. I didn't have any children
which is
the worst thing anyone could do to a planet.
**LOL, which is rare here, for me. Ask not what our children
can do for our planet, but what our planet can do for our
children. Having none, perhaps you have missed the point?
There are too many ppl
doing too many things that are destructive here already. If
we all
just didn't breed for 25 years and spent the time instead
fixing the
major problems we'd be OK but it ain't never gonna happen.
Most of the
young are driven uncontrolably to fuck.
**So they don't starve when they get old. The calculus of
fucking continues to confound even the most advanced
societies. Pensions in capitalist states have weakened its
fundamental dynamic but kids are still socially necessary,
so the state jiggles the costs. The delay in this feedback
loop, together with the hysteresis arising from religion and
other forces of tradition, lead to overshoots and
oscillations. Increasingly, migration is globalising the
issues (er..as it were). The maths, as with most social and
environmental problems, gets too big and complicated for
analysis to grasp. China knew that but went ahead and
grappled with it anyway. Basically successful but very
problematic.
**All those years ago, when China had embarked on its
population control programme, my Branch received a
delegation sent by the CPC to explain what they were up to.
They were engagingly earnest and optimistic, calculating and
humane, and very disciplined. Something had to be done, and
that was the best plan they could think of. They predicted
all the problems we have seen since, but couldn't quantify
many of them. Better than mass starvation or civil war, or
both, they said, as far as it seemed to them possible to
know such things. Better red than dead, they said, more or
less; with considerable trepidation because they were
conscious of making the biggest decision in the history of
the world.
I liked to fuck when I was young but I wasn't going to breed
unless
everything looked like it would work out. It never did for
me. Much of
the time I wondered what on earth was the point of breeding.
Everyone
who doesn't breed leaves more in the world for those who do.
So If I
make a few tube amps, so what?
**Best to keep a low profile. Open defiance rankles with
regulators.
**Capitalism entails and depends upon economic growth, as do
all preceeding forms of social organisation. That's the
fundamental issue that Communism addresses. In Socialist
states managed by Communist Parties, growth may not be
necessary but it is still desirable. No system has a good
record of using resources efficiently. However, China seems
to me to be the most likely, perhaps the only, state able to
take the bull by the horns. Elsewhere, politicians have
visions but can't implement decisions.
I think things will get increasingly unstable with
oscillations in
temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much
warmer
climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years
because the
earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another
1/2 billion
years. Our species will get a kick or two in the butt before
then
though, and from the boot we made ourselves.
**Any number of things might happen. Life, albeit not us,
may survive a supernova. I don't think we know a great deal
about them. Your conclusion is simplistic, of course:
climate is much more than temperature, and the environment
is much more than climate.
**At the root of all this is a basic question of philosophy,
about the relationship between quality and quantity of life.
Given the choice, what kind of things should we consider
when trading one for the other? We could decide to have no
children, stuff ourselves stupid with all the earth's
resources, and use our valve amps to the end. Or we could be
miserly and miserable fuckers for eons.
**Ian
Peter Wieck
wrote:
> At the root of all this is a basic question of philosophy,
> about the relationship between quality and quantity of life.
> Given the choice, what kind of things should we consider
> when trading one for the other? We could decide to have no
> children, stuff ourselves stupid with all the earth's
> resources, and use our valve amps to the end. Or we could be
> miserly and miserable fuckers for eons.
Mpffff... Not hardly the way it works. The purpose of any given
species is to prepare the way for the next species just a little
better at competing for that particular ecological niche. At present
we are preparing for a species that will survive a high-carbon
atmosphere with a high relative humidity, higher sea-levels - but
slightly less salt concentration, a greater amount of sulphur and
various other gaseous products-of-combustion around as well as various
analogous solids - mercury, cadmium and similar.
The planet has gone from primarily soft life, to exoskeletons to
backbones, from cold blooded to warm blooded, from copper-based blood
to iron-based, and each form of life got pretty complicated before it
was displaced as the dominant form. And each form of life tried
different approaches - size, quantity, speed, only relatively recently
brains. All humans are doing is accelerating the process very
slightly. And all we are doing is relocating the various elements from
one form and location to another, discounting the miniscule amounts
being shot into space of course.
So, we best serve our purpose by behaving exactly as we do - and
pretty much as every other species does - reproduce like mad, use it
up and stop adapting, stop changing, stop evolving. Once that happens
as a species we are doomed - after which it is only a matter of time.
And as one would put down a beloved pet when it is clear that it is in
pain and cannot be made better - we should more-or-less treat
ourselves the same way. And make way for our replacements in the next
several million years or so - a tiny fraction of time as the earth
measures things anyway. Keeping always in mind that nature does not
particularly care about intelligence except as a way for a species to
dominate its niche a little bit better. But the right virus at the
right moment proves how little brains really mean in the scheme of
things.
PeterD
<IanIves...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Patrick Turner wrote:
>
>> >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design,
>> >possession, sale
>> >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall
>> >be made illegal...
>>
>> Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the
>> LAW.
>> :-)
>>
>> BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W
>> incandescent light bulbs...
>
>If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse
>heating of
>the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are
>already well
>into the danger zone.
Just because he said something doesn't make it true, or a valid
conclusion.
>...
Peter Wieck
> Just because he said something doesn't make it true, or a valid
> conclusion.
Of course not. In any case the quicker we hasten our departure the
quicker the next dominant species evolves. That it will do so is an
historical absolute, all we are doing is dickering over the timing.
Patrick Turner
> In article
> <c4821a1a-b689-4da1-b613-c820086b8...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Patrick Turner <i...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I think things will get increasingly unstable with oscillations in
> > temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much warmer
> > climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years because the
> > earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another 1/2 billion
> > years.
>
> There is always the chance that earth will be wiped out by a collision
> with a giant space rock long before it is consumed by an expanding sun.
Well indeed.
OK, so a rock wipes out most life in only 5 million years time, like
the one 65mill ago.
So another 50million years drifts by, and some life form evolves
again.....and all this maybe several times before Earth is finally
fried.
The future and the unknown worries so many people that some of them
invented BS about the Rapture, and Judgement Day, and God and so on.
But be good while your'e alive. Hell might just exist.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
wrote:
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design,
> > >possession, sale
> > >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall
> > >be made illegal...
>
> > Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the
> > LAW.
> > :-)
>
> > BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W
> > incandescent light bulbs...
>
> If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse
> heating of
> the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are
> already well
> into the danger zone.
>
> **Only if you believe he knows the truth. Are you sure he
> said we are, rather than possibly, or probably? It's hardly
> an exact science. It is not good propoganda to say that we
> are already beyond some point of no return, obviously, coz
> ppl will give up and redouble their profligacy. May as well
> die happy.
I cannot know all the truth.
All the truth is an infinite amount of information and I have only a
finite brain which cannot understand infinite knowledge.
But Lovelock seems to be fairly right to me.
If in 50 years time there are 12 billion people all needing 2kWH to
have a life, and most of that is via fossil burning, then mankind's
gross activity is like a huge volcano that just won't give up spewing
shite into the air.
They'll be dire consequences.
In well educated societies, people don't need to breed much to not
starve in old age. Only a small % of ppl are required for food
production, and even if you lost your sons and daughters the system
would feed you.
We don't breed because we need to any more; we breed because we like
to see our genes flourish; its supposedly a challenge that's
irrestistable, groovy in fact, and cool, awesome, etc, when your'e
young of course. But at present the slice of the world each person
gets is becoming smaller and smaller.
The calculus of
> fucking continues to confound even the most advanced
> societies. Pensions in capitalist states have weakened its
> fundamental dynamic but kids are still socially necessary,
> so the state jiggles the costs. The delay in this feedback
> loop, together with the hysteresis arising from religion and
> other forces of tradition, lead to overshoots and
> oscillations.
Indeed.
>Increasingly, migration is globalising the
> issues (er..as it were). The maths, as with most social and
> environmental problems, gets too big and complicated for
> analysis to grasp. China knew that but went ahead and
> grappled with it anyway. Basically successful but very
> problematic.
>
> **All those years ago, when China had embarked on its
> population control programme, my Branch received a
> delegation sent by the CPC to explain what they were up to.
> They were engagingly earnest and optimistic, calculating and
> humane, and very disciplined. Something had to be done, and
> that was the best plan they could think of. They predicted
> all the problems we have seen since, but couldn't quantify
> many of them. Better than mass starvation or civil war, or
> both, they said, as far as it seemed to them possible to
> know such things. Better red than dead, they said, more or
> less; with considerable trepidation because they were
> conscious of making the biggest decision in the history of
> the world.
Well we ought to thank the CPC for their stern limitations on
breeding.
That left more world for everyone else "on our side" to exploit.
But someone said "To become rich is glorious", and now China is hell
bent on materialism and 2kWH per person of energy use.
Indeed.
But we are getting mid summer day temps now although its springtime.
11 degrees C above average.
>
> **At the root of all this is a basic question of philosophy,
> about the relationship between quality and quantity of life.
> Given the choice, what kind of things should we consider
> when trading one for the other? We could decide to have no
> children, stuff ourselves stupid with all the earth's
> resources, and use our valve amps to the end. Or we could be
> miserly and miserable fuckers for eons.
