Re: There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
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.
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
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?
Pat
And why do the lunatics (as you so aptly put it) deny the 500 scientists who
also believe there is a problem with global warming? Do they honestly think
Al Gore is the only person on the earth that is concerned? And, BTW, Al has
slimmed down. He isn't even fat any more. Maybe Andre Jute is fat now and
wants company?
Expect Bill-o or Sorno to join in any moment trying to run down Gore..."if
you can't attack the facts, attack the messenger" is their motto.
Pat in TX
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
Andre Jute
Poor Patsy, thicker than two short planks. Maxine cut the facts about
the global warming scam that were presented:
On Nov 13, 9:54 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 5:49 am, Patrick Turner <i...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
!Jones
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The main one being that it is a lie and always was a lie/
Apparently, the world's scientists disagree with the world's
bicyclists... and visa versa.
Jones
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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
!Jones
it as you're trying to evoke my emotion as opposed to informing or
persuading me.
The world's scientists are (sort of) coming to a consensus that
contradicts your position. There are certainly a few voices of
dissention. 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.
I'm not a climatologist, so I don't know. I do know that a vast
majority of the climatologists disagree with you... and you're
shrieking about it! That's not likely to convince anyone.
Let's say that I were persuaded; what, exactly, do you want me to
*do*? Is reducing our use of fossil fuels a *bad* thing? Should I
drive more? Will that help the situation? Why are you trying so hard
to convince me? If you're right, then what difference does it make
whether or not I choose to reduce my carbon footprint? Is carbon
dioxide accumulation a good thing?
Jones
P.S. Please do not cross post into other newsgroups; that reflects
poor Usenet manners, IMO. I trimmed the headers for a reason... I
don't know squat about audio tubes and don't want to pester those nice
people with our off-topic discussion.
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 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
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?
>
> And once more, is the FAT guy on the left "Steal Big" Al Gore or is he
> Fat Hanging Chad?
>
> 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
Pat
isn't. Haven't you seen his appearances on the late night talk shows this
month? He's now quite slim and athletic looking. So, sorry, Andre, you
attempts to negate Al's words with denigrating his weight are so much hot
air. You have lost your last argument for not listening to the man.
Pat in TX
Andre Jute
Oh dear, Patsy. Haven't you caught on yet? I don't live in the
States, and if I did I wouldn't watch talk shows, and even if I
watched talk shows I wouldn't take my information from them (I go to
the source), and in any event I don't trust a crook like Al Gore on
global warming considering how much he has benefited financially from
these baseless and hysterical scares he whips up among the gullible
populace who're looking for some original sin to replace Christianity
and have found it in Consumption. Instead I go to the core data and
read the original science, which Crooked Al Gore hasn't because he
can't. Fathead Al is so stupid that, standing in front of a wall sized
graph showing how temperature rise leads CO2 rise, he says CO2 causes
temperature rise. And then he has himself filmed being stupid, and the
most stupid people in the world, like you, make a religion of Crooked
Al's stupidity. Hallelujah, brother, and very funny it would be too if
it weren't so racist, and a genocide in the making besides.
Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela
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:
>
> >>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper <flip...@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.
>
> >>>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.
>
> >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.
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:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper <flip...@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.
>
> >>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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> >>>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.
>
> 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
>
> <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?
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
> On Nov 14, 9:28 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:53 GMT, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> > >On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:15:14 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
> > >>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:49 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
> > >><i...@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.
>
>
> > >>>true about greenhouse warming.
>
> > >>'global warming', much less a theory, and speculation is not science.
>
> > >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.
>
>
> > - 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.
>
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
!Jones
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 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
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.
Pat
Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. That
"has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat
it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta
unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst.
Pat in TX
Andre Jute
> !Jones wrote:
> > 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 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
>
> Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. That
> "has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
> habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat
> it.
>
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
<newi...@home.com> wrote:
>Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. That
>"has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
>habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat
>it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta
>unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst.
Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. To do that, you'd have to
start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign
them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for
three decades while the other does not smoke. Differences could then
be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis.
Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there
will never be one. For this reason, all we can do is point to
correlation. I'm not saying that smoking does *not* cause health
problems... that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr.
Jute writes:
< QUOTE >
>Where's this evidence, Jonesy. If it is so overwhelming, why don't you
>show it to us. Should be easy enough, being "overwhelming".
< /QUOTE >
just remember that there is no experimentally based, scientific
evidence. Some things we cannot prove.
E.g.:
Parallel lines don't intersect - unproven.
Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
Gravity, for that matter... OK, I'll quit. Gotta run, it's Monday.
Jones
!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
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.")
Andre Jute
> 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
>
> >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
There's a difference, Jonesy. You told me what I could and couldn't
do. I didn't tell you to do anything at all, I merely observed that
doing what you did makes you trailer park trash. I trust this note
enhances your grasp of simple English; it would be too much to ask it
to improve your morality.
Andre Jute
No human corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wiecky. I made him by stuffing a cow's bladder with pig offal. -- CE
Statement of Conformity
Andre Jute
wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <s...@spam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b04c289...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> > <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>"Don Pearce" <s...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4afff1b2....@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
>
> >>>>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.
>
> >>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.
>
> > 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.
>
> **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.***
Prove it, Trevor.
> 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.
Since when did you go into the rotten lace business, Trevor? Or is
that argument full of holes supposed to be a smelly Swiss cheese?
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here.
Andre Jute
Maybe you two guys should get a room, let it all hang out. -- AJ
Andre Jute
Nate Nagel
Why would I get a room with someone whose posts I only see when you
reply to them?
Trevor Wilson
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa0e147e-4b59-41df...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Prove it, Trevor.
**Certainly. Examine the ice core data:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
> 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.
Since when did you go into the rotten lace business, Trevor? Or is
that argument full of holes supposed to be a smelly Swiss cheese?
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here.
**We all are. The planet is warming precipitously and some stupid people are
disregarding the science, in preference for charlatans, liars and those who
have an agenda.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Andre Jute
Because only one of you will come out of that room, and I'm betting on
you.
I see the posts of Worthless Wiecky only when some newbie responds to
him, so we're square.
Peter Wieck
No killfile after all?
What a whining, puling, silly excuse of a jackass you have become in
your latter years. You do really need your meds adjusted - you are
playing well out of your depth, old thing!
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:59:02 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Pat"
>
> >Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. That
> >"has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
> >habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat
> >it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta
> >unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst.
>
> Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. To do that, you'd have to
> start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign
> them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for
> three decades while the other does not smoke. Differences could then
> be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis.
>
> Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there
> will never be one.
Er, Jonesy, didn't they teach you any logic? If there is no proof that
smoking tobacco is dangerous, why would it be "highly unethical" to
conduct a corntrolled test to observe its effect?
Leaving aside the fact that an act is either unethical or it is
ethical, with no gradations, no "highly".
>For this reason, all we can do is point to
> correlation. I'm not saying that smoking does *not* cause health
> problems... that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr.
>
> Jute writes:
I'll take up this crap in a separate post.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Andre Jute
>
> Jute writes:
>
> >show it to us. Should be easy enough, being "overwhelming".
>
> < /QUOTE >
I'm still waiting for the evidence, Jonesy. All you've given us so far
is a demonstration of your gullibility, in the form, "Scientists
say..." In fact they don't, not as a group, and the few who do have
been reprimanded for it by their betters speaking under oath before
the US Senate -- and, as you will expect by now, I've quoted
academicians North and Wegman and several other members of their
panels, right here on RBT. (It is one of the reasons the local global
warmies, who get their "facts" from television, no longer argue with
me but limit themselves to name-calling: I go to the source and get
the true facts, every time.)
> just remember that there is no experimentally based, scientific
> evidence.
So you're in agreement with me, Jonesy! Then why are you indulging in
this juvenile dickswinging?
>Some things we cannot prove.
>
> E.g.:
> Parallel lines don't intersect - unproven.
Quite the contrary. It is well known to artists that parallel lines
intersect at the horizon.
> Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
> our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
by 1 and zero.
(If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof"
without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be
impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look
up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in
India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book
near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point,
the latter being *incapable* of proof.)
> Gravity, for that matter...
