Live it up before you die! Waste lots of resources!
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will
> > long after Man is gone.
>
> Thanks, the 'planet' does not need 'saving'.
Quite. Then why are you such a sourpuss killjoy?
> It is the selfish humans who think it's all there for them to exploit
> then apologise for afterwards.
Humans are the only ones with the self-awareness to do it. Therefore
they do it. Some humans forget they're only smarter animals. (Mind
you, my pet chimps, Mini-Andre I through IV, were quite a bit smarter
than several posters to RBT, and had superior charm with the ladies
too.)
> Not long before Yellowstone wakes up,
You're not very well informed, are you, Keith? Yellowstone has in fact
been *ruined* by well-meaning conservationists.
>half the Canary Islands slip in to
> the sea or a large rock bounces off the planet.
You and Erich von Daniken both. Well, we can't control those things,
so we may as well live it up.
> We live on the thin crust of the surface, highly unadaptable,
Huh? Where were you educated? Gaia is the most spectacularly adaptable
hunk of rock anyone now alive or dead has ever known. That's the point
of my remark you quote above.
>rather new
> as a species and won't be around much longer.
In the geological perspective, you're right. We're johnny-come-
latelies and we most likely won't last as long as the dinosaurs, who
lasted about thirteen times as long as we've been around. So what?
You want to leave the hysteria behind and get a little perspective,
Keith. Ask your doctor to prescribe atenolol. It reduces blood
pressure and anxiety.
It doesn't cost anything to put your mind in gear.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
RonSonic
>I watched an interview yesterday with the head of one of the fire crews now
>working so feverishly in California. The number and size of wilefires has
>increased dramatically in the past 10--20 years. He attributes this to the
>policy of putting out small fires, with the result that dry underbrush has
>accumulated to a point that fire spreads rapidly and intensely, AND: global
>warming has produced longer dry seasons, which makes the accumulated
>underbrush drier and more fiercely combustible. I quote him: "Don't tell
>these men out here there is no global warming."
Why is it that when thousands of record low temperatures are set across the
continent the AGW believers tell us that it is just a localized condition and
not representative of global changes. Not snow on the Mediterranean shores or a
blizzard in Baghdad can be attributed to any sort of cooling trend. But a dry
season in one region of California THAT is proof of global warming.
Your fireman is undoubtably a man of guts and expertise, but I'm not going to
take his testimony as meaning anything more than "California has goofy weather
patterns."
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
Pat
>
> Why is it that when thousands of record low temperatures are set
> across the continent the AGW believers tell us that it is just a
> localized condition and not representative of global changes. Not
> snow on the Mediterranean shores or a blizzard in Baghdad can be
> attributed to any sort of cooling trend. But a dry season in one
> region of California THAT is proof of global warming.
>
> Your fireman is undoubtably a man of guts and expertise, but I'm not
> going to take his testimony as meaning anything more than "California
> has goofy weather patterns."
How about the words of 500 scientists? Oh, I get it: we are supposed to take
Rush Limbaugh's words instead.
Pat in TX
Keiron
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 11:01:28 -0700, "Leo Lichtman" <leo.li...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I watched an interview yesterday with the head of one of the fire crews
>>now working so feverishly in California. The number and size of
>>wilefires has increased dramatically in the past 10--20 years. He
>>attributes this to the policy of putting out small fires, with the
>>result that dry underbrush has accumulated to a point that fire spreads
>>rapidly and intensely, AND: global warming has produced longer dry
>>seasons, which makes the accumulated underbrush drier and more fiercely
>>combustible. I quote him: "Don't tell these men out here there is no
>>global warming."
>
> Why is it that when thousands of record low temperatures are set across
> the continent the AGW believers tell us that it is just a localized
> condition and not representative of global changes. Not snow on the
> Mediterranean shores or a blizzard in Baghdad can be attributed to any
> sort of cooling trend. But a dry season in one region of California
> THAT is proof of global warming.
>
It seems to be a reasonably common misconception that global warming
means worldwide temperature rises. As I understand it places like here in
the UK will actually experience massive temperature decreases, flooding
and ice at the extremes of global warming. The evidence if not compelling
is at least logical (forgotten sources available online)
Activities purportedly responsible for global temperature change, whether
or not it's true, should be examined for the obvious social harm they
cause.
AMuzi
>> Why is it that when thousands of record low temperatures are set
>> across the continent the AGW believers tell us that it is just a
>> localized condition and not representative of global changes. Not
>> snow on the Mediterranean shores or a blizzard in Baghdad can be
>> attributed to any sort of cooling trend. But a dry season in one
>> region of California THAT is proof of global warming.
>> Your fireman is undoubtably a man of guts and expertise, but I'm not
>> going to take his testimony as meaning anything more than "California
>> has goofy weather patterns."
Pat wrote:
> How about the words of 500 scientists? Oh, I get it: we are supposed to take
> Rush Limbaugh's words instead.
I wouldn't know from Limbaugh but Charlie Perry and many
others are having second thoughts in light of actual data:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep/07/global-warming-theory-received-coolly/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Dan O
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 11:01:28 -0700, "Leo Lichtman" <leo.licht...@att.net> wrote:
> >I watched an interview yesterday with the head of one of the fire crews now
> >working so feverishly in California. The number and size of wilefires has
> >increased dramatically in the past 10--20 years. He attributes this to the
> >policy of putting out small fires, with the result that dry underbrush has
> >accumulated to a point that fire spreads rapidly and intensely, AND: global
> >warming has produced longer dry seasons, which makes the accumulated
> >underbrush drier and more fiercely combustible. I quote him: "Don't tell
> >these men out here there is no global warming."
>
> Why is it that when thousands of record low temperatures are set across the
> continent the AGW believers tell us that it is just a localized condition and
> not representative of global changes. Not snow on the Mediterranean shores or a
> blizzard in Baghdad can be attributed to any sort of cooling trend. But a dry
> season in one region of California THAT is proof of global warming.
>
> Your fireman is undoubtably a man of guts and expertise, but I'm not going to
> take his testimony as meaning anything more than "California has goofy weather
> patterns."
>
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/environment/july-dec09/climatefire_09-02.html
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a50ec3855a3abb27
Tom Kunich
news:Z9dpm.123758$LX3....@newsfe17.ams2...
>
> It seems to be a reasonably common misconception that global warming
> means worldwide temperature rises. As I understand it places like here in
> the UK will actually experience massive temperature decreases, flooding
> and ice at the extremes of global warming.
You are doomed. I suggest that rather than go through such torture that you
end it all for yourself immediately.
Michael Press
<941c424a-3d25-4bdd...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
[...]
> > Not long before Yellowstone wakes up,
>
> You're not very well informed, are you, Keith? Yellowstone has in fact
> been *ruined* by well-meaning conservationists.
You do not know to what he refers when he mentions Yellowstone.
--
Michael Press
Tom Kunich
news:8d4ef114-8aa6-4435...@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/environment/july-dec09/climatefire_09-02.html
"Wildfires are increasing in frequency and size"
Psst - MOST of these wildfires are being set. Perhaps it is people like you
who need such things to prove the doom we're all to have visited upon us by
those "non-religious" scientists.
Tom Kunich
news:rubrum-A6CBE7....@news.albasani.net...
Like all the rest of the super-volcanoes in the world?
Bill Sornson
Hey, there's a Czar opening at the White House right now; hurry up and get
in your app! (No vetting required.)