Or we could get busy with changing from fossils to nuclear and all
forms of "green" alternatives like solar and wind power.
Then we could be a stuffin, and a muckin and a fukkin, and have our
tube amps.
But so many hate the change required. They cry out like they always
have,
"We'll be rooned".....
Change always costs money.
I might have to pay $5,000 per year for electricity instead of the
present $1,600.
That is a big increase in costs for me when I am on low wages.
But average weekly earnings in Oz right now is $50,000 per year and so
the change is quite affordable for those on average wages; they just
give up some small luxury.
But some folks would like to machine gun anyone who raises costs and
foists a change on them.
Some of these horrid folks will have kids who resent they were born
and they'll carry on the arsole traditions.
Patrick Turner.
fs
>
> **Ian
Patrick Turner
Indeed history teaches us a lot.
Most folks don't want to see our species having to be put down because
its unviable or in serious pain.
But death has to faced by all of us.
The polititions can only offer a side show really, temporary amusement
and higher electricity bills. So many people will just do business as
usual because the cost of change is worse that status quo. Polititians
cannot overcome the FU2 philosophy which so many believe in.
I think genetic engineering could allow a huge increase in speed of
evolution which would enable us to counter the anthropocentric effect
we are having on climate. Rich people will be able to afford it. One
could have a world with only 10% of present bio-diversity.
It seems to me we are changing the world much faster than any species
can evolve to addapt to the changes.
Intelligence has led us here and it seems stupid.
I can't stop any of it.
Patrick Turner.
Andre Jute
Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.
Some people really need a lot of help to put their minds in gear.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Peter Wieck
> Some people really need a lot of help to put their minds in gear.
Yes, Andre, they do. And you most definitely are the first and best
example of that need as it applies to this group anyway. What passes
for your mind is well-and-truly made up. No need to confuse you with
any facts.
However, you also very much make my point - which is as you so aptly
demonstrate - that humans have reached an evolutionary dead-end. And
every species that has reached that point has the responsibility to
eliminate itself from the planet as quickly and efficiently as
possible. There is no such thing as "harm" in that process as its
replacement will simply evolve to meet the prevailing conditions.
Expedience and speed are the requirements. You are contributing to
that very nicely, thank you!
Patrick Turner
I recall the dinosaurs went for many millions of years before fouling
their own nest.
Then after the asteroid 65 million yrs ago the dinos mostly
diminished, and nothing much upset the atmosphere until man evolved
and began to need 2kWH 24/7 to have a good life.
>
> Anyway, the amps I have just made consume about 500W when
> used. But
> the switch many ppl are making towards "digital" amplifiers,
> class D,
> which are 96% efficient is offsetting the effect steam
> engines that I
> am still making in tiny numbers. I didn't have any children
> which is
> the worst thing anyone could do to a planet.
>
> **LOL, which is rare here, for me. Ask not what our children
> can do for our planet, but what our planet can do for our
> children. Having none, perhaps you have missed the point?
I sure missed having kids. But the C word amoung the shielas I met is
"Committment", and none knew the meaning of the word.
There is a possibility that today's children will grow to understand
global warming better than their parents. Perhaps they might be
prepared to do more about stopping CO2 emissions. But the probability
of the possibility of the next generations doing much about CO2 is
rather gloomy IMHO. You'll never be able to talk your missus into
having a cold shower to prevent CO2 emissions, right?
For each green minded person there might be 2 who don't care what
happens and 3 who go by the FU2 idea and care only to own a 10 room
house, and make lotsa money to pay for a grossly polluting lifestyle
while cheering the boys with chain saws ripping down forests and
causing mahem and mass extinctions. They will believe we are entitled
to business as usual and God is on their side.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
> There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.
>
> Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
> on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
> happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
> be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.
>
> Some people really need a lot of help to put their minds in gear.
I admit that there is a possibility of a range of probabilities coming
true about greenhouse warming.
I recall the doomsayers of the 1960s saying that by now there would be
mass starvations caused by limited food supplies. But the green
revolution occurred and rice yields doubled per hectare. As the world
continues getting richer and wealthier and as more energy is used by
mechanised farming, more food should get produced and more ppl will
eat meat. GM crops will boost food values. But perhaps there is a
limit to such progress. There is talk of having 50million ppl in Oz
within 50 years. Maybe we then could not export any food. We may have
to rely on desalination for water.
I would prefer to see alternatives to fossil fuel burning. Nuclear
looks well to me. If we had Thorium based fission reactors or we
eventually got fusion reactors to work then farewell and good riddance
to the coal industry IMHO.
But vested interests in the current status quo are screaming like
stuck pigs when ppl say let's do away with the coal industry and the
oil industry. Carbon trading looks set to be a huge swindle. CO2
sequestration looks unlikely to be successful.
Adelaide has just had 5 spring days with over 35C which has set a
record since records began in about 1880.
And we don't eve have an Elnino drought condition. Its been a very
nice spring here with nice rainfall which I have not seen for about 9
years at least.
There is a line across the map of Sth Oz called the Goyder Line which
denotes where farming north of the line is unviable, and south is OK.
I expect to see the line move south.
I am discussing the use of SMPS for tube amps with a friend again.
Maybe the discussions bear fruit. Almost anything is better than a
GZ34. So while some might adore GZ34, others like myself would think
they kneel at a fool's altar.
If I could cram a SMPS into a steel box about 220mm W x 140mm H x
120mm L, then that would replace the heavy costly PT I currently use
and I would have something more desirable to own and use. Halcro amps
which arguably are the best solid state class AB amps available have
SMPS and they are not noisy. If every tube amp dumped the GZ34
technology out of their design it would make tube amps easier to own
and not degrade the sound.
Patrick Turner.
Peter Wieck
> For each green minded person there might be 2 who don't care what
> happens and 3 who go by the FU2 idea and care only to own a 10 room
> house, and make lotsa money to pay for a grossly polluting lifestyle
> while cheering the boys with chain saws ripping down forests and
> causing mahem and mass extinctions. They will believe we are entitled
> to business as usual and God is on their side.
Oh, I dunno. I expect that God is pretty much indifferent to this
planet and its contents - it is all part of the bigger plan, after
all.
As to 'greeness' that is a moving target. Start with "things" - the
range from houses to cloths:
a) The greenest 'thing' is one that already exists.
b) Any new "thing" requires resources to make it, care to keep it, and
somewhere to put it when it is 'done'. This is called 'life-cycle
cost'.
c) Recycling has a cost - in many cases the cost is lower than the
alternative. In very nearly equally many the cost is equivalent to the
alternative. In very few, the alternative is both the wisest and most
green decision. Metals are category 1. Plastics wood, vegetable matter
and paper materials are category 2. Some are amenable to recycling as
similar products, some may become biofuels by distillation, some may
be burnt directly as fuel. Some chemicals (which likely should never
had been made in the first place) are category 3.
d) No 'thing' may be viewed at a single moment. It must be viewed
across its entire life-cycle. So, windmills are very good 'things' as
they last a long time, don't cost very much and don't need much care
and use simple technology. Yes, there is cost in mining and refining
the materials going into them - but per category 1 above much may be
from existing sources, and when 'done' may be readily recycled. Solar
(photovoltaic) panels are very bad 'things' as they are costly to
install, costly to make and refine the materials, cannot be recycled
and have a limited life. Even with subsidies their so-called 'payback'
period is anything from 10 - 15 years. Without subsidies, they never
pay back due to those nasty life-cycle costs.
e) Similarly early-version hybrid vehicles. Making and disposing of
those batteries is a nasty process. It is getting better - but that is
a lagging technology. Better than gasoline - but not yet perfect.
So, as we look towards acquiring 'things' for the good life - we need
to make some choices. Do we buy our living 'thing' in a new
development (very likely on farmland) made with new materials (however
efficient)? Or do we buy an existing 'thing' that has never been on
farmland but may not be as efficient as that new 'thing'? The existing
'thing' is far greener than any new 'thing' in this case by any
measure. Even if bigger/smaller/whatever than the alternative new
'thing'. Follow that logic through all the rest of the 'things' we use
in our daily lives.
Do we restrict our life-style based on not wanting to use 'things'
that we feel are not so green, or do we do what we wish but with care
and acknowlegement of the footprints we leave? The former may (but not
necessarily will) lead to bitterness, resentment, provincialism, self-
righteousness and ignorance. The latter may be less 'green', but might
(not necessarily will) make us happier (and therefore better) people.
All our choices on 'things' have implications. And all that is
required is that when we make such choices we understand them.
Andre Jute
> On Nov 12, 3:51 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.
>
> > Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
> > on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
> > happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
> > be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.
>
> > Some people really need a lot of help to put their minds in gear.
>
> I admit that there is a possibility of a range of probabilities coming
> true about greenhouse warming.
The main one being that it is a lie and always was a lie/
For many centuries during the Medieval Warm Period, the earth was much
warmer than it is now.
For two and a half centuries during the Little Ice Age the earth was
much colder than it is now. The earth hasn't recovered from the Litle
Ice Age yet.
The Global Warmies tried to lie these historical facts out of
existence with statistical tricks, now exposed; this is the notorious
Hockey Stick Scam which by statistical incompetence and trickey
flattened the peak of the MWP and the trough of the LIA in an attempt
to make the 1990s look very warm.