Nope, not gravity either. The fact that you cannot see gravity isn't
in science a reason for denying its existence; it is observed by
proxies and direct effects. For modern mathematical proof, with
diagrams, see Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804. Same article
without the diagrams, go to http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
In general, gravity had been measured and fully described and measured
since in 1749 the Marquise du Châtelet (Voltaire's lover), knowing
that she was likely to die in childbirth, hurried to finish her
definitive paper on gravity later consulted by no less than Einstein.
>OK, I'll quit. Gotta run, it's Monday.
You should have quit before you exposed your ignorance four times in
one short post.
> Jones
Yours in scholarship,
Andre Jute
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The long term graph shows it has been much warmer -- and the earth
didn't burn up. But I'm glad you show the cherry-picked graph of the
last two hundred years at
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
which shows CO2 rising and temperature all over the place in regular
swinging cycles.
If you were to open your mind, Trevor, you would discover that those
regular short term cycles of temperature change happening about every
11 years coincide both sunspot activity.
> > 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.
Huh? You, and the "scientists" you quote, don't know what's causing
temperature swings, so you want your ignorance to be proof that your
faith should taken as the gospel? Bullshit to that! Science proceeds
by proof, not by special pleading, no matter how hysterical.
> Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here.
>
> **We all are.
Your pet alarmist, whom you cite above, doesn't know shit, and admits
it by throwing out variant hypotheses in every paragraph, claiming
something could happen because he believes in global warming. That's
the cart before the horse. First the little wanker, and you, must
prove there's a correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise,
then he must prove it is worldwide, then he must prove it is connected
through more than coincidence or unrelated effect, then he gets shot
down because the correlative fit with sunspots is better and it defies
common sense that the largest heat source in our system shouldn't be
the controlling one.
>The planet is warming precipitously
Crap. The planet has been cooling for ten years now and the alarmists
silly models failed to forecast the cooling. If they can't even
forecast the next decade, why should we believe they can forecast the
temperature a century hence.
And, if they ever get their act together, they will grasp that we're
recovering from the little ice age towards the temperatures reigning
during the medieval warm period, and that the earth must be two to
three degrees warmer, and rising, for several centuries before it is
even necessary to investigate, never mind to panic like hysterical old
women.
>and some stupid people are
> disregarding the science,
There is no science in global warming. It is a religion, a scam, a big
lie. And you bought it as a substitute for the guilt of Christianity
that drove your early years, and as a substitute for the marxism that
drove your youth. That's why your source, quoted above, talks in the
most unscientific terms of the Earth as an "angry beast". Never heard
such crap from you before, Trevor, even when you trailed around
Pinkostinko's smelly coattails.
>in preference for charlatans, liars and those who
> have an agenda.
I'm not a charlatan, nor am I a liar, nor do I have an agenda, nor do
I have the slightest connection with an oil company; I haven't even
owned a car since 1992, going everywhere by bicycle; I'm a hell of a
lot greener than anyone else on these two conferences. I just insist
on reading the statistics for myself. Global warming is,
statistically, a scam. Your utterances are the Profession of Faith of
the Disillusioned Middle Class. They are a statement of religious
faith and it has nothing to do with science.
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Andre Jute
wrote:
> **Here's the stuff we know:
>
> * CO2 is a significant GHG.
> * Methane is a more potent, but less significant GHG.
> * Water vapour is a much weaker, but more significant GHG (due to the very
> large quantities in the atmosphere).
> * Over the period of time that the planet's temperature has risen
> significantly (over the last 15 years), we have noted a dramatic rise in CO2
> concentration.
> * Humans are directly responsible for the majority of the increase in CO2
> levels.
A good deal of this is either outright false or very misleading. But
let's assume, just for the sake of argument, Trevor, that you have all
these ducks lined up and you can prove them -- than you *still* don't
have a case because you have no proof of a causal connection, merely a
suspicion so strong as to amount to a religious belief. That chain
that you posit, even if true (and, as I say, the elements aren't even
provably true), does not make a scientific case for anything at all.
At the very best it might point to a weak hypothesis to investigate.
But those who aren't already hysterically committed to global warming
have a far, far stronger hypothesis on the table already.
And then there is a growing movement that considers global warming a
good thing and interference with climate recovery to say the level of
the Medieval Warm Period to be damaging hubris and dangerous planet-
engineering, far, far worse than the social engineering of the Stalin-
Mao-Pol Pot axis of evil.
Speculation isn't science, pal. You need proof, and you haven't got
any. And the self-styled "scientists" who tried to lie proof into
existence (among other lies the "Hockey Stick" of which you yesterday
showed us a variant) have been caught and exposed as fraudsters.
That's another proof that global warming is a religion, not a science,
that its proponents are willing to lie for it.
I were you, I'd leave this here. I have no desire to offend a techie I
might need again, and you're simply not qualified or well-enough
informed to carry on this sort of argument. It's starting to look like
the rationalists are beating up on some poor Baptist fundie, and
that's not nice.
John Thompson
>>Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. That
>>"has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
>>habit" people keep repeating.
> Actually, it hasn't and it never will be.
Actually, it has been proven to the extent that any scientific theory
can be considered to be "proven" and in the same manner that evolution,
general relativity, and yes even human-induced climate change, aka
"global warming" can be considered to be proven. No, we have not
demonstrated that any of these theories are complete and will not be
changed to some degree at some future time -- much as the Newtonian
theory of gravity gave way to the Einsteinian general relativity -- but
our understanding of human-induced climate change at this point is
considered to be complete enough to warrant fairly urgent action. There
is a remote possibility that we are wrong, but the stakes are high
enough that the vast majority of scientists agree that the threat should
be taken very seriously.
--
-John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
Michael Press
!Jones <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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 to the contrary that I
> tend to accept those data supporting global warming, all the while
> acknowledging that other voices exist.
Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
grow faster.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
!Jones <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote:
False.
Parallel lines do not intersect by definition.
> Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order
False.
Number of bit operations for the best current algorithm
is sub-exponential in the number of bits.
> - unproven, yet
> our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
--
Michael Press
Bill Sornson
> Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
> cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
> man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
> CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
> that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
> proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
> higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
> atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
> grow faster.
Oh, man. The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to like
seeing you express this.
Bill "just a tad stunned" S.
Andre Jute
Man, you take the words right out of my mouth. Whatever moved Michael
to "betray the cause" by telling the truth? Hell, this looks like the
boy is a scientist after all and I've been traducing him.
What a good way for me to be proved wrong! That's a stunning summary,
Michael.
But you know, Sorni, the "cool kids", the global warming fundies and
faithful, coulda found out what Michael says by reading their own
bible instead of depending on TV misinformation soundbites. By way of
example, one of the most striking lines in any IPCC report (and I've
read them all, of course) says quite bluntly that up to 2% of global
warming will be good for us economically and agriculturally.
But the "cool kids", who think the revolution is smoking pot and
listening to some dead Jamaican gangster, already heard on television
that *any* temperature increase is *evil*.
Andre Jute
I've met luddites with more mechanical aptitude than Maxine Ott
Bill Sornson
> On Nov 17, 6:36 am, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
>>> cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
>>> man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
>>> CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
>>> that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
>>> proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
>>> higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
>>> atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
>>> grow faster.
>> Oh, man. The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to
>> like seeing you express this.
>>
>> Bill "just a tad stunned" S.
> Man, you take the words right out of my mouth. Whatever moved Michael
> to "betray the cause" by telling the truth? Hell, this looks like the
> boy is a scientist after all and I've been traducing him.
>
> What a good way for me to be proved wrong! That's a stunning summary,
> Michael.
>
> But you know, Sorni, the "cool kids", the global warming fundies and
> faithful, coulda found out what Michael says by reading their own
> bible instead of depending on TV misinformation soundbites.
If they really cared about the "cause" (laughable on its face), then they'd
contribute money and urging to this:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/16/al-gore-and-the-great-debate-will-he-or-wont-he/
Bill "good thing holding one's breath doesn't contribute to GW" S.
***
!Jones
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There's a difference, Jonesy. You told me what I could and couldn't
>do. I didn't tell you to do anything at all, I merely observed that
>doing what you did makes you trailer park trash. I trust this note
>enhances your grasp of simple English; it would be too much to ask it
>to improve your morality.