RonSonic
"Scientists: More Wildfires in West a Consequence of Climate Change"
They were also predicting far more and more severe hurricanes. So let's just
predict everything gets worse and whatever does, we'll claim as proof and
whatever doesn't we ignore.
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a50ec3855a3abb27
"Don't get along all that well with firemen, either. "
Yep, great guys, especially after they retire. During their career they live in
a locker room, day after day. That affects them in the predictable ways. Almost
to a man are or were jocks of some sort. Makes them less personable and
good-fellows-well-met than they'd otherwise be.
AMuzi
>>> means worldwide temperature rises. As I understand it places like
>>> here in the UK will actually experience massive temperature
>>> decreases, flooding and ice at the extremes of global warming.
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> You are doomed. I suggest that rather than go through such torture
>> that you end it all for yourself immediately.
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Hey, there's a Czar opening at the White House right now; hurry up and get
> in your app! (No vetting required.)
I believe he was a mere Commmissar.
Edward Dolan
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:941c424a-3d25-4bdd...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> You want to leave the hysteria behind and get a little perspective,
> Keith. Ask your doctor to prescribe atenolol. It reduces blood
> pressure and anxiety.
Atenolol is a beta blocker and it reduces BP somewhat, but the main thing it
does is reduce your heart rate. It is like having a governor on your heart.
It means your racing days are over - permanently.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Andre Jute
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yo, Keith, you may wish to negatively implement the prior suggestion
as it was unoptimally informed re your racing aspirations.
Andre Jute
We do gobbledygook at least as well as the Pentagon
Andre Jute
> In article
> <941c424a-3d25-4bdd-bdd7-aae251009...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Not long before Yellowstone wakes up,
>
> > You're not very well informed, are you, Keith? Yellowstone has in fact
> > been *ruined* by well-meaning conservationists.
>
> You do not know to what he refers when he mentions Yellowstone.
I know. There's probably a career for you, dear Michael, dotting the
tees and crossing the eyes behind some bright and interesting person,
but that bright and interesting person isn't me. My attention span is
too short to do you any favours, and my patience with displays of the
obvious even shorter. My pet pedants need to be a quite a bit more
sensitive than you to nuance and irony and, most confusing of all,
simple straight-up whimsy. That said, I did enjoy your capsule of
weather types, and the next time I run into the fellow who misinformed
me on that subject I'll take care of him and say it is a message from
Michael Press. -- Andre Jute
By the way, returning pedantry for pedantry, fair's fair, "to what he
refers" may be grammatically perfectly correct but it is atrocious
English; when in doubt, reproduce the vernacular and leave the grammar
on the school desk, and you'll sound less like a speaking robot c1958.
"You don't know which Yellowstone he's talking about," is so much
clearer, and punchier too.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
Michael Press
<c33afcb6-d387-4234...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 9:20 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <941c424a-3d25-4bdd-bdd7-aae251009...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Not long before Yellowstone wakes up,
> >
> > > You're not very well informed, are you, Keith? Yellowstone has in fact
> > > been *ruined* by well-meaning conservationists.
> >
> > You do not know to what he refers when he mentions Yellowstone.
>
> I know. There's probably a career for you, dear Michael, dotting the
> tees and crossing the eyes behind some bright and interesting person,
> but that bright and interesting person isn't me. My attention span is
> too short to do you any favours, and my patience with displays of the
> obvious even shorter. My pet pedants need to be a quite a bit more
Indicating that you missed a point is not pedantry.
> sensitive than you to nuance and irony and, most confusing of all,
> simple straight-up whimsy. That said, I did enjoy your capsule of
> weather types,
You are welcome.
> and the next time I run into the fellow who misinformed
> me on that subject I'll take care of him and say it is a message from
> Michael Press. -- Andre Jute
>
> By the way, returning pedantry for pedantry, fair's fair, "to what he
> refers" may be grammatically perfectly correct but it is atrocious
> English; when in doubt, reproduce the vernacular and leave the grammar
> on the school desk, and you'll sound less like a speaking robot c1958.
> "You don't know which Yellowstone he's talking about," is so much
> clearer, and punchier too.
You chose to edit my prose. Is it because you think
I am being pedantic and wish to emulate me?
--
Michael Press
Jym Dyer
> Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
=v= I've seen a lot of stupid .sigs in my time on Usenet, but
this one is spectacularly blitheringly idiotic.
=v= In a nation where many people actually choose to actively
believe in unscientific nonsense, I can can understand people
being so pig-ignorant as to not to be swayed by science, but
to assert that there's "less science" supporting global warming
than Scientology? How could anyone be so extroverted about
being so wrong? One of the most remarkable things about global
warming is how *much* science supports it, and from so many
different scientific disciplines that otherwise have little to
do with each other.
=v= As for the moronic "Subject:" line, waste isn't living.
I'm happier with a more harmonious relationship to my biosphere
and my fellow beings, thank you. Don't knock it until you've
tried it.
<_Jym_>
Keiron
Maybe we'll just take our North American colonies back and live there,
subjecting the natives to slavery, rather, change the mode of their
slavery. It's a wonder there hasn't been such mass suicides your way
actually.
William Asher
news:h83nmq$fcf$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I wouldn't know from Limbaugh but Charlie Perry and many
> others are having second thoughts in light of actual data:
> http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep/07/global-warming-theory-received
> -coolly/
If you want to see why the Charlie Perrys of the world mistakenly think
their work is relevant, read here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-
correlations/
If you want to continue to talk nonsense and believe people who are
clueless, don't bother, you won't believe the explanation above anyway.
Your objections to the concept of climate change are based on the social
and policy implications, which scare you. So argue those points, because
if you think Charlie Perry has anything relevant to say towards the
science, you don't understand the science well enough to object to
climate change on technical grounds.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote innews:h83nmq$fcf$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > I wouldn't know from Limbaugh but Charlie Perry and many
> > others are having second thoughts in light of actual data:
> >http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep/07/global-warming-theory-received
> > -coolly/
> Your objections to the concept of climate change are based on the social
> and policy implications, which scare you.
Here Asher goes once more with his Marxist method of ascribing
limiting motives to dissenters.
> --
> Bill Asher
Yo, Asher, many of us don't believe in global warming because the
science is so crap that the clowns who try to sell it to us are forced
to lie about the science (Mann is only the major example -- the same
lie is now told by many others), about a spurious "consensus", and to
resort to coercion of doubters and dissenters (Lomborn).
Many others see that the Global Warming Faith is just another marxist-
type excuse to interfere in our freedoms, as you admit yourself:
> Your objections to the concept of climate change are based on the social
> and policy implications, which scare you.
The lipsmacking relish of self-declared "scientists" at shaping public
policy is the truest sign of scientism, a religion posing as science,
and a sound reason not to believe a word those "scientists" say.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly
Andre Jute
juvenile debating trick perpetrated by those who know they don't have
the brains to carry a convincing argument. -- AJ
On Sep 8, 6:18 am, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> > Andre Jute
> > Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
> =v= I've seen a lot of stupid .sigs in my time on Usenet, but
> this one is spectacularly blitheringly idiotic.
Yo, Jymbo, you should have discovered who and what I am before you
started blustering. I shall now proceed to demonstrate that a) I'm a
better environmentalist than you and b) your religion of Global
Warming is a false god with clay feet.