The models built with those lies failed retrospectively to fit the
temperature data. How can anyone expect such incompetent models to
predict anything.
The models built with those lies failed to predict the cooling period
in the very next decade. How can anyone believe that such incompetent
models can predict a hundred or three hundred years ahead?
Note that I'm not just jumping on a bandwagon and kicking a dog that's
already down, as you are, Patrick; I've sent these climate alarmists,
including the global warmies, up rotten since I was a precocious
teenager with a column in the Sunday Times and they were screeching
first about the hole in the ozone layer (where is it?) and then about
the imminent ice age (missed that one too!), and then changed course
and tried to pretend Hell burns on earth.
> I recall the doomsayers of the 1960s saying that by now there would be
> mass starvations caused by limited food supplies. But the green
> revolution occurred and rice yields doubled per hectare. As the world
> continues getting richer and wealthier and as more energy is used by
> mechanised farming, more food should get produced and more ppl will
> eat meat. GM crops will boost food values. But perhaps there is a
> limit to such progress. There is talk of having 50million ppl in Oz
> within 50 years. Maybe we then could not export any food. We may have
> to rely on desalination for water.
"Perhaps". Perhaps isn't science. "There is talk of..." Among idiots
who want to sound clever there is always talk. That isn't science
either. 50m people in Oz wouldn't affect food exports one once, man.
You live in Canberra, you can go ask the figures and read them for
yourself, instead of wasting your time on the net looking like the
victim of every passing apocalyptic fad.
> I would prefer to see alternatives to fossil fuel burning. Nuclear
> looks well to me. If we had Thorium based fission reactors or we
> eventually got fusion reactors to work then farewell and good riddance
> to the coal industry IMHO.
Hallelujah!
> But vested interests in the current status quo are screaming like
> stuck pigs when ppl say let's do away with the coal industry and the
> oil industry.
They will be the first to invest in nuclear energy.
>Carbon trading looks set to be a huge swindle.
Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists,
designed it as a bigger bonanza for the ruling classes than
Prohibition. Fat Boy is the Joe Kennedy of our generation, a
"respectable" criminal.
>CO2
> sequestration looks unlikely to be successful.
And you couldn't forecast that? Besides, it was unnecessary and
probably counterproductive.
> Adelaide has just had 5 spring days with over 35C which has set a
> record since records began in about 1880.
After all these years mostly in the green and beloved isle, I hate it
in Adelaide, my other home, when it gets that hot. I like the winter
in Adelaide; feels warm to me, and more even-tempered than the South
of France.
> And we don't eve have an Elnino drought condition. Its been a very
> nice spring here with nice rainfall which I have not seen for about 9
> years at least.
>
> There is a line across the map of Sth Oz called the Goyder Line which
> denotes where farming north of the line is unviable, and south is OK.
> I expect to see the line move south.
Here we go again. Everything gets better and better, year by year.
Despite a hugely larger population, there are 300m fewer hungry people
in the world, but the usual clowns are rubbing ashes on their heads
and, global warming being dead, finding something else to whine about.
> I am discussing the use of SMPS for tube amps with a friend again.
> Maybe the discussions bear fruit. Almost anything is better than a
> GZ34. So while some might adore GZ34, others like myself would think
> they kneel at a fool's altar.
Switch mode power supplies for hi-fi... Excuse me while I vomit.
Pinkostinko will crawl out the grave to kiss you on the lips, my man.
The GZ34 is the rectifier of reference for people with culture. The
only thing that comes close is the Svetlana (blessed be her memory)
6D22S and you need to set up two of those, which is rough on real
estate on your amp and on the pocket for the exta filament supply.
GZ32 is also super but now far too pricey.
> If I could cram a SMPS into a steel box about 220mm W x 140mm H x
> 120mm L, then that would replace the heavy costly PT I currently use
> and I would have something more desirable to own and use. Halcro amps
> which arguably are the best solid state class AB amps available have
> SMPS and they are not noisy. If every tube amp dumped the GZ34
> technology out of their design it would make tube amps easier to own
> and not degrade the sound.
You're nuts. This is the old, old story of excessive negative feedback
chopping up the sound all over again, but this time starting in the
power supply, which -- as I keep saying -- is part of the sonic
transfer function. A whole amp full of fractional artifacts of
fractional artifacts piggybacking on each other, necessitating more
NFB, which creates more fractionak residuals which piggyback yet more
fractional residuals until the sound is entirely articial.
A punctiliously built poor idea is always a poor idea, like NFB was
all along; that it has triumphed in the market place does not improve
a bad idea.
You done good by hi-fi electronics, Patrick. If you're bored with what
you've achieved, give hi-fi a rest, find something else to do to
recharge the batteries.
landotter
> Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists,
> designed it as a bigger bonanza for the ruling classes than
> Prohibition. Fat Boy is the Joe Kennedy of our generation, a
> "respectable" criminal.
Evidence for this claim?
Or is it so important for lunatics like yourself to emotionally
coalesce around lies that you'll just fix the facts afterward?
Andre Jute
> On Nov 13, 3:54 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists,
> > Prohibition. Fat Boy is the Joe Kennedy of our generation, a
> > "respectable" criminal.
>
> Evidence for this claim?
>
> Or is it so important for lunatics like yourself to emotionally
> coalesce around lies that you'll just fix the facts afterward?
You get all insulting because I say Fat Al Gore is FAT? Sheet, Maxine,
you must be blind as well as impressionable:
Let's give you an eyetest. In this piccy, which FATTY is Greedyguts Al
Gore?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/the%20veep%20and%20the%20queen.JPG
And once more, is the FAT guy on the left "Steal Big" Al Gore or is he
Fat Hanging Chad?
http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2007/11/AL%20GORE%20ROBERT%20DE%20NIRO.JPG
Everybody's been laughing at Fat Al and his Church of Global Warming
Impressionables:
"Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he
is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the
election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every
time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the
scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman
"Gore's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David
Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al
Gore?'"
"And you can tell Gore's serious when he talks about the world ending
because he eats everything in sight." --Jimmy Kimmel
"If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president's
seeming largeness ... Here's an inconvenient truth: cake isn't a food
group" --Jon Stewart
Enjoy, Maxine, enjoy!
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly
Don Pearce
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:49 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
><in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 12, 3:51�pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.
>>>
>>> Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
>>> on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
>>> happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
>>> be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.
>>>
>>> Some people really need a lot of help to �put their minds in gear.
>>
>>I admit that there is a possibility of a range of probabilities coming
>>true about greenhouse warming.
>
>There is, currently, not even a working hypothesis for man induced CO2
>'global warming', much less a theory, and speculation is not science.
>
You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
d
Andre Jute
a farce."
Andre Jute:
> >The main one being that global warming is a lie and always was a lie/
!Jones:
> Apparently, the world's scientists disagree with the world's
> bicyclists... and visa versa.
Jute:
Here are a couple of engineers making a longer-view contribution to
the posts by me and Patrick Turner that set this off:
*****
FROM flipper <fli...@fish.net>:
Jute:
> >>>> There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
> >>>> on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
> >>>> happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
> >>>> be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.
Patrick Turner:
> >>>I admit that there is a possibility of a range of probabilities coming
> >>>true about greenhouse warming.
Flipper:
> >>There is, currently, not even a working hypothesis for man induced CO2
> >>'global warming', much less a theory, and speculation is not science.
Don Pearce:
> >You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
> >cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
Flipper:
> I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
> doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
> induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
> Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
> 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
> using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
> it's anomalous.
>
> It all depends on how you construct the trend lines but if cherry
> picked well enough, and 'anomalies corrected', they manage to claim a
> 'slight' (worst case flat) warming not as much as the previous but
> 'probably' (wave arms) just a 'pause' till it resumes even worse than
> before despite there being not one shred of evidence to support the
> speculation.
>
> However, even if it did 'resume' we're no where near planetary 'highs'
> for either temperature OR C02 and the only reason AGW pinheads imagine
> so is because they actually think 150 years of measurements, 35 or so
> if you only count satellites, coming out of a mini ice age means
> something in a freaking 120,000 year glacial cycle. But despite our
> best efforts at pumping CO2 into the air this interglacial is no where
> near the last temperature peak 120,000 years ago, or the previous
> interglacial cycle peak 240,000 years ago, or the interglacial peak
> before that one as well as the one before that. All of which occurred
> without the help, thank you, of Exxon, Mobile, Shell, BP and SUVs.
>
> Hell, we're not even at the peak of THIS puny interglacial. That
> occurred some 8000 years ago, give or take a few centuries.
>
> And ALL of that is below the geological average as we're still in the
> current 55 million year long (so far) glacial period with the last
> honest to goodness 'warm' period being circa 75 million years ago; and
> the preceding glacial period wasn't near as cold as this one. You've
> got to go 3 glacial periods back some 450 million years to find
> weather this chilly.
>
> Oh, btw, CO2 levels were at a massive 4,500 ppm during that 450
> million year ago COLD glacial period and 2,000 ppm during the 'not as
> cold' glacial period 150 million years ago. Colder glacial period with
> MORE, twice as much, CO2? And if CO2 drove temperature the entire
> planet should have been a burned cinder instead of in deep glacial
> periods.