I don't see any difference, sir. I asked you not to cross-post the
reply headers, thus replying to multiple, unrelated groups when my
initial post had gone only to one (and I even said "please") ... you
suggested that I could save my breath and that you'd do as you damn
well liked, or something to that effect. Then *I* changed the reply
headers and you went into a snit over it, calling me "trailer park
trash". That's an impressive debate tactic, you know! Clearly,
you're a man of formidable forensic talent!
I usually don't post to multiple groups unless there is some rational
connection between the two because it annoys people and is a commonly
used harassment tactic. In a stretch, one might see how a global
warming discussion could be appropriate for a bicycle group; I cannot
see how it would possibly fit in an antique audio equipment
discussion.
So (since this is posted there)... rec.audio.tubes... what do the
*rest* of you think of the incessant global warming argument? Is
anyone else really interested? Would anyone really like to read
another few weeks of this nonsense, or should I simply trim
rec.audio.tubes out of the distribution and let Mr. Jute whine about
it... he doesn't *like* it when I trim headers! (Mr. Jute thinks
people like me are immoral for depriving RAT of our ... err...
discussion; see above.)
Jones
!Jones
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. �That
>> >"has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
>> >habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat
>> >it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta
>> >unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst.
>>
>> Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. �To do that, you'd have to
>> start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign
>> them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for
>> three decades while the other does not smoke. �Differences could then
>> be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis.
>>
>> Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there
>> will never be one. �
>
>Er, Jonesy, didn't they teach you any logic? If there is no proof that
>smoking tobacco is dangerous, why would it be "highly unethical" to
>conduct a corntrolled test to observe its effect?
Because it is the responsibility of the researcher with human subjects
to show that there is no harm to the subjects... the simple lack of
proof that there is any harm is not nearly enough.
It's almost impossible to design an experimental study to investigate
whether *anything* is harmful because, if you don't already know, then
you can't do it.
And you're beginning to bore me, sir.
!Jones
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
>> our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
>
>Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
>an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
>the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
>computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
>though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
>exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
>which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
>by 1 and zero.
>
>(If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof"
>without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be
>impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look
>up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in
>India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book
>near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point,
>the latter being *incapable* of proof.)
I don't even have a *clue* what you're talking about. I doubt that
you do, either.
I don't see many people engaging in discussion with you... I think
that I'm going to do the nice people over in RAT a favor and proceed
no further.
Jones
!Jones
<jo...@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>Actually, it has been proven to the extent that any scientific theory
>can be considered to be "proven"
Well, it has been proven as well as gravity has been proven, I
suppose... whenever we find mass, we have always observed gravitation.
There have never been any experimental studies done WRT smoking. I'm
not trying to say that one should smoke.
Jones
!Jones
<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Parallel lines don't intersect - unproven.
>
>False.
>Parallel lines do not intersect by definition.
Sorry, the Euclidean definition of parallelism is that, when two
(assumably different) lines are both intersected by a third line and
the respective angles of intersection are equal, then the lines are
parallel. If you start from there, then you cannot prove that they do
not intersect... Euclid couldn't, anyway.
Parallel lines do not intersect by the Euclidean Postulate of
Parallelism; the definition is given by an intersecting line. If you
could prove it, then there's no reason to postulate it.
Jones
!Jones
<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order
>
>False.
>Number of bit operations for the best current algorithm
>is sub-exponential in the number of bits.
Some have been observed to do slightly better; however, I believe
you'll find them to be nondeterministic... i.e. sometimes they nail it
and sometimes they choke. With the usual routines, I might (and
probably will) hit the solution more quickly; however, the upper bound
is still exponential... as far as we know.
That's unproven!
And... some day... some grad student is going to rock the world...
maybe.
Jones
William Asher
>
> Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
> cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
> man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
> CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
> that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
> proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
> higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
> atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
> grow faster.
>
The only one of your "proven" statements that is true is the final one,
where the FACE data do suggest plants grow faster in high-CO2 environments
(provided they have enough nutrients and water to make use of the
additional CO2 and they are C4 photosynthesizers). The two about planetary
warming (although you just asserted that as a given at the start) and CO2
levels are not proven, but inferred from proxy data records that could be
shown to be false at some point in the future. So, if you are using your
statements to believe anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate, you are
using false assumptions in your logic, since there is the possibility that
the proxy records are wrong.
What is proven is that CO2 absorbs longwave IR radiation, that atmospheric
gases that absorb longwave IR radiation provide a longwave surface
radiative forcing to the planet, and that the Earth's climate is very
sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing both in terms of the
latitudinal distribution and average global magnitude. Inferences you draw
from those three facts are up to you.
--
Bill Asher
mike
5f532f...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
> On Nov 16, 12:44 pm, !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr.
>
> > our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
>
> Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
> an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
> the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
> computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
> though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
> exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
> which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
> by 1 and zero.
>
one short paragraph you display:
a) your inability to comprehend a simple argument;
b) your complete misunderstanding of factorisation and algorithmic
complexity;
c) your habit of inserting random and irrelevant 'technicaleese' into
your prose in an attempt to hide your ignorance;
d) your willingness to make a public fool of yourself at any cost.
I thank you for the entartainment.
Note that if this is actually a clever example of self-parody, then it
is even more brilliant.
Cheers,
Mike
bjwe...@gmail.com
>
> It is not proven that atmospheric
> CO2 increases the Earth's temperature.
It all depends on what the meaning of the word
"proven" is.
It is not proven that if I jump off a two-story building,
I will break my legs. Human bodies are complicated,
non-linear, and difficult to model, and every landing
is different. However, given what we know about gravity
and the impact forces on bodies, it is a reasonable
assumption that I will probably break my legs if I land
on my feet. Arguably the only way to "prove" this is
to either study the results of many documented falls
(we don't have the repeat of N experiments in the
CO2 case) or to jump myself. However, most people
will accept the physics and figure there's nowhere
for the energy to go but into one's legs, and decline to
jump.
Bill Asher's point about CO2 radiative forcing is similar.
IIRC, the global climate record doesn't have any analogous
examples of rapid changes in the level of CO2 over a
few hundred years (we couldn't resolve timespans of
a few hundred years in the long term climate record anyway).
However, increased CO2 causes radiative forcing, the
climate system is sensitive to radiative forcing, and
there is nowhere else for the energy to go. If you think
something else happens, how does it happen?
Of course if you wait long enough, we will get an answer -
do you want to wait 50 years and see whether the
temperature has continued to increase? This is like
saying that you might as well jump, to test the hypothesis.
Ben
Andre Jute
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:02:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
>
You're an idiot who can't even follow a thread, Jonesy. This thread
*originated* on RAT in a post by Patrick Turner. It belongs to RAT. It
is posted to RBT by courtesy because I know many on RBT take an
interest in global warming. Now, some johnny-come-lately, one Jonesy,
wants arbitrarily to deprive RAT of a thread started by Patrick
Turner, a RAT in very good standing indeed. This is the second time of
telling you, Jonesy: it isn't for johnny-come-latelies like you to
tell anyone what they can post on RBT or RAT, and it is very ugly
indeed for you to try and deprive RAT of its own thread.
Andre Jute
Nobless oblige, until my patience with American fools runs out
Andre Jute
Be shorter just to say that you don't understand the concept of logic,
Jonesy. You're so dumb, you're funny.
> And you're beginning to bore me, sir.
Run, rabbit, run.
Andre Jute
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:49:18 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
> >> our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
>
> >Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
> >an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
> >the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
> >computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
> >though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
> >exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
> >which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
> >by 1 and zero.
>
> >(If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof"
> >without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be
> >impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look
> >up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in
> >India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book
> >near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point,
> >the latter being *incapable* of proof.)
>
> I don't even have a *clue* what you're talking about. I doubt that
> you do, either.
Even after Michael Press gave you a hint, albeit elliptical, that
computer practice doesn't quite count up to exponentiation? You're
right to run, Jonesy, if you can't even dance the two-step.
> I don't see many people engaging in discussion with you... I think
> that I'm going to do the nice people over in RAT a favor and proceed
> no further.