> =v= In a nation where many people actually choose to actively
> believe in unscientific nonsense,
Deplorable! Let's have a Monkey-Scopes Trial!
>I can can understand people
> being so pig-ignorant as to not to be swayed by science,
If there's so much science, why do the Global Warmies need the lie of
Michael Mann's Hockey Stick to perpetrate the Stalinist and Goebelsian
atrocities of attempting to disappear the facts of history, to wit the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?
Furthermore, are you aware that the same "science" was quoted by
Velikovsky and Daniken in support of their wacky theories? Are you
aware that back in the 1950s and 60s perfecly respectable scientists
used these same "facts" to claim a hole in the ozone layer would cause
the sun to fry us all? Are you aware that in the 1970s perfectly
respectable scientists from the same facts forecast a great Ice Age
in which we would all freeze? What would have happened if out of pure
hubris (look it up, sonny) we took their "scientific" prescription and
heated up the oceans?
Man, what you believe in, and the rest of the Global Warmies, and all
those hysterics at the IPCC, is not science but scientism. Look that
one up too, sonny.
> but
> to assert that there's "less science" supporting global warming
> than Scientology?
I would be delighted to demonstrate point by point that Global Warming
"science" is based on lies, misconceptions and wishful thinking, same
as Scientology. Except that neither you nor I can prove that
Scientology is a impossible, and it is easy to prove Global Warming is
a lie. I imagine that like that poor befuddled fool Asher, you will
first want to discuss minutae that operate only under the prior
presumption that Global Warming is true, and when I refuse to let you
set use such a marxist method to stifle discussion, run away hurling
limp imprecations over your shoulder.
For a start, I state as a fact that L Ron Hubbard knew more science
than either you or Asher.
>How could anyone be so extroverted about
> being so wrong?
Because, you poor impressionable fashion victim, I've been right about
this since I was a precocious teenager with a column in the Sunday
Times in which once a month a I asked the Hole in the Head, sorry,
Hole in the Ozone Layer Krowd to show me the hole, almost half a
century ago. It never arrived. Next I asked the genocidal idiots who
wanted to ban DDT to show me a single case of human cancer caused by
DDT; fifty years later there is still none, not one, but the banners
of DDT have killed hundreds of millions of people by malaria and
starvation. (St Rachel Carson of the Greens, greatest genocidal
psychopath the world has ever seen.) Next, in the 70s I asked the Big
Freeze Lollipops to show me the Ice Encroaching. We're still waiting.
A dozen years later the same clowns suddenly turned into the
hysterically funny Global Warmies because that's what the guys with
the money for research, the IPCC, wanted to hear.
Hey, Jymbo, are you starting to see a pattern here, of "scientists"
wanting the fifteen minutes of fame Andy Warhol promised them,
discovering that apocalyptic "scientific" prophecies are the fast was
onto the goggle box?
>One of the most remarkable things about global
> warming is how *much* science supports it,
Since when is a model under the control of bureaucrats science? Since
when is a model worth shit that misses forecasting a period of cooling
of equal length to the previous period of warming?
>and from so many
> different scientific disciplines that otherwise have little to
> do with each other.
I published two or three times already on RBT a list of peer reviewed
papers from dozens of sciences which categorically show that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened at the same time
and around the world. The Big Lie of the Global Warmies that
temperature history is a hockey stick, which by statistical lies
attempts to flatten the MWP and LIA, has already much exposed by inter
alia McIntyre and McKittrick, the highest statistical authorities in
the US and elsewhere, and the US Senate, to name only a few.
So what interdisciplinary science really tells us about Global Warming
is that it is a fake. Global temperature was much higher than it is in
our time before for several centuries in the middle ages when there
was no question of manmade CO2. It is logical to conclude that are not
in a period of dangerous heating, we are merely on the variable slope
of recovery from the low of an ice age to the norm of the middle ages.
Ipso facto, no global warming.
That's beside the observable fact from the ice core that global
temperature leads CO2 increases, rather than being caused by them. I
do love the contortions the self-described "scientists" perpetrate
when they try to explain that one away. Occam (look him up too, Jymbo)
is laughing from beyond the grave.
> =v= As for the moronic "Subject:" line, waste isn't living.
> I'm happier with a more harmonious relationship to my biosphere
> and my fellow beings, thank you. Don't knock it until you've
> tried it.
Oh dear. Do you own a car, Jymbo? If you do, I'm a better
conservationist than you are. I haven't owned a car since 1992.
Travelled for business anywhere in the last generation, Jymbo? Oh
dear. I'm a better environmetnalist than you too, since I've conducted
my business by electronic means since 1981. Been on a holiday by
plane, Jymbo? Oh dear, you wastrel. I haven't been on a plane in
decades; when I go on holiday I travel by bus and train to arts
festivals and rent a bicycle locally, not a car. The difference
between us is apparently that I take conservation seriously, and you
pay it lip service and run after every passing fad, like the current
fad of global warming.
> <_Jym_>
Here are some more extrovert taglines for you to whine about, Jymbo.
Andre Jute
The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will
long after Man is gone.
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
Andre Jute
"The first American car was sold to an American on April Fool's Day,
1898." -- Ralph Stein in "Vintage and Classic Cars", Bantam Books,
1977
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
Pat
>>> You are doomed. I suggest that rather than go through such torture
>>> that you end it all for yourself immediately.
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Hey, there's a Czar opening at the White House right now; hurry up
>> and get in your app! (No vetting required.)
>
>
Both wrong: he was an advisor on "green" jobs. As for "no vetting" I
suppose that means in you ever say something you cannot later on say you
don't believe it anymore. By that logic, George Bush is still an alcoholic.
After all, he did admit to being one, once!
Pat in TX
Tom Kunich
news:7gnlk9F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Hey, there's a Czar opening at the White House right now; hurry up
>>> and get in your app! (No vetting required.)
>>
> AMuzi wrote:>> > I believe he was a mere Commmissar.
>
> Both wrong: he was an advisor on "green" jobs. As for "no vetting" I
> suppose that means in you ever say something you cannot later on say you
> don't believe it anymore. By that logic, George Bush is still an
> alcoholic.
>
> After all, he did admit to being one, once!
Funny, originally President Obama said that he vetted EVERYTHING through
him.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> So what interdisciplinary science really tells us about Global Warming
> is that it is a fake. Global temperature was much higher than it is in
> our time before for several centuries in the middle ages when there
> was no question of manmade CO2. It is logical to conclude that are not
> in a period of dangerous heating, we are merely on the variable slope
> of recovery from the low of an ice age to the norm of the middle ages.
> Ipso facto, no global warming.
> That's beside the observable fact from the ice core that global
> temperature leads CO2 increases, rather than being caused by them. I
> do love the contortions the self-described "scientists" perpetrate
> when they try to explain that one away. Occam (look him up too, Jymbo)
> is laughing from beyond the grave.
I suspect that what the scientists are worried about is not any global
warming that will happen in a few hundred years, but rather the more long
term trend of a few thousand years. I think what happens is that there is a
gradual change in conditions and then suddenly a tipping point is reached
and things can then change very rapidly. Decade to decade fluctuations may
well be worthless as a predictive tool.
The earth is able to self correct for many fluctuations if left to its own
devices, but that may have changed due to man made effects since
industrialization. It is not unreasonable to suppose that industrial man's
pollution of the atmosphere cannot but have an effect on the climate of the
earth as a whole.