>
> Calling CO2 driven AGW 'science' is a farce.
****
Jute:
Yup. Looks like Flipper agrees with me, there's more science in
Scientology than in global warming.
For the innocant, Scientology is a religion (i.e. a tax dodge) of
green bug-eyed monsters though up by L Ron Hubbard, a sci-fi writer.
Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
"Oh, I've seen the loonies do that for half a century. Asher's problem
is that he has such a poor grasp of history, he thinks the New
Apocalypse of Global Warming is brand spanking new and exciting." --
Andre Jute
Peter Wieck
> Pretty much a bunch of self-serving crap.
Andre, it is nice to see that you are doing your duty to the universe
and also serving as such an excellent example of why it needs be done.
To repeat: The human race, as you so fully prove has reached an
evolutionary dead end. Lingering further simply impedes its
replacement from gaining its rightful place. So, our duty is to wipe
ourselves out as completely and quickly as is conceivably possible.
Failing that, to do nothing to impede the process. As to damaging the
planet in that process - again, repeating: all we are doing is messing
about around the edges and shifting a few oxides around here and
there. As the earth measures things our pernanent effect is nil and
our present value negative. But that we are rendering it useless for
ourselves is only a good thing. That we are fouling both our own nest
and that of many other planetary shareholders is also of no import,
again in a couple of million years all will be forgotten.
Keep on as you are - a ranting, brain-damaged little pipsqueak howling
from an Irish backwater. You are serving the highest and best use you
are able, after all.
Andre Jute
> Well, Jute... when you fling the terms "liar" and "lies" about, I read
> it as you're trying to evoke my emotion as opposed to informing or
> persuading me.
Nah, Jonesy, I'm too old and too wily to try and persuade sheep of
anything. I just lay out the facts for those who want them and
eventually there's a tax revolt and the powers that be call me a
revolutionary (a travesty, if you ask me; my dinner jacket fits better
than theirs) and send assassins after me.
I have laid out the evidence that Michael Mann, the lead writer of a
key IPCC report, lied. On this conference. Google up "Hockey Stick"
and you will find the evidence given by leading members of the US
National Academy of Science before the US Senate. I'm surprised you
speak out before gathering facts, Jonesy; it's a very unprofessional
thing for a university professor to do.
> The world's scientists are (sort of) coming to a consensus that
> contradicts your position.
Science is not about consensus, it's about proof. Global warming, as
Flipper says, doesn't even have a hypothesis, never mind proof. All it
has is scare stories and computer models that don't forecast shit.
>There are certainly a few voices of
> dissention.
You mean "dissent". Or "a few dissenting voices".
>My point is that an intelligent reader would not be
> convinced by your use of loaded language (i.e.: "liars") that the
> scientific community has it all wrong.
Who says the "scientific community" has it all wrong? You? Certainly
not me! In fact, my proofs that the bureaucrats at the IPCC and some
climatologists have lied, are lying, and intend to go on lying,
depends primarily on a cross-displinary analysis of contrary data.
Look up the thread in which Ben Wiener, on this conference, tried to
lie to me that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are
only "eurocentric", at which point I published 37 peer-reviewed
references from a double handful of sciences that gave that bullshit
the lie and proved, and still proves, that the MWP and the LIA circled
the globa.
> I'm not a climatologist, so I don't know.
This isn't about climatology. This is about lies so-called scientists
make proxy statistics perform at the behest of IPCC bureaucrats.
I'm a statistician (economists and psychologists are just
statisticians with a spot more class and imagination than mere
technicians) who was once paid a seven-figure sum (before bonuses of
several times that) every year for being a very, very smart boy with
numbers. What I can make numbers do, I can also spot crooks who call
themselves scientists doing. So can other first-class statisticians,
among them McIntyre & McKittrick, who for exposing the Hockey Stick as
a sham should have had the Nobel Prize given to that clown Al Gore.
> I do know that a vast
> majority of the climatologists disagree with you...
Ah, here we go: consensus! Actually, there isn't consensus, merely a
meretricious claim by bureaucrats at the IPCC that there is consensus.
And consensus isn't science, Jonesy, it is bought by money and power.
Read a little scientific history. Lysenko is a good place to start. He
killed tens of millions of people by starvation.
In a couple of decades, I'm going to label you a genocide for
supporting this global warming scare, same as I labelled Rachel Carson
and all her followers, including some by name on RBT, genocides for
the pointless banning of DDT, which too was done on the basis of
hysteria without an iota of scientific proof. (Look up DDT on this
conference if you want to see how I made that point stick.)
>and you're
> shrieking about it! That's not likely to convince anyone.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just having fun tweaking the
noses of the global warming faithful, same way I tweak the noses of
the anti-evolutionist fundies.
When I want to convince you, you won't even know you've been
convinced. You're talking to a premium-grade hidden persauder. Those
statistics I mentioned above as so valuable, I did them in
advertising.
> Let's say that I were persuaded; what, exactly, do you want me to
> *do*?
Gee, and they let you teach unformed minds! Yo, Jonesy, there's sure
to be a Politics 101 somewhere in your college. Go sit in. When you've
got the point, then write to your Congressman as follows:
"I am not convinced that global warming is a real and present danger.
The cost of Kyoto alone is in the trillions already. For that much we
can raise the poor of the world out of their misery by giving them
food, clean water, basic health care and primary education. If instead
we spend the money on a hubristic attempt to control a natural force,
in a very short time sharp intellectuals will call us genocidal fools.
If you vote for such a waste of money, I shall no longer be able to
vote for you. Yours sincerely, Jonesy."
>Is reducing our use of fossil fuels a *bad* thing?
Not at all. But common economy or even prudence doesn't make it an
imperative. What is bad, what is indeed racist, is for us to insist
that brown and black peoples trying to industrialize must stay poor
forever so that they do not produce carbon. This is very hard for
Americans to understand but is the official position of the Chinese
and the Indians and others. Did you know that your government is
racist, Jonesy?
>Should I
> drive more?
Of course you should: you might learn to drive better and be less of a
danger to cyclists. (BTW, I haven't owned a car since 1992. I'm a very
great deal greener than you will ever be.)
>Will that help the situation?
Of course not. Your question merely illustrates your ignorance. Carbon
is a natural gas, a very small fraction of the greenhouse gases that
so upset the doom-mongers. Without carbon, plants will die, then
humans and other oxygen-breathers will die. The human-created CO2 is
the tiniest fraction of a subfraction. Even if we controlled it, and
we can't, it would make no difference whatsoever. As Flipper pointed
out, as I have pointed out on this conference many times, there is no
scientific proof that CO2 is linked to global temperature. In fact, in
the ice core record, rising temperature precedes CO2 increase. You
might equally, with more visible proof, say that temperature rise
causes CO2 increases.
If you were actually to look into the correlation of global
temperature rise, you would discover it is statistically closely
linked to sunspot activity. But sunspot activity doesn't have any
guilt button to press, and automobiles and consumption already carry
that burden of aeons of Christian guilt inculcation for the would-be
controllers of our lives, the environmentalists, to work on.
>Why are you trying so hard
> to convince me?
I've told you, I'm just pushing the buttons of the global warming
fundies. It just seems hard to you because you haven't grasped yet
that I don't take prisoners.
>If you're right, then what difference does it make
> whether or not I choose to reduce my carbon footprint?
None. However, if I'm wrong, and global warming is caused by your CO2
emissions, you should produce a bigger carbon footprint so that the
temperature can rise two degrees, which would increase agricultural
output and thus feed the world's hungry. That too is in an IPCC
report. (It appears that I'm the only one who has actually read the
literature. The rest of these clowns, and you apparently, take their
"facts" from television.)
> Is carbon
> dioxide accumulation a good thing?
The Earth is very good at carbon accumulation. What do you think oil
and coal is, what do you think fuels the trees and plants that provide
our oxygen?
> Jones
>
> P.S. Please do not cross post into other newsgroups; that reflects
> poor Usenet manners, IMO.
Something else you should learn, Jonesy. Your opinion doesn't matter
to me. I'll do what I'm going to do regardless of whether you think it
is good netiquette, and sooner or later my version will become the
rule. So save your breath; I'm not in the least interested in
conforming to your lowest common denominator view of how one should
behave.
In any event, this part of this thread, which I merely gave the name
of an RBT thread, *originated on RAT*, and I crossposted it to RBT
because many cyclists are interested in global warming and might have
informative input.
> I trimmed the headers for a reason...
Whatever quivers your wick, pal.
>I
> don't know squat about audio tubes and don't want to pester those nice
> people with our off-topic discussion.
Eh? Wakey, wakey, Jonesy; this discussion originated on
rec.audio.tubes. And now you arrogantly want to assume the right to
deprive them of it? Bit dictatorial, aren't you, Jonesy? Sounds like
you've taught college too long, sport.
Michael Press
<5bc53a85-b178-4a1f...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/the%20veep%20and%20the%20queen.JPG
If you want to look slim ...
--
Michael Press
Peter Wieck
> You took that witticism off a newly discovered ardipithecus carving,
> no doubt.
Nah!
Just observation of the obvious. No wit required.
Peter Wieck
> > P.S. Please do not cross post into other newsgroups; that reflects
> > poor Usenet manners, IMO.