All those I want to engage with me engage with me. Unfortunately some
ignoramuses and undesirables also respond to my posts. But I'm well
advanced in reducing the number of those in my threads to only the
useful, the knowledgeable and the entertaining. I've already explained
to you that I don't care for being "cool" if it means mindless
acceptance of the stupidities of pointless breathers and eaters; I can
safely leave that sort of hypocritical popularlty to clowns like you.
> Jones
Ciao, Jonesy. Mind that someone doesn't mistake you for a rabbit and
pot you for the pot.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
Andre Jute
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
> > cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
> > man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
> > CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
> > that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
> > proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
> > higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
> > atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
> > grow faster.
>
> The only one of your "proven" statements that is true is the final one,
> where the FACE data do suggest plants grow faster in high-CO2 environments
> (provided they have enough nutrients and water to make use of the
> additional CO2 and they are C4 photosynthesizers). The two about planetary
> warming (although you just asserted that as a given at the start) and CO2
> levels are not proven, but inferred from proxy data records that could be
> shown to be false at some point in the future. So, if you are using your
> statements to believe anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate, you are
> using false assumptions in your logic, since there is the possibility that
> the proxy records are wrong.
Er, Asher, how can this data hold true when the global warmies want to
use it to prove something (after they've cooked the statistics) but
those opposed to such stupidity aren't allowed to use it on the ground
that new data may be found?
Surely the data shows only one truth, that there isn't any global
warming and zero causal connection between CO2 increase and global
temperature rise.
> What is proven is that CO2 absorbs longwave IR radiation, that atmospheric
> gases that absorb longwave IR radiation provide a longwave surface
> radiative forcing to the planet, and that the Earth's climate is very
> sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing both in terms of the
> latitudinal distribution and average global magnitude. Inferences you draw
> from those three facts are up to you.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
Where the beef, Asher, the connection, the cause and effect by which
all other science stands or falls, except the religion of global
warming?
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
!Jones
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You're an idiot...
... whatever; I have just run out of patients with your incessant name
calling. Bear in mind that being so patently offensive that everyone
else simply walks away in disgust isn't quite the same thing as
winning a debate. May I suggest:
"Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love
the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be
given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is
to live everything. Live the questions." I think that was Rilke, as I
recall... if he didn't say it, he should have!
When someone asks difficult questions, try to address the question
rather than the person asking it. Live the question!
That is my parting advice to you sir... that, and... have a great
life!!!
Jones
Andre Jute
> In article <c1cd63e5-4ead-4738-96d9-
You're the feller from those islands some way off the coast of the
Great Country, right? I saw a soundbite on the BBC World Service the
other day in which your prime minister wittered on about what her
government was doing about global warming. She seemed to be impressed
by the fact that the debate is over. She didn't once ask who ended the
debate, or by what argument, nor did she demand any proof, nor did she
seem aware that the only part she read, the Summary for Policy Makers,
reports in many instances the diametric opposite of what the main
report states. I suppose you don't get much choice in your
politicians, what with having such a small population, and so
homogenous, but I certainly wouldn't vote for someone so complacent.
I thank you for the compliments but perhaps you'd care to follow up
with an explanation, because we're none the wiser to your technical
contribution, if indeed any was intended. (You're right, of course; my
original post was intended to run Jonesy around the buoys a couple of
times, as was Michael Press's response to Jonesy, to pay him out for
his pompous self-righteousness.)
Andre Jute
Name one famous New Zealander besides Hillary -- Australian joke
Andre Jute
experiment. He just does it marginally more subtly than the other
clowns. His name is Ben Weiner and he's the one who told the lie about
the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being "merely
eurocentric phenomena" when I pointed out that there is no global
warming when present and recent temperatures are so much lower than
for several centuries in the MWP, and that it is more reasonable to
assume that any warming trend as in the 1990 is merely a recovery from
the LIA. Until the global warmies can explain away those historical,
world-wide phenomena -- and not with statistical lies like Mann and
Briffa told with their Hockey Stick which the IPCC still promotes --
no one in his right mind will believe in global warming. That
essentially means forever, because in every other science but "global
warming", those phenomena are entrenched in the historical record. Now
who could possibly be dumb enough to fall for the debating trade crap
Weiner puts up as arguments below? Offered up for your delectation! --
Andre Jute
On Nov 17, 9:27 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Pat
>
> 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?
Wait a minute! Bill Gates has children! Ergo, according to you, he's not a
nerd.
>
> 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.
Pat
Well, you just lost Andre and Sornson with your logic. They went off to
drool over this week's Newsweek cover.
Pat
bjwe...@gmail.com
> Here's another who presumes the hypothesis proven before making the
> experiment. He just does it marginally more subtly than the other
> clowns. His name is Ben Weiner and he's the one who told the lie about
> the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being "merely
> eurocentric phenomena" when I pointed out that there is no global
> warming when present and recent temperatures are so much lower than
The conventional use of quotation marks is to denote
something that someone actually wrote. Thus a reasonable
person, reading Andre's post, could assume that the quotation
is attributed to me and that I described the MWP and Little Ice
Age as "merely eurocentric phenomena." In fact I don't believe
I have ever written that phrase. If you use Google advanced
search for "eurocentric" in rec.bicycles.tech:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y928lfk
it only occurs 6 times. Twice in 2004 and four times where
Andre Jute attributes it to me. Falsely, as I never wrote it.
Google search is imperfect, but at this point the burden is
on Jute to prove that I wrote it. I hadn't realized that he had
been repeatedly quoting me on the subject, as I don't
follow all of his climate discussions.
I may have written something about whether or not the
MWP and Little Ice Age were northern-hemisphere only,
which is a legitimate position: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
However, the use of quotation marks means a direct quote,
not some random exaggerated paraphrase you feel like
making up. A famous novelist such as Andre Jute should
understand this. Whether the rest of Jute's beliefs are
equally carefully argued is left to the reader's discretion.
Ben
Andre Jute
in order to hide his crimes. And then the poor dumb cluck has the
cheek to lecture me once more!
*******
You're an idiot who can't even follow a thread, Jonesy. This thread
*originated* on RAT in a post by Patrick Turner. It belongs to RAT.
It
is posted to RBT by courtesy because I know many on RBT take an
interest in global warming. Now, some johnny-come-lately, one Jonesy,
wants arbitrarily to deprive RAT of a thread started by Patrick
Turner, a RAT in very good standing indeed. This is the second time
of
telling you, Jonesy: it isn't for johnny-come-latelies like you to
tell anyone what they can post on RBT or RAT, and it is very ugly
indeed for you to try and deprive RAT of its own thread.
Andre Jute
Nobless oblige, until my patience with American fools runs out
*******
On Nov 17, 11:02 pm, !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:37:29 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
>
Then you should concentrate on the question of your poor manners and
your dictatorial manner, Jonesy, instead of throwing personalities
against me. And instead of trying to lie that you didn't make a dumb
mistake by trying to deprive RAT of a thread they own.
The final irony is when pompous moralists like Jonesy can't even keep
to their own rules, even as they try to impose them on others.
It ill serves the memory of Rainer Maria Rilke to have his name taken
in pisspoor pastiche by such a clown! Here's the real thing for
comparison: "One must of course forgive one's enemies, but not before
they are hanged." -- Rilke
Andre Jute
Nobless oblige -- until my patience runs out with a foul-mannered,
pompous American fool
Peter Wieck
> That is my parting advice to you sir... that, and... have a great
> life!!!
Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin. His typical
reaction to someone who cannot be intimidated, buffaloed or otherwise
crushed is to baffle them with bullshit as he is congenitally and
entirely unable to confront them with the facts. His pattern is to
attempt to outlast any with the temerity to confront him with his
inadequacies. After which when (as is typical) he will kpretend to
kill-file them. Intermediate steps will likely include a series of
sock-puppets and proxies.
You are in that special group to get the full Jute Treatment. Not only
is it utterly predictable, it is also predictably pathetic. Note his
pattern will include stuttering, repetition, 'excutive summaries' and
various other devices and patterns connected only by an increasing
desperation.