It is not possible to determine scientifically yet just what effect
industrial man is having on the climate, but to think that he can have no
effect is remarkably stupid. I know when I am in sitting a traffic jam with
thousands of automobiles spewing exhaust into the air that it has got to be
having SOME effect.
AMuzi
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Parking the tractor and using a mule is a 'green job'!
Trading trucks for coolies is also green!
Andre Jute
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:883fffeb-8ee7-492c...@x38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > So what interdisciplinary science really tells us about Global Warming
> > is that it is a fake. Global temperature was much higher than it is in
> > our time before for several centuries in the middle ages when there
> > was no question of manmade CO2. It is logical to conclude that are not
> > in a period of dangerous heating, we are merely on the variable slope
> > of recovery from the low of an ice age to the norm of the middle ages.
> > Ipso facto, no global warming.
> > That's beside the observable fact from the ice core that global
> > temperature leads CO2 increases, rather than being caused by them. I
> > do love the contortions the self-described "scientists" perpetrate
> > when they try to explain that one away. Occam (look him up too, Jymbo)
> > is laughing from beyond the grave.
>
> I suspect that what the scientists are worried about is not any global
> warming that will happen in a few hundred years, but rather the more long
> term trend of a few thousand years.
Recorded human history stretches only about five millennia. So these
clowns are going to tell us what our world will look like, and what
its need and capabilities will be five thousand years away? Grow up,
Eddie, not even the IPCC is that arrogant.
>I think what happens is that there is a
> gradual change in conditions and then suddenly a tipping point is reached
> and things can then change very rapidly.
*Can* and *may* aren't the bases of policy that will tie our
descendents to gross debts. We need facts. *Will* is the word. It is
because these clowns have no science that they invented the
precautionary principle, which says that if anyone can tell a scare
story, we must spend the money to prevent the scare regardless of the
fact that the false prophet cannot prove any benefit. That is exactly
what Global Warming is, a false religion with many greedy apocalyptic
false prophets.
Decade to decade fluctuations may
> well be worthless as a predictive tool.
If those wankers cannot even predict the very next decade, and we know
they cannot because they failed to predict the current decade-long
cooling spell, and their models cannot predict backwards into known
history, and we know they cannot, then WTF are they good for?
By contrast, the Sunspot Scientists have no problem correlating
sunspot activity with global temperature and even making good ballpark
predictions. But nobody wants to listen because they don't make
grossly exaggerated, totally unscientific apocalyptic predictions.
> The earth is able to self correct for many fluctuations if left to its own
> devices, but that may have changed due to man made effects since
> industrialization.
Oh yes? Then why haven't we even recovered to the level of temperature
in the Medieval Warm Period when for centuries the earth was warmer
than it was in the 1990s or is now? In fact, the beginning of the
Little Ice Age coincided with the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution, yet it grew so cold the Thames froze over for decades on
end. All those steel smelter belching out coalsmoke, but no Global
Warming, instead an Ice Age. Riddle me that one, Batman. History calls
the Global Warming Alarmists liars.
>It is not unreasonable to suppose that industrial man's
> pollution of the atmosphere cannot but have an effect on the climate of the
> earth as a whole.
On the contrary, it is the height of hubris, entirely out of order for
a self-styled Saint like Ed Dolan, to ponce around claiming puny man
can upset the God-given rhythms of a whole planet.
> It is not possible to determine scientifically yet just what effect
> industrial man is having on the climate,
Then there is also no cause to believe that he is having such an
effect that drastic action is imminently required.
>but to think that he can have no
> effect is remarkably stupid.
Everything has an effect. The question is the magnitude of the effect,
and its outcome. The effect of man is largely beneficial; we can see
that. There is no evidence whatsoever of deleterious effect by man on
the Earth. There is endless geological evidence that far greater
upheavals than Man affected the Earth very little indeed. What do you
think killed the dinosaurs, whose dominion lasted at least thirteen
times as long as Man's has?
>I know when I am in sitting a traffic jam with
> thousands of automobiles spewing exhaust into the air that it has got to be
> having SOME effect.
Yah. Less effect than the methane farted out by the cows you can also
see. Methane is a bigger and more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2
but there are no television appearances and research grants in
stopping cows farting away the Earth's future.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Kind regards, St Edward. Speak kindly of me to the Boss.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
mike
@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
You flaunt your ignorance yet again Andre. There are _many_ research
grants aimed at mitigation strategies for methane emission in, for
example, the dairy industry.
To help you understand this I have provided below a small number of
referenced papers and web-sites dedicated to this form of research.
It is probably a waste of time on my part though, as I doubt that you
read any of the references I kindly provided to you last time. (If you
had, you probably would non stil be witteriong on about hocky sticks and
global scoentific conspiracy).
Mike
Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride
tracer and chamber
techniques. 2007. J. Dairy Sci. 90:2755-2766.
Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle. 2007. J.
Dairy Sci. 90:3456-3467.
Inconsistencies in rumen methane production?effects of forage
composition and animal genotype
G.C. Waghorna, , , S.L. Woodwarda, M. Tavendaleb and D.A. Clark (2006)
Long-term effects of feeding monensin on methane production in lactating
dairy cows. 2006. J.
Dairy Sci. 90:1781-1788.
Manipulating enteric methane emissions and animal performance of late
lactation dairy cows
through concentrate supplementation at pasture. 2005. J. Dairy Sci.
88:2836-2842
Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy
cows: update review.
Canadian J. of Animal Sci. 2004. 84:319-335.
The effect of oilseeds in diets of lactating cows on milk production and
methane emissions. J.
Dairy Sci. 2001. 85:1509-1515.
Judd, M.J., Kellier, F.M., Ulyatt, M.J., Lassey, K.R., Tate, K.R.,
Shelton, D.I., Harveys, M.J. and Walker, C.F. (1999). Net
methane emissions from grazing sheep. Global Change
Biology 5, 647?57.
JETACAR (1999). The use of antibiotics in food-producing
animals: antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animals and
humans. Report of the Joint Expert Advisory Committee on
Antibiotic Resistance (JETACAR). Commonwealth
Department of Health and Aged Care Commonwealth
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry?
Australia. ISBN 1 86496 061 2
Kurihara, M., Terada, F., Hunter, R.A., Nishida, T., and McCrabb,
G.J. (1998). The effect of diet and liveweight gain on
methane production in temperate and tropical beef cattle.
In: Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Animal
Production. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, Vol 1.
pp364?5.
Baker, S.K. (1998). Biology of rumen methanogens, and
stimulation of animal immunity. Meeting the Kyoto Target.
Implications for the Australian Livestock Industries. P.J
Reyenga. and S.M. Howden (Eds). Bureau of Rural Sciences,
29?37.
Hegarty, R.S. (1998). Reducing methane emissions through
elimination of rumen protozoa. Meeting the Kyoto Target.
Implications for the Australian Livestock Industries. P.J
Reyenga. and S.M. Howden (Eds). Bureau of Rural Sciences,
55?61.
Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from dairy cows in full lactation
monitored over a sixmonth
period. 1995. J. Dairy Sci. 78:2760-2766.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ inventory/pdfs/fs_agriculture.pdf.
http://www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/site/Diet_Supplements.htm
http://www.nzagri-business.co.nz/home/free-articles/nz-could-lead-world-
in-methane-reduction-research.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11253588
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-us/news/article.cfm?mnarticle=top-
dairynz-scientists-join-massey-team-24-06-2009
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> You flaunt your ignorance yet again Andre. There are _many_ research
> grants aimed at mitigation strategies for methane emission in, for
I think pilot lights on cows would be way cool! ;)
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Andre Jute
> In article <b876de41-1303-4261-9062-7c250d05f7b3
>
> > On Sep 8, 9:11 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > >I know when I am in sitting a traffic jam with
> > > thousands of automobiles spewing exhaust into the air that it has got to be
> > > having SOME effect.
>
> > Yah. Less effect than the methane farted out by the cows you can also
> > see. Methane is a bigger and more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2
> > but there are no television appearances and research grants in
> > stopping cows farting away the Earth's future.
>
> You flaunt your ignorance yet again Andre. There are _many_ research
> grants aimed at mitigation strategies for methane emission in, for
> example, the dairy industry.
Why don't you address my substantive point "Methane is a bigger and
more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2" instead of quibbling about a
tiny spot of hyperbole?
> To help you understand this I have provided below a small number of
> referenced papers and web-sites dedicated to this form of research.
Instead of trying to snow me with tangential and irrelevant papers,
why don't you address my substantive point "Methane is a bigger and
more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2"?
> It is probably a waste of time on my part though, as I doubt that you
> read any of the references I kindly provided to you last time. (If you
> had, you probably would non stil be witteriong on about hocky sticks and
> global scoentific conspiracy).
I read all those papers that were instantly available. They failed to
convince me of anything I didn't already know. I'm sorry, Mike, you're
another one who wants to argue around the fringes of the problem, and
only under the assumption that global warming is true. That is not
proven, and it is the question we are discussing, not how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin. That entire Global Warming industry is
visibly based on an exposed and truly gross statistical lie,
originally told by Michael Mann, and after it was exposed still
relentlessly pounded by the IPCC and its so-called "scientists". Those
guys will sooner or later be stood up in a court, accused of a form of
Lysenkoism, and more's the pity that it will probably just earn them
public revilement, that it can't be a Stalinist court complete with a
firing squad.
I'll take your word for it that there are plenty of grants in methane
emissions; I knew that all along. When the IPCC takes up methane like
it took up CO2, as a religious crusade, when the Global Warmies' gross
and grossly self-enriching mouthpiece Al Gore starts telling people to
kill cows on sight, then perhaps I'll believe any of you people are
serious. Until then, Scientology is starting to look like a really
good alternative to the sort of scientist who believes in Global
Warming.
Why don't you address the substantive point of why the unsexy but much
more dangerous -- if you guys are right, which isn't proven and not
likely to be proven one way or the other for several generations (1)
-- isn't given the same level of policy attention as CO2? Just that
little detail by itself tells us a great deal about the self-promoting
motives of the entire Global Warming industry.
If you have any evidence to the main points, I'm happy to receive it,
but don't bother snowing me with peripheral papers: I'll take your
word for their facts. The main points are Medieval Warm Period, Little
Ice Age, global temp leads CO2, zero visible warming for over a decade
now, sunspots bearing greater correlation with global temperature than
CO2 ever can, the question of why it is necessary to lie about these
matters (and hundreds of smaller ones) if there is evidence of global
warming.
Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela
(1) In my opinion, considering the blatant political interference, the
lies already told, and the forecasting failures which can only get
worse as time goes by, utterly unlikely ever to be proven; indeed, I
think that in time Global Warming will come to be seen as an
aberration of the same order as Lysenkoism and its proponents will be
excoriated for their stupidity and venality and -- not least -- their
betrayal of the sound principles and methods of science. There is
absolutely no disctinction of note between "Stalinist Science" and
"Global Warming Science" as practiced by the IPCC.
Edward Dolan
On Sep 8, 9:11 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:883fffeb-8ee7-492c...@x38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > So what interdisciplinary science really tells us about Global Warming
> > is that it is a fake. Global temperature was much higher than it is in
> > our time before for several centuries in the middle ages when there
> > was no question of manmade CO2. It is logical to conclude that are not
> > in a period of dangerous heating, we are merely on the variable slope
> > of recovery from the low of an ice age to the norm of the middle ages.
> > Ipso facto, no global warming.
> > That's beside the observable fact from the ice core that global
> > temperature leads CO2 increases, rather than being caused by them. I
> > do love the contortions the self-described "scientists" perpetrate
> > when they try to explain that one away. Occam (look him up too, Jymbo)
> > is laughing from beyond the grave.
>
> I suspect that what the scientists are worried about is not any global
> warming that will happen in a few hundred years, but rather the more long
> term trend of a few thousand years.
>>> Recorded human history stretches only about five millennia. So these
clowns are going to tell us what our world will look like, and what
its need and capabilities will be five thousand years away? Grow up,
Eddie, not even the IPCC is that arrogant.
It is industrialization which has changed everything. Mankind until recently
did not have much impact on the atmosphere.
>I think what happens is that there is a
> gradual change in conditions and then suddenly a tipping point is reached
> and things can then change very rapidly.
>>> *Can* and *may* aren't the bases of policy that will tie our
descendents to gross debts. We need facts. *Will* is the word. It is
because these clowns have no science that they invented the
precautionary principle, which says that if anyone can tell a scare
story, we must spend the money to prevent the scare regardless of the
fact that the false prophet cannot prove any benefit. That is exactly
what Global Warming is, a false religion with many greedy apocalyptic
false prophets.
Going green cannot hurt anything if it is done sensibly and gradually.
Continuing to burn fossil fuels is a dead end.
> Decade to decade fluctuations may
> well be worthless as a predictive tool.
>>> If those wankers cannot even predict the very next decade, and we know
they cannot because they failed to predict the current decade-long
cooling spell, and their models cannot predict backwards into known
history, and we know they cannot, then WTF are they good for?
They are good for predicting the long range future. Industrialization has
changed everything. Try to imagine India and China polluting like we have
for the next thousand years.
>>> By contrast, the Sunspot Scientists have no problem correlating
sunspot activity with global temperature and even making good ballpark
predictions. But nobody wants to listen because they don't make
grossly exaggerated, totally unscientific apocalyptic predictions.
> The earth is able to self correct for many fluctuations if left to its own
> devices, but that may have changed due to man made effects since
> industrialization.
>>> Oh yes? Then why haven't we even recovered to the level of temperature
in the Medieval Warm Period when for centuries the earth was warmer
than it was in the 1990s or is now? In fact, the beginning of the
Little Ice Age coincided with the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution, yet it grew so cold the Thames froze over for decades on
end. All those steel smelter belching out coalsmoke, but no Global
Warming, instead an Ice Age. Riddle me that one, Batman. History calls
the Global Warming Alarmists liars.
There is no riddle here at all. You are thinking too short range. Global
climate changes are more long range.
>It is not unreasonable to suppose that industrial man's
> pollution of the atmosphere cannot but have an effect on the climate of
> the
> earth as a whole.
>>> On the contrary, it is the height of hubris, entirely out of order for
a self-styled Saint like Ed Dolan, to ponce around claiming puny man
can upset the God-given rhythms of a whole planet.
The "whole planet" is now very small indeed. I understand even the middle of
the Pacific Ocean is now terribly polluted by man's activities.
> It is not possible to determine scientifically yet just what effect
> industrial man is having on the climate,
>>> Then there is also no cause to believe that he is having such an
effect that drastic action is imminently required.