>
> Something else you should learn, Jonesy. Your opinion doesn't matter
> to me. I'll do what I'm going to do regardless of whether you think it
> is good netiquette, and sooner or later my version will become the
> rule. So save your breath; I'm not in the least interested in
> conforming to your lowest common denominator view of how one should
> behave.
Yes, of course. All must conform to the "Great Jute" - Pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE&feature=related
Patrick Turner
> On Nov 13, 12:21 am, Patrick Turner <i...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > For each green minded person there might be 2 who don't care what
> > happens and 3 who go by the FU2 idea and care only to own a 10 room
> > house, and make lotsa money to pay for a grossly polluting lifestyle
> > while cheering the boys with chain saws ripping down forests and
> > causing mahem and mass extinctions. They will believe we are entitled
> > to business as usual and God is on their side.
>
> Oh, I dunno. I expect that God is pretty much indifferent to this
> planet and its contents - it is all part of the bigger plan, after
> all.
I agree on your points, that there is a God, that he, she or it is
indifferent, and there is a bigger plan which we are only scratching
at the surface to understand. As we look deeper into space we probably
will find the known universe is teeming with lifeforms and some might
be intelligent and we might really learn something. Then there are the
teeming universes outside our own. And our dissection of the atom
isn't over yet and much needs to be understood.
Had I lived in 1500, and said such things I'd have been burnt at a
stake somewhere.
Life has a queerness alright.
>
> As to 'greeness' that is a moving target. Start with "things" - the
> range from houses to cloths:
> a) The greenest 'thing' is one that already exists.
> b) Any new "thing" requires resources to make it, care to keep it, and
> somewhere to put it when it is 'done'. This is called 'life-cycle
> cost'.
> c) Recycling has a cost - in many cases the cost is lower than the
> alternative. In very nearly equally many the cost is equivalent to the
> alternative. In very few, the alternative is both the wisest and most
> green decision. Metals are category 1. Plastics wood, vegetable matter
> and paper materials are category 2. Some are amenable to recycling as
> similar products, some may become biofuels by distillation, some may
> be burnt directly as fuel. Some chemicals (which likely should never
> had been made in the first place) are category 3.
And one could say a whole pile of people shouldn't have been born.
I should show more tolerance eh.... :-)
> d) No 'thing' may be viewed at a single moment. It must be viewed
> across its entire life-cycle. So, windmills are very good 'things' as
> they last a long time, don't cost very much and don't need much care
> and use simple technology.
There have been a bunch of 50+ windmills erected 20km away on a hilly
ridge where the wind blows strong. After awhile their ruination of the
landscape becomes tolerable considering the power being generated.
> Yes, there is cost in mining and refining
> the materials going into them - but per category 1 above much may be
> from existing sources, and when 'done' may be readily recycled. Solar
> (photovoltaic) panels are very bad 'things' as they are costly to
> install, costly to make and refine the materials, cannot be recycled
> and have a limited life. Even with subsidies their so-called 'payback'
> period is anything from 10 - 15 years. Without subsidies, they never
> pay back due to those nasty life-cycle costs.
Indeed the volatge cells are a bit sus but all their metal is
recyclable. If they become dead at some point then the actual panels
don't contain a huge amount of noxious chemistry. So they seem benign
to me.
A company here has been selling panels which conatin vacuum sealed
glass tubes with metal pipes within to heat water. They are amazingly
more efficient at collecting solar heat and saving fossil heating of
water.
Every parent of a teenage daughter knows just how much time there
little dearie spends in the shower until the big tank of water runs
cold.
> e) Similarly early-version hybrid vehicles. Making and disposing of
> those batteries is a nasty process. It is getting better - but that is
> a lagging technology. Better than gasoline - but not yet perfect.
There's a heap of progerss to be made.
>
> So, as we look towards acquiring 'things' for the good life - we need
> to make some choices. Do we buy our living 'thing' in a new
> development (very likely on farmland) made with new materials (however
> efficient)? Or do we buy an existing 'thing' that has never been on
> farmland but may not be as efficient as that new 'thing'? The existing
> 'thing' is far greener than any new 'thing' in this case by any
> measure. Even if bigger/smaller/whatever than the alternative new
> 'thing'. Follow that logic through all the rest of the 'things' we use
> in our daily lives.
>
> Do we restrict our life-style based on not wanting to use 'things'
> that we feel are not so green, or do we do what we wish but with care
> and acknowlegement of the footprints we leave? The former may (but not
> necessarily will) lead to bitterness, resentment, provincialism, self-
> righteousness and ignorance. The latter may be less 'green', but might
> (not necessarily will) make us happier (and therefore better) people.
>
> All our choices on 'things' have implications. And all that is
> required is that when we make such choices we understand them.
"Thingism" is a fetid persuit. Otherwise known as "Stuffitis", or
rampant consumerism, or putting on the agony and putting on the style.
It could literally cost the earth.
But take your typical HT audio-visual system. The amoung of stuff to
make a big flat screen and 7.1 sound system is about the same as what
used to be used to make a pair of ESL57 and a pair of Quad-II plus a
control unit.
In time the stuff needed will diminish further. One can have a 700
watt amp with 7 channels using very little if is done with PWM amps,
ie, class D which are 96% efficient. Such huge advances in efficiency
allow a tiny weeny % of ppl to own a tubed stereo system with class A
amps weighing 120Kg. The vast majority of ppl will go for the
lightweight class D amps in a lightweight box and a huge flat screen,
and the cost is remarkably low. The sound of class D is at least as
good as the poorer class AB amps which class D is replacing, and it
suits a majority.
Patrick Turner.
Don Pearce
>>You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
>>cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>>
>>d
>
>I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
>doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
>induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
>Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
>1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
>using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
>it's anomalous.
When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
assertions, you've really lost the game.
d
Patrick Turner
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:53 GMT, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
> induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
> Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
> 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
> using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
> it's anomalous.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Among the readers of r.a.t there would be a lot of doubters about
greenhouse warming.
Perhaps the high CO2 levels in the distant past were caused by
volcanic activity. Just hope and prey Yellowstone doesn't start up
bigtime any time soon. You could have high CO2 and cold if there was a
lotta smoke. An asteroid hit could have "interesting effects" not able
to be modelled easily. There may have been a big one that took out the
dinosaurs, but there also may have been smaller ones from time to time
whose impact left little evidence except what we see in the fossil
records.
Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
> On Nov 14, 1:26 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Pretty much a bunch of self-serving crap.
>
> Andre, it is nice to see that you are doing your duty to the universe
> and also serving as such an excellent example of why it needs be done.
>
> To repeat: The human race, as you so fully prove has reached an
> evolutionary dead end.
I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will
continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present
ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic
engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious
superstitions.
> Lingering further simply impedes its
> replacement from gaining its rightful place. So, our duty is to wipe
> ourselves out as completely and quickly as is conceivably possible.
> Failing that, to do nothing to impede the process. As to damaging the
> planet in that process - again, repeating: all we are doing is messing
> about around the edges and shifting a few oxides around here and
> there. As the earth measures things our pernanent effect is nil and
> our present value negative. But that we are rendering it useless for
> ourselves is only a good thing. That we are fouling both our own nest
> and that of many other planetary shareholders is also of no import,
> again in a couple of million years all will be forgotten.
I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say.
We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into.
We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate
suicide.
If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be
left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human
elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2
million years time.
Patrick Turner
Don Pearce
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart
from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we
are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps?
d
Don Pearce
>Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?
>
The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.
This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
"wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
more than somewhat desperate.
d
Don Pearce
>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>
>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
>causes an atmospheric increase.
Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
d
Don Pearce
>>This is the problem with models that use curve fitting.
>
>I don't know which models you're referring to but GCMs generally
>'model', not curve fit.
No, they do contain modules for the major known variables, but they
don't use theory, they juggle coefficients until things seem to fit.
And then of course there are the usual fiddle factors. The BBC had a
Met Office screen saver you could use for distributed calculation of a
climate model attempting to find a fit. The whole thing was utterly
ludicrous.
d
Don Pearce
>I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said
>"implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the
>data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with
>proxies.
>
Sorry, I'm busy and not reading closely. Although Post Hoc doesn't
necessarily imply Propter Hoc, we can be sure that Pre Hoc precludes
Propter Hoc.
>AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off
>with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the
>temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but
>then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused
>it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback"
>scenario).
>
>Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their
>unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a
>conforming 'explanation'.
>
Exactly, a classic begged question.
>It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the
>first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the
>rest.
The whole thing is arm waving. Al Gore was interviewed on the BBC news
a couple of years back, and his entire talk consisted of debating
trade tricks. Very unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was the
interviewer who failed to call him on his chicanery.
d
Peter Wieck
> I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will
> continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present
> ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic
> engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious
> superstitions.
Actually, if you think on it for a bit. genetic engineering - human-
engineered humans if you will - is an absolute dead-end. And as we
really haven't more than the smallest clue of the consequences of such
engineering it could wind up being the quite literal kiss of death.
That engineered individual will hardly be the product of evolution,
but the product of a committee decision on what is 'best'. An elephant
is a mouse made to government specifications, a camel is a horse
designed by a committee. Both are useful, but both are unintended
consequences.
> I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say.