Have fun - playing with Andre is a bit like playing with a hognose
snake - that he is a snake is clear, that he has pretensions of
toxicity is equally clear. But the brute fact of the matter is that he
is a pretentious, fangless little remittance man driven to an Irish
backwater as the rest of the world would not have him - and the Irish,
an historically tolerant people - allow him to live out the rest of
his unhappy days sequestered in a dark room in front of a glowing CRT
grasping at an unattainable glory.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Andre Jute
Here, with the URL. is the lie Ben Weiner deliberately told and now
tries to deny with debating trade tricks:
"MWP and LIA are Europe-centric" -- Ben Weiner's lie told at
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/41bb9bfc6cefb6a0?hl=en
in the thread
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/46702bb4b1b147da/3acb74d0f02c7f57?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=mwp+weiner#3acb74d0f02c7f57
Below is the peer-reviewed, cross-disciplinary evidence that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age girdled the globe and, by
being universal, totally gives the lie to any 20/21st century "global"
warming. Enjoy the full message!
********
In a minute I shall demonstrate that Ben Weiner b...@mambo.ucolick.org,
who calls himself a scientist, lies about global warming. But first
enjoy his wriggling as he tries to wriggle out of the charge:
On Nov 18, 12:37 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 17, 4:29 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's another who presumes the hypothesis proven before making the
> > experiment. He just does it marginally more subtly than the other
> > clowns. His name is Ben Weiner and he's the one who told the lie about
> > the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being "merely
> > eurocentric phenomena" when I pointed out that there is no global
> > warming when present and recent temperatures are so much lower than
> > for several centuries in the MWP, ...
>
> The conventional use of quotation marks is to denote
> something that someone actually wrote. Thus a reasonable
> person, reading Andre's post, could assume that the quotation
> is attributed to me and that I described the MWP and Little Ice
> Age as "merely eurocentric phenomena." In fact I don't believe
> I have ever written that phrase.
Wriggle, wriggle...
> If you use Google advanced
> search for "eurocentric" in rec.bicycles.tech:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=eurocentric+g...
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/y928lfk
>
> it only occurs 6 times. Twice in 2004 and four times where
> Andre Jute attributes it to me. Falsely, as I never wrote it.
> Google search is imperfect, but at this point the burden is
> on Jute to prove that I wrote it. I hadn't realized that he had
> been repeatedly quoting me on the subject, as I don't
> follow all of his climate discussions.
That too is open for a demand of proof. But let's not be petty. Let's
instead, before I prove that Weiner is still lying through his teeth,
enjoy Weiner's dumb debating trade tricks, almost as good as Fat Al's:
> I may have written something about whether or not the
> MWP and Little Ice Age were northern-hemisphere only,
> which is a legitimate position: see
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
>
> However, the use of quotation marks means a direct quote,
> not some random exaggerated paraphrase you feel like
> making up. A famous novelist such as Andre Jute should
> understand this. Whether the rest of Jute's beliefs are
> equally carefully argued is left to the reader's discretion.
>
> Ben
All I did was do the uncultured cluck Weiner the favour of correcting
his illiterate "Europe-centric" to the more acceptable English of
"euro-centric", something called copy-editing a novelist does by
reflex. I apologize for trying to help you, Weiner. But you can't
use my good impulse to evade responsibility for a deliberate lie you
told.
Here, with the URL, is the lie Weiner deliberately told and now tries
to deny:
"MWP and LIA are Europe-centric" -- Ben Weiner's lie told at
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/41bb9bfc6cefb6a0?hl=en
in the thread
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/46702bb4b1b147da/3acb74d0f02c7f57?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=mwp+weiner#3acb74d0f02c7f57
Below is the peer-reviewed, cross-disciplinary evidence that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age girdled the globe. If
Weiner doesn't know about these articles, he shouldn't pretend to
discuss global warming, and in particular shouldn't lie that the "MWP
and LIA are Europe-centric". The evidence in these references give the
lie to any possibility of undue late twentieth century warming by
proving that it was much warmer for centuries before industrialization
and that currently any warming is merely recovery from a little ice
age. (Read carefully. Beware, one reference is inserted to test
whether you're paying attention.)
[1] Biondi F. et al., "July Temperature During the Second Millennium
Reconstructed from Idaho Tree Rings", Geophysical Research Letters,
v.
26, no.10, p.1445, 1998
[2] Cioccale M., "Climatic Fluctuations in the Central Region of
Argentina in the last 1000 Years", Quaternary International 62, p.
35-37, 1999 (as reported by the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide
and Global Change - http://www.co2science.org/ )
[3] Cook et al., "Climatic Change over the Last Millennium in
Tasmania
Reconstructed from Tree-Rings", The Holocene, 2.3 pp.205-217, 1992
[4] Daly J., "The Surface Record: Global Mean Temperature and How it
is Determined at Surface Level" April 2000,
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm
[5] Daly J., "Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels", June 2000
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm
[6] deMenocal P. et al. "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate
Variability During the Holocene Warm Period", Science, v.288, p.
2198-2202, Jun 23 2000
[7] Dullo, W. et al., "Stable Isotope Record from Holocene Reef
Corals, Western Indian Ocean", Journal of Conference Abstracts v.4
no.
1, Symposium B02, http://www.campublic.co.uk/science/publications/JConfAbs/4/164.html
[8] Fligge & Solanki, "The Solar Spectral Irradiance since 1700",
Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, No.14, p.2157, July 15 2000
[9] Hong Y. et al., "Response of Climate to Solar Forcing Recorded in
a 6000-year delta18O Time-Series of Chines Peat Cellulose", The
Holocene, v.10, p.1-7, 2000
[10] Houghton, J. et al. "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate
Change", Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 1995
[11] IPCC, Third Assessment Report (draft), January 2000
[12] Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in
the
Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996
[13] Kuo-Yen Wei et al, "Documenting Past Environmental Changes in
Taiwan and Adjacent Areas", Department of Geology, National Taiwan
University, 1996. http://www.gcc.ntu.edu.tw/gcc/research/igbp/1996_igbp/sec3-4/3-4.html
[14] Lean J., "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the
Maunder Minimum", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, no.16, p.2425,
August 15 2000
[15] Magnuson J. et al., "Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice
Cover in the Northern Hemisphere", Science, v.289, p.1743, 8 Sept
2000
[16] Mann M.E. et al, "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the
Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations", AGU
GRL,
v.3.1, 1999
[17] Mann M.E., Personal Website - http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mem6u
[18] National Academy of Science, "On being a Scientist: Responsible
Conduct in Research", National Academy Press, 1995
[19] National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), "Climate Change
Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate
Variability and Change" - Overview document, USGCRP, June 2000
[20] National Research Council, "Reconciling Observations of Global
Temperature Change", National Academy Press, 2000
[21] Nunez, M., "The Urban Heat Island: Some Aspects of the
Phenomenon
in Hobart", University of Tasmania, ISBN 0-85901-121-6, 1979
[22] Orwell, George, "Nineteen Eighty-Four", Penguin Books, London.
[23] Peru ice core http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/fig19d.htm
[24] Svensmark H., "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate",
Physical Review Letters, v.81, no.22, p.5027, 30 Nov 1998
[25] ---, "A 1000-year Record of Temperature and Precipitation in the
Sierra Nevada", Quaternary Research, v.39, p.249-255, 1993.
[26] Tagami, Y. Reconstruction of Climate in the Medieval Warm Period
http://edcgeo.edu.toyama-u.ac.jp/Geohome/IntN/Abs.htm
[27] Tyson, P.D. et al., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in
South Africa". South African Journal of Science, v96. p.121-126, 2000
[28] van de Plassche & van der Borg, "Sea level-climate correlation
during the past 1400 yr", Free University Amsterdam & Utrecht
University, http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~adejong/radiocarbon_dating/Sea-level/sea_level...
[29] Verschuren D., "Rainfall and Drought in Equatorial East Africa
during the past 1,100 Years", Nature v.403(6768) pp.410-414, 27 Jan
2000
[30] Villalba, R., "Tree-ring and Glacial Evidence for the Medieval
Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America". Climate
Change, 26: 183-197, 1994
[31] Wang Wen & Xie Zhiren, "Historical Sea Level Fluctuations in
China: Tidal Disaster Intensity and Sea Level Change", Nanjing
University, http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn/periodical/hhdxxb/hhdx99/hhdx9905/990509.htm
[32] Winter et al. "Caribbean Sea Surface Temperatures: Two-to-Three
Degrees Cooler than Present During the Little Ice Age", Geophysical
Research Letters, v.27, 20, p.3365, Oct 15 2000
[33] J T Houghton, G J Jenkins, J J Ephraums, Eds,, "Climate Change;
The IPCC Scientific Assessment". 1990 . Cambridge University Press,
p.