It is the better part of wisdom to assume that mankind is having an effect.
However, I would agree we should not take any drastic action, but we need to
be thinking about the long range future of the planet. One thing is for
sure, it is our home forever.
>but to think that he can have no
> effect is remarkably stupid.
>>> Everything has an effect. The question is the magnitude of the effect,
and its outcome. The effect of man is largely beneficial; we can see
that. There is no evidence whatsoever of deleterious effect by man on
the Earth. There is endless geological evidence that far greater
upheavals than Man affected the Earth very little indeed. What do you
think killed the dinosaurs, whose dominion lasted at least thirteen
times as long as Man's has?
The planet earth has undergone many and varied natural upheavals. But we are
talking now about what mankind may contribute to the mix. Mankind has laid
waste large areas of the earth. The Middle East (Mesopotamia) for example
was once a garden, now it is a desert and it is entirely due to human beings
(desertification). Very many parts of the earth have been laid waste by
human activity.
>I know when I am in sitting a traffic jam with
> thousands of automobiles spewing exhaust into the air that it has got to
> be
> having SOME effect.
>>> Yah. Less effect than the methane farted out by the cows you can also
see. Methane is a bigger and more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2
but there are no television appearances and research grants in
stopping cows farting away the Earth's future.
They are probably both equally dangerous. We humans are eating way too much
meat. All the early civilizations were founded on cereal grains and that is
what we should be based on too, not animals.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> If you have any evidence to the main points, I'm happy to receive it,
but don't bother snowing me with peripheral papers: I'll take your
word for their facts. The main points are Medieval Warm Period, Little
Ice Age, global temp leads CO2, zero visible warming for over a decade
now, sunspots bearing greater correlation with global temperature than
CO2 ever can, the question of why it is necessary to lie about these
matters (and hundreds of smaller ones) if there is evidence of global
warming.
Even if you are right about all of the above, the effect of what
industrialized mankind is doing to the atmosphere cannot be dismissed. It
will play into the mix one way or another.
By the way, this question of what is happening to the global climate will
eventually be settled by world class scientists, not by interested parties
like you and me. I do not like the idea of paying a higher utility bill in
order to go green any better than you do. But it may be that down the road
the evidence for global warming will be overwhelming. What I fear is that if
and when it happens, it will be too late to do anything about it.
mike
ec28e7...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
> On Sep 9, 12:06 am, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote:
> > In article <b876de41-1303-4261-9062-7c250d05f7b3
> > @f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, fiult...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> > > see. Methane is a bigger and more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2
> > > but there are no television appearances and research grants in
> > > stopping cows farting away the Earth's future.
> >
> > You flaunt your ignorance yet again Andre. There are _many_ research
> > grants aimed at mitigation strategies for methane emission in, for
> > example, the dairy industry.
>
> Why don't you address my substantive point "Methane is a bigger and
> more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2" instead of quibbling about a
> tiny spot of hyperbole?
>
required to produce the same amount of radiative forcing than CO2 then
obviously "yes".
If, by 'bigger', you mean that in some industries, socoeties (and
possibly even nations) that the forcing due to local anthropomorphic
release of methane is larger than that of CO2, then "rarely".
If however, by "more dangerous" you mean that the long-term forcing due
to secondary emissions of methane resulting from climate change due to
anthropomorphic release of CO2, then "maybe".
If by 'more dangerous', you mean that methane is currently producing
more radiative forcing than CO2, or that current or predicted
anthropomorphic emissions of methane will produce more forcing than CO2
in the future, then "no". This is the substantive point that should be
clear to anybody with an unbiased interest in the topic - CO2 (in bold
italics if you like) is the "big and dangerous" greenhouse gas.
>
[snip]
>
> I read all those papers that were instantly available. They failed to
> convince me of anything I didn't already know. I'm sorry, Mike, you're
> another one who wants to argue around the fringes of the problem, and
> only under the assumption that global warming is true. That is not
> proven, and it is the question we are discussing, not how many angels
> can dance on the head of a pin. That entire Global Warming industry is
> visibly based on an exposed and truly gross statistical lie,
> originally told by Michael Mann, and after it was exposed still
> relentlessly pounded by the IPCC and its so-called "scientists".
To the contrary, the climate-change nay-sayers emphasise Mann's hockey
stick and the historic lead/lag of CO2/temperature because these are the
only issues where they can make an even vaguely rational arguement. Mann
may have overstated his case, past climate variation may not have been
due to CO2 forcing - but this is irrelevant as what you describe as
"fringe" issues are the real proof of global warming - tens of thousands
of research results produced by dedicated scientists working across a
vast range of different fields of scientific endevour. And their results
consistantly support the hypothesis of anthropomorphic climate change.
As an analogy, imagine a suspect arrested for a murder on the basis of a
report from a possibly unreliable witness. At the trial the prosecution
provide a motive, evidence is provided confirming that the suspect's
fingerprints are on the murder weapon and the his DNA is all over the
victim, the victim's heart is found hidden in the suspect's refrigerator
and a dozen more witnesses give evidence that they saw the suspect kill
the victim. But the defense attourney keeps reiterating how that initial
witness is unreliable and dismisses the other inconvenient facts as
"fringe".
> I'll take your word for it that there are plenty of grants in methane
> emissions; I knew that all along. When the IPCC takes up methane like
> it took up CO2, as a religious crusade, when the Global Warmies' gross
> and grossly self-enriching mouthpiece Al Gore starts telling people to
> kill cows on sight, then perhaps I'll believe any of you people are
> serious.
As most carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes are based on CO2e
emissions rather than CO2 emissions alone, it would appear that the
IPCC, government policy, and even economists are including methane and
other greenhouse gases in their plans. I'm sure you understand CO2e, but
for those that don't a simple reference can be found at:
http://www.soe-townsville.org/sml_windows/co2e.html
> Why don't you address the substantive point of why the unsexy but much
> more dangerous -- if you guys are right, which isn't proven and not
> likely to be proven one way or the other for several generations (1)
> -- isn't given the same level of policy attention as CO2? Just that
> little detail by itself tells us a great deal about the self-promoting
> motives of the entire Global Warming industry.
>
Methan eis given precisely the same attention as CO2, as is N20 and
hydroflurocarbons and a range of other gases that are included in the
CO2e standard. If other significant thermal forcing gases are identified
I feel sure that they too will be added to the list.
Mike
Andre Jute
On Sep 9, 4:47 am, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote:
> As an analogy, imagine a suspect arrested for a murder on the basis of a
> report from a possibly unreliable witness. At the trial the prosecution
> provide a motive, evidence is provided confirming that the suspect's
> fingerprints are on the murder weapon and the his DNA is all over the
> victim, the victim's heart is found hidden in the suspect's refrigerator
> and a dozen more witnesses give evidence that they saw the suspect kill
> the victim. But the defense attourney keeps reiterating how that initial
> witness is unreliable and dismisses the other inconvenient facts as
> "fringe".
Your law is as shoddy as the perversion of science you defend, Mike.
In you case, as you describe it, the judge would set the accused free
and dismiss the prosecution case because the evidence is tainted. The
standard is reasonable doubt. The original unreliability taints
everything that follows.
Surely science should have higher standards then mere reasonable
doubt!
In any event, all your loaded example describes is a publicity-hungry
prosecutor trying to charge a public pathologist with a crime he
didn't commit, same way a bunch of publicity-hungry "scientists" are
trying to charge innocent CO2 with future crimes that (obviously to
everyone else if not to them!) they can't prove.