They cannot help but do so. The single variable is the amount of time
it takes. As it appears now we are pretty much doing everything within
our powers to move the process along short of deliberate self-
immolation. And that still remains a possibility.
> We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into.
> We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate
> suicide.
No, few do. That particular behavior on this planet belongs only to
humans.
> If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be
> left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human
> elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2
> million years time.
Charles Addams had a cartoon in the New Yorker - two amoeba are at the
bottom of the last ocean after nuclear destruction, and they are
deciding whether they want to start over. The caption is: OK, only
this time, no brains. No human capacity has ever been supressed, and
no weapon of destruction has never been used.
Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.
Nate Nagel
> Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
> the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
> destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
> science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.
Eh, yes and no. You're correct that medical science can allow people to
live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." We
also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. However, it still
is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.
The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
andre...@aol.com
> On Nov 13, 10:08 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 3:54 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists,
> > > designed carbon credits as a bigger bonanza for the ruling classes than
> > > Prohibition. Fat Boy is the Joe Kennedy of our generation, a
> > > "respectable" criminal.
>
> > Evidence for this claim?
>
> > Or is it so important for lunatics like yourself to emotionally
> > coalesce around lies that you'll just fix the facts afterward?
>
> You get all insulting because I say Fat Al Gore is FAT? Sheet, Maxine,
> you must be blind as well as impressionable:
>
> Let's give you an eyetest. In this piccy, which FATTY is Greedyguts Al
> Gore?
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/the%20veep%20and%20the%20...
>
> And once more, is the FAT guy on the left "Steal Big" Al Gore or is he
> Fat Hanging Chad?
> http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2007/11/AL%20GORE%20ROBERT%20DE...
>
> Everybody's been laughing at Fat Al and his Church of Global Warming
> Impressionables:
>
> "Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he
> is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the
> election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every
> time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the
> scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman
>
> "Gore's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David
> Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al
> Gore?'"
>
> "And you can tell Gore's serious when he talks about the world ending
> because he eats everything in sight." --Jimmy Kimmel
>
> "If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president's
> seeming largeness ... Here's an inconvenient truth: cake isn't a food
> group" --Jon Stewart
>
> Enjoy, Maxine, enjoy!
>
> Andre Jute
> Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
> elegantly
Don't know about Al Gore, but Queen Latifah is a godess
Andre Jute
I wonder how much Fat Al had to pay to be photographed with her.
British ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair charges 170 pounds sterling to
take a photo op with him. You can see Her Majesty Queen Latifah is
looking at Gore with the slightest tinge of distaste. Maybe she's a
closet Republican...
What's she a queen of anyhow, and why should Gore believe that she
casts credibility on her? Save me googling her, there's a good chap,
and tell me why she's enjoying the fifteen minutes Andy Warhol
promised us all.
Andre Jute
Not an impressionable. Not a trendy. Not even fashionable. Merely
right.
Dan O
> Peter Wieck wrote:
> > Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
> > the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
> > destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
> > science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.
>
> Eh, yes and no. You're correct that medical science can allow people to
> live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." We
> also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. However, it still
> is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
> coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.
>
... You're gonna set me off again, man... ;-)
Andre Jute
> successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
> altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
> those less qualified have kids with abandon...
That's an economic trend. Even the people who now have children with
abandon, as you say, will have fewer when they rise into the middle
classes. Back in the 1960s when I first came to Ireland, it was a
society of the best educated peasants in the world whose young people
had to emigrate to find a living; families were large. When I came to
live here a generation ago, Ireland had joined the European Union
(whatever its name was then) and the family size was down to 3.8, i.e.
already below replacement. A couple of years ago Ireland reached the
fourth highest per capita GDP in the world, and the birth rate was
falling so fast, it was just quietly assumed in the chattering/
governing classes that to keep up the workforce we would have to look
towards immigration; hence Ireland's very open policy to immigrants.
Cyclists of the luddite religion should learn a lesson from this and
start encouraging growth because it means fewer people and fewer
people man fewer cars, and fewer cars mean emptier roads, and emptier
roads means increased safety for cyclists. Some people just don't know
what is good for them.
Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:56:14 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
You do understand, don't you, Don, that the BBC made a *policy
decision* that they would "support" global warming? It was announced
about the time the IPCC told news media that the "debate is over" and
"global warming is the consensus of the scientific community". Their
gullibility in this damaging public hysteria has undermined a trust in
their unbiased reporting it took the BBC three quarters of a century
to establish.
Now there are small signs of the BBC returning to sanity and balanced
reporting, but it is too late, their credibility is gone, and the
World Service television arm has a vested interest in global warming
scares because they're in part financed by those who have an interest
in keeping the hysteria alive. For instance, one of their biggest
advertisers is the Maldives, whose previous president closed down a
radio station rather than let the distinguished Swedish climatologist
who he appointed to study supposedly rising sea levels report that
there is no evidence sea levels are rising or will rise this century.
The current president of the Maldives held a stunt, faithfully
reported by the World Service, by holding a cabinet meeting
underwater. The BBC didn't, as far as I know, report the open letter
of the distinguished Swedish academician, appointed by the government
of the Maldives to study these matters, when he wrote to say there is
no danger to the Maldives of rising sea level.
Less science in global warming than in scientology, less honesty in
BBC reporting on global warming than in the sermons of redneck
fundamentalists.
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
Andre Jute
warming from the excellent Flipper:
On Nov 15, 12:56 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said
> "implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the
> data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with
> proxies.
>
> AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off
> with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the
> temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but
> then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused
> it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback"
> scenario).
>
> Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their
> unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a
> conforming 'explanation'.
>
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
> >>>>cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>
> >>>>d
>
> >>>I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
> >>>doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
> >>>induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
> >>>Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
> >>>1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
> >>>using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
> >>>it's anomalous.
>
> >>When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
> >>assertions, you've really lost the game.
>
> >Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?
>
> The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
> There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
> that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
> since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.
>
> This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
> really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
> applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
> can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
> "wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
> more than somewhat desperate.
The analogy is with the Marxist Dialectic. If you decide what you will
find because it is your religion and unalterable, and then try to fit
the data to your preconceptions, you will always screw up. Every
experienced statistician knows that, except those involved in
climatology of the IPCC variety, who have gotten away with plain lies
and statistical fraud and intimidation of dissenters for so long that
they may think it a natural state of events.
It is striking that the Marxists debated precisely as the self-styled
climate "scientists" do: whenever the data absolutely and obviously
contradicts the preconception they're claiming to prove, they declare
it a "temporal anomaly" and pass on as if it didn't happen.
One wanker on RBT, a certain William Asher, simply describes proof
that there is no global warming, proof of lies from the IPCC,
condemnation under oath by the National Academy of Science in the
States -- all of it, as "boring, let's move on with what really
matters, how global warming could happen". That it's "uncool" to argue
facts about global warming is the modern version of the marxist
"temporal anomaly". In short, false religions are as false religions
do.
Always more of the same.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's recipes:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/FOOD.html
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> >Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart
> from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we
> are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps?
Nah, it won't be necessary; they'll die off anyway. According to
Meyers, a saint of the apocalyptics, half the species on earth will be
extinct anyway in a decade. He's been forecasting that since the 1960s
and every decade there are *more* species on earth than the decade
before.
Some people just don't want to see the truth.
Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina
Andre Jute
Crap, all of it. There is no scientific proof for any of this. It is
purely transference from original sin to sin by consumption, and
you're a fool for spouting it, Patrick. We expect better from a guy
who mastered electronics from scratch, thereby proving that he has
what it takes to master the science, or condemn the lack of science,
behind the global warming hysteria. Instead you spout vapid pseudo-Old
Testament prophecies.
Disappointed.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
Peter Wieck
> The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
> successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
> altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
> those less qualified have kids with abandon...
Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
suggests that blind alley.
Andre Jute
> Oh, well... I'm afraid that I don't have a great deal of emotional
> investment here; further, as would be obvious should I close to the
> debate, I'm only informed at a very low level. Since I don't really
> find the topic involving, I'm likely to remain thus.
>
> On a cursory level, I find that the general conclusions are fairly
> convincing. It's a tad bit like arguing safety helmets... the
> arguments against the idea of global warming are so utterly
> overwhelmed by the preponderance of evidence
Where's this evidence, Jonesy. If it is so overwhelming, why don't you
show it to us. Should be easy enough, being "overwhelming".
> to the contrary that I
> tend to accept those data supporting global warming, all the while
> acknowledging that other voices exist. For that matter, smoking
> tobacco has never been scientifically proven to cause health
> problems... OK; however, I will accept what I see. I'm not a medical
> doctor, so you may do as you please.
>
> Jones
False analogies all round, Jonesy, but sure, you want to make a
runner, don't let me detain you with reason or -- horrors! -- facts.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
PS
And you're poor white trash for renaming rec.audio.tube to
rec.audio.boobs. No one there would try to denigrate your hobby.
Nate Nagel
Whether genetics play a role or simply being raised in a house with
well-educated, involved parents is the main factor, I do believe that
some people are better qualified to have kids than others. That may be
a not particularly PC opinion, but I do believe it to be true.
Oh, and being something of an aficionado of "vintage" SF, I am in fact
familiar with the story you mention...
Peter Wieck
post hog (ergo) propter hoc and so forth. No wonder you are Andre's
flavor-of-the-week. Please note the interpolations.