202
Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela
bjwe...@gmail.com
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
> Here, with the URL. is the lie Ben Weiner deliberately told and now
> tries to deny with debating trade tricks:
> "MWP and LIA are Europe-centric" -- Ben Weiner's lie told at
> in the threadhttp://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/...
>
> Below is the peer-reviewed, cross-disciplinary evidence that the
> Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age girdled the globe and, by
> being universal, totally gives the lie to any 20/21st century "global"
> warming. Enjoy the full message!
>
>
> > > Here's another who presumes the hypothesis proven before making the
> > > experiment. He just does it marginally more subtly than the other
> > > clowns. His name is Ben Weiner and he's the one who told the lie about
> > > the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being "merely
> > > eurocentric phenomena" when I pointed out that there is no global
> > > warming when present and recent temperatures are so much lower than
> > > for several centuries in the MWP, ...
>
> > The conventional use of quotation marks is to denote
> > something that someone actually wrote. Thus a reasonable
> > person, reading Andre's post, could assume that the quotation
> > is attributed to me and that I described the MWP and Little Ice
> > Age as "merely eurocentric phenomena." In fact I don't believe
> > I have ever written that phrase.
>
> Wriggle, wriggle...
>
> > MWP and Little Ice Age were northern-hemisphere only,
> > which is a legitimate position: see
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
>
> > However, the use of quotation marks means a direct quote,
> > not some random exaggerated paraphrase you feel like
> > making up. A famous novelist such as Andre Jute should
> > understand this. Whether the rest of Jute's beliefs are
> > equally carefully argued is left to the reader's discretion.
>
> > Ben
>
> All I did was do the uncultured cluck Weiner the favour of correcting
> his illiterate "Europe-centric" to the more acceptable English of
> "euro-centric", something called copy-editing a novelist does by
> reflex. I apologize for trying to help you, Weiner. But you can't
> use my good impulse to evade responsibility for a deliberate lie you
> told.
Interesting. So in your opinion, editing a quotation
but retaining the quotation marks is helping.
To recap, in the link you kindly provided, I did write:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydv9qp3
: Nobody sensible claims that the Medieval Warm Period
: and the Little Ice Age never existed. What most people
: believe is that those were local phenomena, and that
: climate change elsewhere on the globe did not necessarily
: follow the same trend. If you like, MWP and LIA are
: Europe-centric terms, since the records that were
: studied first came from there. However, the 20th C
: rise in surface temperature is known to be global,
: and the rate of change appears higher than in
: previous excursions.
So I did write "Europe-centric" and "phenomena",
although not in the same sentence, but I didn't write "merely"
at all. The paragraph I wrote seems fine and I wouldn't
change any of it. "merely eurocentric phenomena"
clearly is not a rational summary of what I did write,
as I was trying to explain where the MWP and LIA
terms originated.
Jute's reference list seems cut and pasted from some
academic article (it's in numerical order, includes
some of those Michael Mann articles he hates, and
some references that have nothing to do with medieval
temperatures).
Ben
> Here, with the URL, is the lie Weiner deliberately told and now tries
> to deny:
> "MWP and LIA are Europe-centric" -- Ben Weiner's lie told athttp://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/41bb9bfc6cefb6a0?...
> in the threadhttp://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/...
>
> Below is the peer-reviewed, cross-disciplinary evidence that the
> Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age girdled the globe. If
> Weiner doesn't know about these articles, he shouldn't pretend to
> discuss global warming, and in particular shouldn't lie that the "MWP
> and LIA are Europe-centric". The evidence in these references give the
> lie to any possibility of undue late twentieth century warming by
> proving that it was much warmer for centuries before industrialization
> and that currently any warming is merely recovery from a little ice
> age. (Read carefully. Beware, one reference is inserted to test
> whether you're paying attention.)
>
> [1] Biondi F. et al., "July Temperature During the Second Millennium
> Reconstructed from Idaho Tree Rings", Geophysical Research Letters,
> v.
> 26, no.10, p.1445, 1998
> [2] Cioccale M., "Climatic Fluctuations in the Central Region of
> Argentina in the last 1000 Years", Quaternary International 62, p.
> 35-37, 1999 (as reported by the Center for the Study of Carbon
> Dioxide
> and Global Change -http://www.co2science.org/)
> [3] Cook et al., "Climatic Change over the Last Millennium in
> Tasmania
> Reconstructed from Tree-Rings", The Holocene, 2.3 pp.205-217, 1992
> [4] Daly J., "The Surface Record: Global Mean Temperature and How it
> is Determined at Surface Level" April 2000,http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm
> [5] Daly J., "Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels", June 2000http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm
> [6] deMenocal P. et al. "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate
> Variability During the Holocene Warm Period", Science, v.288, p.
> 2198-2202, Jun 23 2000
> [7] Dullo, W. et al., "Stable Isotope Record from Holocene Reef
> Corals, Western Indian Ocean", Journal of Conference Abstracts v.4
> no.
> 1, Symposium B02,http://www.campublic.co.uk/science/publications/JConfAbs/4/164.html
> [8] Fligge & Solanki, "The Solar Spectral Irradiance since 1700",
> Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, No.14, p.2157, July 15 2000
> [9] Hong Y. et al., "Response of Climate to Solar Forcing Recorded in
> a 6000-year delta18O Time-Series of Chines Peat Cellulose", The
> Holocene, v.10, p.1-7, 2000
> [10] Houghton, J. et al. "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate
> Change", Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 1995
> [11] IPCC, Third Assessment Report (draft), January 2000
> [12] Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in
> the
> Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996
> [13] Kuo-Yen Wei et al, "Documenting Past Environmental Changes in
> Taiwan and Adjacent Areas", Department of Geology, National Taiwan
> University, 1996.http://www.gcc.ntu.edu.tw/gcc/research/igbp/1996_igbp/sec3-4/3-4.html
> [14] Lean J., "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the
> Maunder Minimum", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, no.16, p.2425,
> August 15 2000
> [15] Magnuson J. et al., "Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice
> Cover in the Northern Hemisphere", Science, v.289, p.1743, 8 Sept
> 2000
> [16] Mann M.E. et al, "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the
> Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations", AGU
> GRL,
> v.3.1, 1999
> [17] Mann M.E., Personal Website -http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mem6u
> [18] National Academy of Science, "On being a Scientist: Responsible
> Conduct in Research", National Academy Press, 1995
> [19] National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), "Climate Change
> Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate
> Variability and Change" - Overview document, USGCRP, June 2000
> [20] National Research Council, "Reconciling Observations of Global
> Temperature Change", National Academy Press, 2000
> [21] Nunez, M., "The Urban Heat Island: Some Aspects of the
> Phenomenon
> in Hobart", University of Tasmania, ISBN 0-85901-121-6, 1979
> [22] Orwell, George, "Nineteen Eighty-Four", Penguin Books, London.
> [23] Peru ice corehttp://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/fig19d.htm
> [24] Svensmark H., "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate",
> Physical Review Letters, v.81, no.22, p.5027, 30 Nov 1998
> [25] ---, "A 1000-year Record of Temperature and Precipitation in the
> Sierra Nevada", Quaternary Research, v.39, p.249-255, 1993.
> [26] Tagami, Y. Reconstruction of Climate in the Medieval Warm Periodhttp://edcgeo.edu.toyama-u.ac.jp/Geohome/IntN/Abs.htm
> [27] Tyson, P.D. et al., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in
> South Africa". South African Journal of Science, v96. p.121-126, 2000
> [28] van de Plassche & van der Borg, "Sea level-climate correlation
> during the past 1400 yr", Free University Amsterdam & Utrecht
> University,http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~adejong/radiocarbon_dating/Sea-level/sea_level...
> [29] Verschuren D., "Rainfall and Drought in Equatorial East Africa
> during the past 1,100 Years", Nature v.403(6768) pp.410-414, 27 Jan
> 2000
> [30] Villalba, R., "Tree-ring and Glacial Evidence for the Medieval
> Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America". Climate
> Change, 26: 183-197, 1994
> [31] Wang Wen & Xie Zhiren, "Historical Sea Level Fluctuations in
> China: Tidal Disaster Intensity and Sea Level Change", Nanjing
> University,http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn/periodical/hhdxxb/hhdx99/hhdx9905/990509.htm
datakoll
DL.
off course the running on does consume juice.