Global warming, if it ever happens, and please God may it be soon,
will be good for the planet, good for agriculture, good for the
hungry.
As for your dishonest crap about Mann being "merely a little
overenthusiastic", he lied, and his successors at the IPCC are still
telling the same lie. You cannot build either science or policy on a
lie. I really don't think I can be bothered to correspond with someone
who doesn't understand that when the leading statistian in America,
Edward Wegman, on oath before the Senate called Mann an incompetent
and refuted his conclusions point by point, that Mann and the hockey
stick and global warming were finished as science. You and everyone
else should have taken the tip when the Gerald North, the academician
specifically charged with defending Mann, on oath agreed point by
point with Wegman's comprehensive condemnation of Mann's methods and
conclusions, and therefore of the current IPCC position as to this day
it uses the same methods and comes to the same conclusions. You may
find the details, which were not reported in the press, at:
"(OT) What Global Warming has in common with Marxism"
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/86dbfab0351d4a29/7f0bd13a1700fb77?hl=en&q=mann+jute+group:rec.bicycles.tech
"Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel"
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/81ac8fa9f5f3fb1f/16ff91b9ec695d33?hl=en&q=mann+jute+group:rec.bicycles.tech
It appears to me, Mike, that, like Asher, you get your information
from the newspapers. I already published on this conference the text
of the original Senate Committee dialogue in which those top
scientists, representing the US Academy of Science (so much for
consensus!) sent Mann and his hockey stick to perdition and
reinstalled the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age to
mainstream science. The URLs are above.
If you ever find yourself in a position to explain why the earth
shouldn't be permitted to get as warm as it was in the medieval warm
period for several centuries -- a much higher temperature than now or
at any period since --, then please apply again. Until then, ciao.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> If you ever find yourself in a position to explain why the earth
shouldn't be permitted to get as warm as it was in the medieval warm
period for several centuries -- a much higher temperature than now or
at any period since --, then please apply again. Until then, ciao.
The medieval warm period was due to strictly natural causes. That will not
be true of any future warming period. Mankind is now a major player due to
industrialization of the planet.
Andre Jute is like a bulldog that has got hold of a couple of facts and is
now dragging them into the earth. The medieval warm period and the little
ice age have no relevance for what may or may not take place in the future.
Why? Because mankind is now a major player. It is the height of stupidity to
assume otherwise.
Andre Jute
> By the way, this question of what is happening to the global climate will
> eventually be settled by world class scientists,
Wrong attitude. The National Academy of Science warns both scientists
and laymen against that sort of scientism. Good scientists have no
problem putting their findings in terms anyone can understand. It is
only lying, ignorant scum like Asher who claim that others aren't
capable of understanding the science. Everytime you hear a scientist
say it is too complicated for you to understand, he is hiding
something, first and foremost his fear that you'll disprove his pet
finding, or simply laugh at him.
>not by interested parties
> like you and me.
You want to bet on that? The fact that Global Warming is the pet
project of a UN bureau actually gives me hope that we'll bury it in my
lifetime still.
>I do not like the idea of paying a higher utility bill in
> order to go green any better than you do.
I'm green already. I haven't owned a car for almost two decades, I
don't fly, I travel by bus and train and only a couple of times a
year. Nothing is wasted in my house. This isn't about me being green,
this is about being bullshitted by people claiming to be scientists
when what they really are are wannabe policy commissars.
>But it may be that down the road
> the evidence for global warming will be overwhelming.
That will be the time to consider whether we want to act or whether
global warming will in fact be a good thing. Have you considered what
happens to world agriculture if the global mean temperature rises a
couple of degrees? Why should we assume global warming is
automatically bad? The earth was once much, much warmer for centuries
on end, and it is in exactly this period that our great agricultural
hegemony was established.
>What I fear is that if
> and when it happens, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Yes, that's what they want you to think. So did Lysenko and every
other crackpot. The Global Warmies are just the latest in a very long
row of apocalyptic crackpots. They have no proof, they have betrayed
scientific method, they have betrayed truth itself, they keep asking
for special treatment, they bully dissenters mercilessly -- any one of
those is a reason to treat them with extreme skepticism, in exactly
the same way we would treat the Moonies if the Moonies should presume
to determine public policy and expenditure.
But there's no urgency. We're in a cooling cycle anyway (hell, the
clowns couldn't even predict that one when it was right on them!), and
we have decades to see if the global warmies' models actually predict
shit. My expectation is that that is all they'll predict, shit.
Meanwhile, enjoy the scare stories but believe nothing you don't see
with your own eyes.
Oh, by the way, Ed, your belief that scientists first "discovered"
global warming is completely mistaken. Scientists writing the first
IPCC report found no, zero, none, zilch evidence of manmade CO2
influencing anything, and said so. The bureaucrats rewrote the words
of the scientists to say manmade CO2 is responsible for global
warming... The scientists, seeing on which side their bread is
buttered, soon started finding the evidence wanted by the bureaucrats.
Just that little sequence, which no one contests, which stands on the
public record, tells you that very likely global warming is a job
creation scheme for bureaucrats, nothing to do with science. That is
why they were so keen to rewrite history to get rid of the Medieval
Warm Period and the Little Ice Age -- because those then and still
give the lie to global warming.
Doesn't sound like a science to me, more like an exercise by
Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry.
Edward Dolan
On Sep 9, 4:26 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> By the way, this question of what is happening to the global climate will
> eventually be settled by world class scientists,
>> Wrong attitude. The National Academy of Science warns both scientists
and laymen against that sort of scientism. Good scientists have no
problem putting their findings in terms anyone can understand. It is
only lying, ignorant scum like Asher who claim that others aren't
capable of understanding the science. Everytime you hear a scientist
say it is too complicated for you to understand, he is hiding
something, first and foremost his fear that you'll disprove his pet
finding, or simply laugh at him.
I have spent the better part of my life condemning intellectuals for their
cowardice. But even so, it will be academic scientists who in the end
determine what is what. Laymen like you and I are incompetent to decide
these matters.
>not by interested parties
> like you and me.
>> You want to bet on that? The fact that Global Warming is the pet
project of a UN bureau actually gives me hope that we'll bury it in my
lifetime still.
The UN is the most irrelevant body in the world to decide anything.
>I do not like the idea of paying a higher utility bill in
> order to go green any better than you do.
>> I'm green already. I haven't owned a car for almost two decades, I
don't fly, I travel by bus and train and only a couple of times a
year. Nothing is wasted in my house. This isn't about me being green,
this is about being bullshitted by people claiming to be scientists
when what they really are are wannabe policy commissars.
No, it is about being green although you refuse to admit it. It is funny
that you do not seem to be shocked at how wasteful our society is since you
are right in your lifestyle. I am with you there but I can see you cannot
leave others to decide these things for themselves. The mass of men are
hopelessly selfish and do not care a fig about the health of the planet.
>But it may be that down the road
> the evidence for global warming will be overwhelming.
>> That will be the time to consider whether we want to act or whether
global warming will in fact be a good thing. Have you considered what
happens to world agriculture if the global mean temperature rises a
couple of degrees? Why should we assume global warming is
automatically bad? The earth was once much, much warmer for centuries
on end, and it is in exactly this period that our great agricultural
hegemony was established.