On Nov 15, 7:23 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view,
> Peter's conjecture has almost as many logic flaws as words with not
> the least being the arrogance to imagine he knows the 'proper',
> 'improper', and 'dead end' paths of evolution.
Mpffff... don't know, don't care. Point being that the moment a
species protect their defectives and give them preferential breeding
status, it is doomed. Evolution is entirely merciless and evolution
has one (and only one) goal in mind - making more. The moment a
species interferes with or attempts to divert that goal, it is doomed.
(Fallacy of leaping to conclusions).
> To wit, had the dinosaurs been given the gift of informed choice I
> doubt they would have picked small, warm, furry bodies as their 'next
> evolutionary step' but those 'inferior' creatures were the ones that
> survived nonetheless and while Peter is, no doubt, infinitely more
> intelligent than the dinosaurs he suffers, as do we all, from the same
> lack of future vision.
The Dinosaurs had no choice in the matter. Warm, furry bodies just
happened to be more efficient at that particular moment and therefore
reached a (temporary) ascendency. We will no more choose our
successors than the dinosaurs chose theirs. But we will be succeeded.
Can't argue with several billion years of history, after all. (Fallacy
of false premises, and the Pathetic Fallacy, of course).
> Now, while it may seem 'obvious' that 'defective' genes have no value
> there's no way anyone, not even Peter, can know 'defective' genes
> won't, either singly or in concert with other as of yet unknown gene
> combinations, mutate and evolve into the next 'great leap'. Not to
> mention some poor soul, despite suffering from a 'defective gene',
> might be carrying some other gene of galactic important unbeknownst to
> Peter.
Of course not - and exactly why 'engineering' is such a stupid blind
alley. We as a species haven't a clue of the consequences of our
smallest actions, much less something as fundamental as messing with
the genome. (Again, the fallacy of false premises).
> The same goes for his argument about "spreading disease." While that
> is certainly not 'good' for those affected the ones that survive might
> be more robust. Is a physically more robust body evolutionarily
> preferable to some other trait, or vice versa? Hell if I know and
> neither does Peter.
There are several deseases out there that have neither a treatment,
cure nor vaccine, and that are (to-date) 100% fatal. And the spread of
these same diseases is entirely and 100% controllable - but that
control is simply not taken. Again, the mark of a lack of will to
preserve the species. Once that lack is not absolutely, paramount the
species is doomed - and as with any other element of the Human
Condition (in our case) - we are dickering over the time involved.
Point also being that these same diseases are blind alleys both for
the victims and the phages involved. No viable species will kill its
host (and itself) and be successful. (The fallacy of circular
reasoning). And a dominant species neither need be intelligent nor
attractive. (False premises).
> I don't mean that as advocating, nor not, any particular policy but
> simply to illustrate there's no way anyone can make the broad sweeping
> declarations of clairvoyance Peter does.
Clairvoyance? Not hardly. Just basic observations of basic human
behavior. It ain't nohow rocket science. But when a species sends its
best-and-brightest to war and into high-risk circumstances to be
killed en-masse, leaving the inept, damaged, infirm and diseased home
to breed - what do you think might be the inevitable results? One
simple statistic to keep in mind: As of 1941, something like 21% of
the US population over 40 needed corrective lenses. As of 1946, it was
nearly 40%, as of today it is over 60%, perhaps as much as 75% (and
that spread is based on the fact that such issues are much better
diagnosed and corrected these days).Look at the statistics on
diabetes, asthma, allergies, and quite a few others. (Fallacy of
false premises, yet again).
> (To your example, learned behavior isn't genetic)- Hide quoted text -
No. Lysenko is rather more discredited these days than not. Eugenics
still kinda-sorta has some limited traction, sadly. (Once again,
leaping to conclusions together with false premises).
Flipper, when you learn to read for content rather than for your
carefully crafted opinions based on received wisdom, go ahead argue.
Otherwise, you are micturating in a windward direction and showing
your silliness all and at the same time.
Dan O
> Peter Wieck wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >> The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
> >> successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
> >> altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
> >> those less qualified have kids with abandon...
>
> > Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
> > evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
> > imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
> > species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
> > Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
> > need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
> > these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
> > would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
> > suggests that blind alley.
>
>
> Whether genetics play a role or simply being raised in a house with
> well-educated, involved parents is the main factor, I do believe that
> some people are better qualified to have kids than others. That may be
> a not particularly PC opinion, but I do believe it to be true.
We know: You're awesome; everybody else sucks.
Patrick Turner
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> <i...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
> >Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we
> are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps?
>
The Bacteria have been around for a long time. Their heating
contribution may have lessened slightly due to man's efforts to reduce
forest cover.
Without bacteria we could not live. Fortunately for us, they have not
suddenly developed into a threat by changing the CO2 % in air.
But what is now changing rapidly is mankind's sudden conversion of
underground carbon stores into carbon dioxide, and we threaten all
living things including bacteria.
Perhaps Bacteria sense the T rise and take action against us by
developing some incurable Plague which they inflict on us to reduce
our numbers.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>
> >>>>d
>
> >>>I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
> >>>doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
> >>>induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
> >>>Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
> >>>1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
> >>>using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
> >>>it's anomalous.
>
> >>assertions, you've really lost the game.
>
> >Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?
>
> The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
> There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
> that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
> since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.
Depends where you make your measurements.
We have had many days now of over 30C even though its only springtime
and such T were never seen until Christmas.
37C is predicted for next thursday.
If you think the planet is cooling, you are mistaken.
>
> This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
> really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
> applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
> can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
> "wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
> more than somewhat desperate.
Modelling doesn't matter any more.
Climate change is happening.
And we look like the cause.
Patrick Turner.
>
> d- Hide quoted text -
Don Pearce
This is a joke right? Or do you seriously believe you can extrapolate
to the entire planet from your neighbourhood.? You remind me a bit of
the political pundit during an election. The first result was in, and
because the Conservatives had won the seat his model predicted that
the Conservatives would end up with 100% of the seats.
>
>>
>> This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
>> really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
>> applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
>> can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
>> "wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
>> more than somewhat desperate.
>
>Modelling doesn't matter any more.
>
>Climate change is happening.
>
Climate change has always happened. That is what climate does. A
static climate is almost unheard of in the history of the Earth.
>And we look like the cause.
>
If you look really serious as you say it, it will be true.
d
Patrick Turner
> >Perhaps the high CO2 levels in the distant past were caused by
> >volcanic activity.
>
> the conjecture is that the CO2 'greenhouse effect' increases linearly
> with atmospheric CO2 concentration. But the empirical observation is
> that for the vast majority of the earth's existence that has not been
> the case.
And I have said it depends on smoke.
>
> It's only in the last some million years, or less, that CO2 appears to
> correlate with temperature but even then it LAGS temperature, which
> implies temperature (or something else) drives CO2 and not the other
> way around.
>
> > Just hope and prey Yellowstone doesn't start up
> >bigtime any time soon. You could have high CO2 and cold if there was a
> >lotta smoke.
>
> And where is your scientific experimentation and observational
> validation for that speculation?
Smoke reflects heat that would otherwise pass through air and heat it.
>
> That was the conjecture when temperature was falling and the
> anti-technology freaks were screaming "another ice age is coming."
> That speculation didn't pan out either.
>
> Neither that nor current AGW hysteria is 'science'. It's doomsday nuts
> looking at a weather 'blip' and then hysterically looking for "how man
> caused it" when even the most casual observer can see "climate change"
> is the blooming norm and has been for roughly 4.5 billion years.
Of course climate changes. It appears to be changing fast now. And the
change appears to be caused by mankind's CO2 emissions. This is
inconvenient because much effort has been put into buildings that will
be flooded when sea levels rise, or they will need to be retro fitted
with greener technology for heating or cooling. Whole countries full
of people won't be able to move to northern latitudes or to southern
latitudes to escape heating and more tropical hurricanes.
>
> Btw, the 'smoke and aerosols' conjecture was used to predict a
> 'catastrophic' climate impact from the Gulf War Kuwait oil fires and
> that turned out to be a big fat dud as well.
Those fires were not a big deal compared to the rest of mankind's
effects. The Victorian Bushfires of 2008 also released millions of
tonnes of CO2. But California is also getting more fires. In asia vast
tracts of rain forest are leveled in slash and burn agriculture. The
smoke haze lingers for months during a burn season.
Just about all of what mankind does now has a lot wrong with it.
>
> You see, in science, when predictions turn out wrong we say the
> conjecture is falsified but AGW just ignores it, claims "the science
> is settled" despite nothing working, and trots right on along.
Temp is going up up and away. Meanwhile nobody wants to suffer the
huge increase in cost of living to avoid climate change.
Maybe its already too late to do anything useful.
>
> > An asteroid hit could have "interesting effects" not able
> >to be modelled easily. There may have been a big one that took out the
> >dinosaurs, but there also may have been smaller ones from time to time
> >whose impact left little evidence except what we see in the fossil
> >records.
>
> We could speculate that space aliens stuck a giant sun screen in orbit
> too but speculation isn't science either.
Its more likely that some rogue nation wil start a nuclear war.