I was disappointed this morning when NYT replaced hope in China on GW
with despair.
and I asked AGAIN: where is the communicable articulated balance
national leaders consider when balancing national interests and global
disaster ?
"We'll all be dead so waht does it matter." ?
a globAl boycott of Chinese goods is an answer: curb emissions or NO
SALE !
Andre Jute
wrote:
Correcting the solecisms of the illiterate is standard literary
practice which you approved of above ("A famous novelist such as Andre
Jute should..."), so why are you now practicing debating trade tricks
and claiming something else, Weiner? And another debating trade trick
too, separating this remark of yours from a contrary confession by you
further on: "I did write "Europe-centric" and "phenomena"". It's
dishonest presentation, sonny.
> To recap, in the link you kindly provided, I did write:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydv9qp3
>
> : Nobody sensible claims that the Medieval Warm Period
> : and the Little Ice Age never existed. What most people
> : believe is that those were local phenomena, and that
> : climate change elsewhere on the globe did not necessarily
> : follow the same trend. If you like, MWP and LIA are
> : Europe-centric terms, since the records that were
> : studied first came from there. However, the 20th C
> : rise in surface temperature is known to be global,
> : and the rate of change appears higher than in
> : previous excursions.
In a minute I shall analyze this carefully crafted paragraph to
demonstrate that every single sentence is an outright lie or intended
to deceive and misdirect.
> So I did write "Europe-centric" and "phenomena",
> although not in the same sentence, but I didn't write "merely"
> at all. The paragraph I wrote seems fine and I wouldn't
> change any of it.
Good, I was just waiting for you to reaffirm that whole meretricious
paragraph: "I wouldn't change any of it." -- Ben Weiner
>"merely eurocentric phenomena"
> clearly is not a rational summary of what I did write,
> as I was trying to explain where the MWP and LIA
> terms originated.
No, this is another lie. As I shall prove, immediately below, you
weren't trying to claim that Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age
were names given in Europe -- to argue such a tautology, as you do
here, is an insult to the intelligence of everyone on RBT -- but
instead you were deliberately lying to me that the Medieval Warm
Period and Little Ice Age happened only in Europe and not around the
globe. The careful crafting with weasel words of your lying paragraph
gives the game away:
> : Nobody sensible claims that the Medieval Warm Period
> : and the Little Ice Age never existed.
This sentence is an outright lie, unless Weiner now wants to claim
that he called the entire profession of climatology stupid. Lying away
the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age is precisely the
business on which the IPCC and their pinup boys Michael Mann and Keith
Briffa and scads of lesser snouts in the trough have been engaged in
for more than a decade. It is also the subject of the thread to which
Wiener first sent the sentence. He cannot be unaware of what was
discussed by him!
> : What most people
> : believe
This is a lie. "Most people" don't believe any such thing. It is
merely what the global warming faithful would like us to believe
because the in the presence of global coverage by the Medieval Warm
Period and the Little Ice Age this whole charade of global warming
just won't stand up.
> : is that those were local phenomena,
The same "Europe-centric" [sic, meaning, not my illiteracy: it was in
Wiener's original] lie once more.
> : and that
> : climate change elsewhere on the globe did not necessarily
> : follow the same trend.
The same The same "Europe-centric" [sic] lie again. Notice the surfeit
of weasel words like "necessarily", so that Wiener can later claim he
qualified his statements to kingdom come and thus wasn't lying to me.
Some of them are unconscious defence mechanisms, more proof that he
knew he was lying to me.
> : If you like,
Lovely. Here Weiner is trying to put the onus for his lie on me,
trying to involve me in the misdirection.
> : MWP and LIA are
> : Europe-centric terms,
There's the lie.
> : since the records that were
> : studied first came from there.
And now for the Big Lie: when accused of lying, Weiner will claim, "I
merely said they were named in Europe. I didn't say they didn't happen
elsewhere." But the context and the careful hints in the other
sentences that the that climate change elsewhere on the globe did not
necessarily follow the same trend" give that lie away too.
> : However, the 20th C
> : rise in surface temperature is known to be global,
From which "however", usually used to state a contrary fact, we are
now meant erroneously to conclude that the Medieval Warm Period and
the Little Ice Age were not global. In short, another lie from Weiner.
> : and the rate of change appears higher than in
> : previous excursions.
Another lie, with Weiner's weaselling get-out in "appears". This lie,
told by Wiener, arises from the statistics cooked into the discredited
Hockey Stick to flatten the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
Age, along with lies such as I've demonstrated Wiener told in the
paragraph which has once more embraced and confirmed: "I wouldn't
change any of it."
You're a liar, Weiner, and if you're a scientist at all you're a
weaselling, dishonest excuse for a scientist.
If you didn't know that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
Age were global -- and it beggars belief that you didn't -- why is it
necessary to put so many weasel-words into one short paragraph? Why
are you so proud of your work in that one paragraph out of many that
months later you select it and unnecessarily tell us how proud you are
of it? Man, it is the most blatant display of shoddy lies I have seen
in a long time.
> Jute's reference list seems cut and pasted from some
> academic article
Wow, it is now crime to read academic articles? I quoted the source
prominently when I first gave the list, I quote it again to day in a
prior post on this conference, so what is your problem, Weiner?
>(it's in numerical order, includes
> some of those Michael Mann articles he hates,
Interesting that you, Ben Weiner, a self-declared "scientist", should
axiomatically believe (and express the belief in public!) that anyone
engaged in scientific controversy will read only the papers of those
who agree with him. But I leave that sort of partisanship
to"scientists" like you, who believe religiously in global warming, to
the point of lying for it. I read the arguments and date presented by
all sides; I have no interests; and no disillusionment to fear; my
only interest is truth and rationality and proportional action.
>and
> some references that have nothing to do with medieval
> temperatures).
Tell me which you think they are and I'll explain their purpose on the
list.
> Ben
Dear Ben... You keep digging yourself in deeper, Weiner. HTF did you
think you could get away with lying to me of all people?
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
bjwe...@gmail.com
Let's not let your wild ideas about what climatologists
think distract from the matter at hand, which is that in your
field of expertise, writing, you attributed to me a direct
quotation that in fact I never wrote.
> >and
> > some references that have nothing to do with medieval
> > temperatures).
>
> Tell me which you think they are and I'll explain their purpose on the
> list.
>
> > Ben
>
> Dear Ben... You keep digging yourself in deeper, Weiner. HTF did you
> think you could get away with lying to me of all people?
A Google search trivially shows that your list of
references comes from
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
which actually isn't an article from a journal, but never mind.
It's also not written by Andre, so when he quoted it without
attribution, by normal publication standards, he was
plagiarizing it.
I know that some of those references have to do with
ideas such as solar irradiance or cosmic ray flux effects
on temperatures, but these have little to do with
the question of whether or not the Medieval Warm Period
was global. That's an empirical question you try to
answer by looking at the historical record. The solar flux,
cosmic rays, etc, are _mechanisms_ that one may postulate
to explain an empirical relation.
Anybody can cut and paste a list of references and say they are
"proving that it was much warmer for centuries before
industrialization"
as Jute did above. However, when half the references
belong to other anti-CO2-warming arguments rather than
an argument about the global temperature record, it looks
like you're throwing references at the wall and hoping
one will stick.
Ben
!Jones
Wieck <pf...@aol.com> wrote:
>Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin.
Actually, I wasn't trying to do that. Heck, I never even particularly
disagreed with the chap... I admitted right up front that I didn't
know much about global warming.
I wonder what it is about that topic that floats his boat. I'd expect
someone who believed that we needed to save the planet to be
passionate... never met anyone who was passionate about apathy...
until now, I mean.
Strangest thing I ever did see... well... I saw a six-toed cat once; I
spoze that was stranger.
Jones
Peter Wieck
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:48:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter
>
> >Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin.
>
> Actually, I wasn't trying to do that. Heck, I never even particularly
> disagreed with the chap... I admitted right up front that I didn't
> know much about global warming.