>
> Space aliens might sound unlikely but it's probably not any more
> extraordinary than your speculation the universe decided to rain
> unusually large climate altering meteors on the planet just
> coincidentally with two glacial periods, continuously for some 50-80
> million years a stretch, but convenient turned off the barrage during
> the intervening warm periods, and then hid all geological evidence of
> them just to piss off AGW fanatics.
The real aliens are us. We think we can do any fucken thing and
nothing bad will happen.
>
> I'll tell you what the 'experts' say. After expected speculations they
> end with no one has much of a clue.
There is a mass of consensus amoung experts about greenhouse warming.
You are behind the times.
> AGW proponents, on the other hand,
> simply ignore anything that doesn't conform to their dogma, deny it
> exists, or wave it off as "something to figure out later." But that
> isn't science, it's 'religion'.
>
> However, you missed the main point; which is that AGW proponents are,
> at best, misleading or, at worst, flat out lying because current CO2
> levels are *not* 'unusual' nor 'high' nor 'unprecedented and global
> temperatures are *not* 'unusual' nor are they 'hot' nor are they
> 'unprecedented' nor any of the other hysterical claims made.
>
> The Mann 'hockey stick' temperature graph is an example of flat out
> fraud but the IPCC still uses it.
>
> All AGW mythologists have done is exchange the ashes and sack cloth
> "The end is near, sinner repent" billboard with "global warming,
> sinner repent."
>
> >Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
Feel free to ignore the evidence.
Lemme see now, 6 billion x 10Kg CO2 per day 24 x 365 days per year.
That's a lotta gas.
When the Earth had a population of only 1bill, CO2 per head per day
was more like 1Kg.
Not much T rise occurred as a result. But we bred up and then got
hooked on a king's way to live, and we are heating the atmosphere.
Other species of life altered CO2 before now but not as quickly as we
are nor with any awareness of what it was doing. Our awareness gives
us a choice about how we want the future.
>
> The best available scientific experimentation and observation
> (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
> predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
> increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
> Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
> has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
> causes an atmospheric increase.
I think you may find CO2 emissions have never declined over any of the
last 100 years.
But there is a hell of a lotta hot air being said about greenhouse
heating.
Meanwhile the heating continues and I expect to see many more days of
over 35C during summers here. Its as if the interior climate of Oz
with its 40C + day peaks is extending over the coastal regions where I
live. This means fiercer bushfires more often and gradual
desertifcation of farming and forested lands and a huge reduction in
dam water storages and food production.
I think mankind will do too little too late to alter the temperature
rise.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
> On Nov 15, 3:37 am, Patrick Turner <i...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will
> > continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present
> > ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic
> > engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious
> > superstitions.
>
> Actually, if you think on it for a bit. genetic engineering - human-
> engineered humans if you will - is an absolute dead-end.
But at first we are cautious about "Playing God".
Then we start cloning plants and animals and now we are into plant
species genetic engineering to put more food on the table at lower
cost.
Sooner or later genetics will be applied to mums and dads thinking
about starting a family.
For starters, there are many genes that should be removed so they
don't become part of any new human.
Companies will spring up to arrange the genetics you want in a child.
All for a nice old price. But things will get cheaper in 20
generations time.....
And as we
> really haven't more than the smallest clue of the consequences of such
> engineering it could wind up being the quite literal kiss of death.
The invention of atom bombs looked like the kiss of death. Nuclear
power also looked like another. So did DDT. But we LEARN about the
pitfalls of our inventions or ideas and at the moment nuclear power
seems like a good option without pollution, and when well managed DDT
in Africa is saving more lives than losing them.
> That engineered individual will hardly be the product of evolution,
> but the product of a committee decision on what is 'best'.
Evolution is where nature decides what is best in a given set of
environmental circumstances and incorporating random mutations.
We can emulate Nature and make mutations allowing better survival
chances.
> An elephant
> is a mouse made to government specifications, a camel is a horse
> designed by a committee. Both are useful, but both are unintended
> consequences.
You are far too simplistic and unimaginative about the possibilities
of the future IMHO.
Go back 200 years to 1809. Did anyone forsee our way of life we have
now? If you asked Isac Newton about the future you may have got an
imaginative answer. But from some peasant full of superstitions and
bullshit, and not from you today.
Go back and bring Leonardo Da Vinci to our time now. He'd marvel at
what we have, especially at what doctors and dentists can do, and when
he saw an aeroplane he'd just say "Yeah, took ya a damn long time to
make big silver birds.."
So Leo would be surprised, but not over awed. He was bright sort of
man and would feel happy to work amoung us to bring a different future
to the now we know, and the past we so happily leave behind.
>
> > I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say.
>
> They cannot help but do so. The single variable is the amount of time
> it takes. As it appears now we are pretty much doing everything within
> our powers to move the process along short of deliberate self-
> immolation. And that still remains a possibility.
I agree we don't appear to be on a good course, but our story ain't
over yet. While we heat the planet much change is still possible.
>
> > We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into.
> > We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate
> > suicide.
>
> No, few do. That particular behavior on this planet belongs only to
> humans.
Kinda depressing to think intelligence leads to slow suicide.
Women in Oz have been having more kids. The rate of chidren per woman
has risen from 1.7 to 2.0 over several years. Do we dare disagree with
any woman? Maybe they just don't see non-survival as an option, or if
they sense coming difficulties subconsciously, they think the obvious
thing to do is breed more people if more are set to die, burn, or
starve.
Unfortunately, we only have a MALE PERSPECTIVE about the future of our
species and global warming.
>
> > If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be
> > left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human
> > elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2
> > million years time.
>
> Charles Addams had a cartoon in the New Yorker - two amoeba are at the
> bottom of the last ocean after nuclear destruction, and they are
> deciding whether they want to start over. The caption is: OK, only
> this time, no brains. No human capacity has ever been supressed, and
> no weapon of destruction has never been used.
>
> Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
> the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
> destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
> science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.
Well on this I'd agree.
The American and Australian solution to global warming = buy a bigger
air conditioner.
Good grief, any other solution is going to ruin us all.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
But the proportion of intelligent people born stays about the same
overall. And we can have an easy but extremely high energy reliant way
of life even if the average intelligence is very low because it only
takes a very few smart arses to show the rest of us morons how to live
better than yesterday.
It takes less than 10% of all people to grow and process the food we
consume.
Cream rises to the top, and real intelligence takes in the ability to
survive well overall rather than to be a nerdy maths expert who never
has time to find a wife. But that nerd will inseminate the minds with
his ideas that could lead to useful advances. The nerd does not need
to have any children; his ideas have far more effect, eg, Bill Gates?
In any 100 people chosen at random, you will find some with a lotta
brains from big families who were poor. The advances dreamed up by the
brightest allow the prolific breeding habits of the dumb and the
weak.
Patrick Turner.
!Jones
Let's see if I have this right... in one posting, we get:
>> P.S. �Please do not cross post into other newsgroups; that reflects
>> poor Usenet manners, IMO.
>Something else you should learn, Jonesy. Your opinion doesn't matter
>to me. I'll do what I'm going to do regardless of whether you think it
>is good netiquette, and sooner or later my version will become the
>rule. So save your breath; I'm not in the least interested in
>conforming to your lowest common denominator view of how one should
>behave.
Then, in your next posting, you write:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:52:19 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And you're poor white trash for renaming rec.audio.tube to
>rec.audio.boobs. No one there would try to denigrate your hobby.
Perhaps you might want to save your breath, buddy; I'm not in the
least interested in conforming to your lowest common denominator view
of how one should behave... and, if you don't like it, just remember:
you wrote it.
Jones
Trevor Wilson
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4afff1b2....@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>
>>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
>>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>>
>>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>>
>>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
>>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
>>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>>
>>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
>>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
>>causes an atmospheric increase.
>
> historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
> the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
> sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
**Bollocks. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby, does
not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it can
clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now, we
are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:
-394ky
-353ky
-333ky
-304ky
-295ky
-258ky
-183ky
-85ky
-18ky
now
You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and CO2
levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the
fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures are
following.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Pearce
Let me quote that article
"However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and
water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration
increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or
whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of
the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much
has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or
perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."
And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2
concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees.
d
Peter Wieck
> Perhaps you might want to save your breath, buddy; I'm not in the
> least interested in conforming to your lowest common denominator view
> of how one should behave... and, if you don't like it, just remember:
> you wrote it.
Jones, didn't you know?? Andre conforms to the Golden Rule - thems
what is the gold makes the rules. As he is the gold standard for all
he surveys and his domain is infinite - less only to that of the
Creator, resistance is futile.
(And actual discussion will leave you spinning. In the immortal words
of Gertrude Stein: "There is no There there.")
Trevor Wilson
**CO2 is not the SOLE driver of temperature and climate on this planet. It
is ONE driver. In the last 150 years we have witnessed a rise in temperature
that has been more rapid than at any time in the last 600,000 years. It has
coincided with a similarly rapid rise in CO2 levels. Solar output, volcano
activity and other factors have not been able to explain the rise in
temperatures. The only factor left is C)2 levels. Given that we know, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that CO2 is a potent GHG, then it is reasonable to accept
the fact that humans are altering the climate of this planet.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Peter Wieck
Mpfffff.... All of you. Invincible Ignorance is just that.