>
> I wonder what it is about that topic that floats his boat. I'd expect
> someone who believed that we needed to save the planet to be
> passionate... never met anyone who was passionate about apathy...
> until now, I mean.
>
> Strangest thing I ever did see... well... I saw a six-toed cat once; I
> spoze that was stranger.
>
> Jones
Well, if you check the latest blather from Bard of Bandon, you will
see that he has spun into his usual response to anyone/anything that
flows counter to his demands - now there are (at least) two threads
complete with stutters, repeated self-quoting and the typical coterie
of sock-puppets, sycophants and slavies that gather about him akin to
flies gathering about - well you get the picture.
Andre works at being a Bozo - assiduously. It is the center of his
being and his single and singular goal in life. He never misses an
opportunity to practice his avocation and becomes positively ferocious
when crossed in his pursuit of ignorance.
Polydactyl cats are relatively common - 58% in some breeds. Andre, on
the other hand is thankfully and blessedly unique.
!Jones
I've been *REFUTED*!
I just *hate* it when that happens!
Obviously, I'm dealing with a rapier-keen intellect here. I find
myself trapped by lightning-quick logic; my puny arguments are
overwhelmed by an obviously superior forensic talent!
*******************************************
Hey... audio.tubes people:
I have an old amplifier in my garage. It just surfaced a few days ago
as I was cleaning... it's a box with a bunch of tubes and stuff on
top, but that won't tell you much, I don't suppose. OK, there's a
data plate: it says it's a McIntosh 20W-2 mono-tube. It was my
father's... I'm guessing it was manufactured in the '40s. I remember
using it in the '60s listening to the Beach Boys... "Everybody's gone
surrrrrfin..." ("TURN THAT NOISE DOWN!!!") I'd be leary of plugging
it it today; however, the cord still looks OK. Does that have any
value?
Jones
Peter Wieck
Sure does. And, correct, don't plug it in without the proper test
equipment (metered variac for a start).
There are individuals who will pay real money for that. Not me, but
there are those out there.
William Asher
<snip>
The temperature proxy records for the last couple of millenia are much too
complicated in structure for most denialists to get a grasp on. The thing
they seem to all ignore is the error bars. They are huge going back to
the MWP not only because the proxy methods are uncertain, but because the
different records from different regions do not show synchronous warming.
So while Europe may have warmed during the MWP, Asia warmed decades later,
North America maybe a century later, with the Arctic doing nothing like
what it is doing now in terms of amplification of the warming seen at lower
latitudes. (Oh please spare me the wheeze that Greenland was a verdant
paradise with the Vikings growing oranges, wheat, and bananas above the
Arctic Circle!) That difference spatial distribution combined with the
asychronous warming show that whatever was going on during the MWP, it was
nothing like the global sychronous warming coupled with extreme
amplification of that warming in the Arctic we have seen over the last 30
years.
There is a nice, two-page discussion of this in the IPCC AR4, Chap. 6, page
468-469. Most skeptics reject this out of hand, which is why they should
be more correctly termed denialists.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
--
Bill Asher
mike
@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
You surmise correctly...
> I saw a soundbite on the BBC World Service the
> other day in which your prime minister wittered on about what her
> government was doing about global warming.
Helen hasn't been prime-minister here for over a year, she works for the
UN these days. Her replacement, from the slightly right-of-centre party
(she was slightly-left-of-centre) is following a similar climate-change
policy.
> She seemed to be impressed
> by the fact that the debate is over. She didn't once ask who ended the
> debate, or by what argument, nor did she demand any proof, nor did she
> seem aware that the only part she read, the Summary for Policy Makers,
> reports in many instances the diametric opposite of what the main
> report states. I suppose you don't get much choice in your
> politicians, what with having such a small population, and so
> homogenous, but I certainly wouldn't vote for someone so complacent.
> Name one famous New Zealander besides Hillary -- Australian joke
>
New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia contribute to a rise in average
IQ in both countries -- New Zealand joke.
Mike - signing off for a month trekking in Nepal.
Andre Jute
> Mike - signing off for a month trekking in Nepal.
He'll no doubt come back and tell us it was unnaturally warm and
polluted, and he could hardly breathe for excess CO2!
Have a happy holiday, Mike.
Andre Jute
Wishing I had the foresight to overwinter in Adelaide...
Andre Jute
and responds by snipping my text so he can make a juvenile attempt to
smear me. For instance, he claims I misquoted him when I merely,
reflexively as a novelist, copy-corrected his self-confessed
illiterate usage of "Europe-centric" to "Euro-centric" (see my
previous post in this thread). Then the poor dumb cluck tries to make
out I committed plagiarism, in the process exposing the fact that he
doesn't actually know what the word or the concept means. Whatever he
thinks it means, it is another lie told by Ben Weiner aka
b...@mambo.ucolick.org -- I have given the source of the quoted
materials many times, including several times yesterday (see the
thread http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/157947528e3767a3/f57a97486a6091c6?hl=en#f57a97486a6091c6
)
Weiner doesn't even attempt to offer any counter-argument to my
analysis proving him a deliberate liar. He just tries to assassinate
my character. That's par for the course for the global warming
faithful, of course.
You know, Wiener, as I've said before, to have idiots like Chung,
Asher and you try to claim that your faith in global warming makes you
superior is already enough insult to our intelligence, but for liars
like you to call themselves "scientists" is really beyond the pale of
decent behaviour.
Andre Jute
Disgusted
On Nov 18, 8:29 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Andre Jute
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
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
bjwe...@gmail.com
> Weiner stands exposed as a liar (see my previous post in this thread)
> and responds by snipping my text so he can make a juvenile attempt to
> smear me. For instance, he claims I misquoted him when I merely,
> reflexively as a novelist, copy-corrected his self-confessed
> illiterate usage of "Europe-centric" to "Euro-centric" (see my
> previous post in this thread).
As a novelist? Novelists are free to make things up,
but I am not one of your characters.
You quoted me, repeatedly, as saying "merely eurocentric
phenomena" when I never said "merely" and "Europe-centric"
and "phenomena" were from two different sentences.
This is like one of those joke movie blurbs where
the reviewer says "A smashing display of pointless
action" and the ad quotes him as "Smashing ... action!"
> Then the poor dumb cluck tries to make
> out I committed plagiarism, in the process exposing the fact that he
> doesn't actually know what the word or the concept means. Whatever he
> thinks it means, it is another lie told by Ben Weiner aka
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org -- I have given the source of the quoted
> materials many times, including several times yesterday (see the
> threadhttp://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/...
> )
Oh come on. If you quote something (for real
this time, not making up a quote) you're supposed
to name the source and make it obvious that
it's a quote, not to say that you gave the source in
some other random post. After all, nobody has
time to read through all the drivel you post each
day to compile a bibliography. Would it have been
any trouble for you to say "This list of references
compiled by John Daly supports my point about the
Medieval Warm Period"? No, but it would have made
you look a little less like a genius. This does fit the
usual academic, journalistic, and novelistic definitions
of plagiarism.
If I write a novel, copy a significant amount of text
verbatim from one of your novels, and write in the
foreword, "I thank Andre Jute from whom I have
borrowed liberally," it's _still plagiarism_.
> Weiner doesn't even attempt to offer any counter-argument to my
> analysis proving him a deliberate liar. He just tries to assassinate
> my character. That's par for the course for the global warming
> faithful, of course.
>
> You know, Wiener, as I've said before, to have idiots like Chung,
> Asher and you try to claim that your faith in global warming makes you
> superior is already enough insult to our intelligence, but for liars
> like you to call themselves "scientists" is really beyond the pale of
> decent behaviour.
>
> Andre Jute
> Disgusted
You have no character to assassinate. You also spell
my name differently each time you write it, which is
meaningless but kind of funny.
Ben
Andre Jute
get this in return:
> You have no character to assassinate. -- Ben Weiner
When you have a contribution to make to the discussion of the
environment or other matters of interest to cyclists, let's hear from
you again, Weiner.
Andre Jute
Bored shitless with this pushy little man
On Nov 19, 2:20 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
bjwe...@gmail.com
>
> Andre Jute
> Bored shitless with this pushy little man
Some prune juice will help with that.
Ben