What I fear is a runaway climate change. Did you know that the earth was
once entirely covered in ice?
>What I fear is that if
> and when it happens, it will be too late to do anything about it.
>> Yes, that's what they want you to think. So did Lysenko and every
other crackpot. The Global Warmies are just the latest in a very long
row of apocalyptic crackpots. They have no proof, they have betrayed
scientific method, they have betrayed truth itself, they keep asking
for special treatment, they bully dissenters mercilessly -- any one of
those is a reason to treat them with extreme skepticism, in exactly
the same way we would treat the Moonies if the Moonies should presume
to determine public policy and expenditure.
Well, you are describing the politics of the issue, not the issue itself.
>> But there's no urgency. We're in a cooling cycle anyway (hell, the
clowns couldn't even predict that one when it was right on them!), and
we have decades to see if the global warmies' models actually predict
shit. My expectation is that that is all they'll predict, shit.
>> Meanwhile, enjoy the scare stories but believe nothing you don't see
with your own eyes.
Your view is too short term.
>> Oh, by the way, Ed, your belief that scientists first "discovered"
global warming is completely mistaken. Scientists writing the first
IPCC report found no, zero, none, zilch evidence of manmade CO2
influencing anything, and said so. The bureaucrats rewrote the words
of the scientists to say manmade CO2 is responsible for global
warming... The scientists, seeing on which side their bread is
buttered, soon started finding the evidence wanted by the bureaucrats.
Just that little sequence, which no one contests, which stands on the
public record, tells you that very likely global warming is a job
creation scheme for bureaucrats, nothing to do with science. That is
why they were so keen to rewrite history to get rid of the Medieval
Warm Period and the Little Ice Age -- because those then and still
give the lie to global warming.
Unlike you, I believe that mankind has fundamentally changed the equation.
Industrialization is NOT a natural process. It is man made and most likely
highly dangerous to the ecology of the planet.
>> Doesn't sound like a science to me, more like an exercise by
Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry.
I can see where you are coming from and I am not entirely unsympathetic. I
have hated intellectuals and scientists all of my life because of their
confounded arrogance and equally confounded cowardice. But even so, they do
have some expertise and it would be foolish of us not to listen to them from
time to time.
Pat
Who, George Bush? When was that?
mike
@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
>
As you appear unwilling to address the issues (for example, by snipping
my replies to your questions) and instead insist on flapping your
ponderous jowels in dismissal of all factual evidence, I will (once
again) step down from discussion of this issue with you.
With regard to bicycles (and even their possible or proven influence on
the environment), I am always willing to chat.
Cheers
Mike
Pat
>> Both wrong: he was an advisor on "green" jobs. As for "no vetting" I
>> suppose that means in you ever say something you cannot later on say
>> you don't believe it anymore. By that logic, George Bush is still
>> an alcoholic. After all, he did admit to being one, once!
>
> Parking the tractor and using a mule is a 'green job'!
> Trading trucks for coolies is also green!
Come into the 21st Century, please.
Andre Jute
> With regard to bicycles (and even their possible or proven influence on
> the environment), I am always willing to chat.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
Very agreeable, and agreeably mature, of you, Mike. -- Andre Jute
Edward Dolan
You will find Ed Dolan the Great to be a more formidable opponent, at least
on the subject of global warming (or global freezing - whichever applies). I
have found Minnesota to be ever colder year by year.
Andre Jute
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
More likely, considering the macro-sweep of geological time, freezing;
balmy spells like the one we live in are the exception rather than the
norm. -- Andre Jute
Edward Dolan
> You will find Ed Dolan the Great to be a more formidable opponent, at
> least
> on the subject of global warming (or global freezing - whichever applies).
> I
> have found Minnesota to be ever colder year by year.
>> More likely, considering the macro-sweep of geological time, freezing;
balmy spells like the one we live in are the exception rather than the
norm. -- Andre Jute
Yes, I understand we are living in an interglacial period and that things
are destined to get back to normal. The continental glaciers will come back
and there will most likely be a mile or so of ice over my gravesite in
Minnesota in the future.
However, man-made pollution of the atmosphere cannot be totally discounted.
I urge you to keep an open mind on the subject. As much as you and I
discount scientists (Einstein was an asshole when he got off of his
subject), I still listen to them when they speak.
Opus
OK let's play a little game of what if. We have 2 possible start
conditions: 1. Global Warming is real, or 2. Global warming is
hysterical ravings about minor fluctuations in climate.
We have 2 possible ways of reacting: 1. treat Global Warming as real,
or 2. treat Global Warming as hysterical ravings.
Setting up a matrix we get 4 possible outcomes 1,1 1,2 2,1 and 2,2.
Matrix 1,1 Global Warming is real and we treat it as real, assuming we
caught it in time and switched to renewable energy resources we spend
a little money, energy exporting countries go broke.
Matrix 1,2 Global Warming is real and we ignore it, civilization
collapses pandemics set in and humanity vanishes off the face of the
Earth
Matrix 2,1 Global Warming is hysterical ravings, and we treat it as
real and switch to renewable energy resources. Energy exporting
countries go broke.
Matrix 2,2 Global Warming is hysterical ravings, and we ignore it.
Status quo
Taking option 1 has no downsides aside from investing in renewable
energy results in less money to do other things.
Option 2 has the downside of the possible elimination of the human
race if Global Warming is real, or terrorists continuing to use our
petro-dollars to fund attacks against Western Democracies because they
can't stand our freedom ;)
So, what will it be. continued terrorism funded by our own money, or
fewer pollutants from renewable energy, assuming that GCC is the
ravings of a nutcase? Or if GCC is real the choice becomes life or
death for billions in the next century, and the eventual destruction
of the entire human race.
Jym Dyer
> This clown Jymbo cut out the distribution list; it is a
> typical juvenile debating trick perpetrated by those who know
> they don't have the brains to carry a convincing argument.
=v= No, the problem is that you cross-posted your message to a
bunch of newsgroups where it's off-topic, in violation of the
very rudiments of Usenet courtesy. I merely set followups to
the subset of newsgroups where it's on-topic.
> If there's so much science, why do the Global Warmies need the
> lie of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick [blah blah blah].
=v= Again the denialists keep repeating decade- or decades-old
"controversies" that have been scrutinized and (where needed)
corrected long ago. Nothing in particular relies on MBH98;
there have been several workings of the data that reached the
same conclusion. You got nothin' there.
=v= This is the typical denialist strategy: Just keep dredging
up the same old long-debunked crap over and over again to waste
everyone's time playing whack-a-mole.
> Furthermore, are you aware that the same "science" was quoted
> by Velikovsky and Daniken in support of their wacky theories?
=v= Wow, this is even more pathetic than the usual denialist
fare. Did you read that somewhere or did is that originate
somewhere in the slack-jawed drooling neural collisions that
you use in the stead of intelligence?
> [Deletia: lots and lots of wasted whack-a-mole bandwidth.]
>
> Oh dear. Do you own a car, Jymbo? If you do, I'm a better
> conservationist than you are.
=v= You truly are an idiot, aren't you? I've been carfree
longer than you have, in fact.
> [Deletia: extended completely inaccurate speculations about
> myself, culminating in a truly moronic mischaracterization.]
=v= Shut the Hell up, geek.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> This clown Jymbo cut out the distribution list; it is a
> typical juvenile debating trick perpetrated by those who know
> they don't have the brains to carry a convincing argument.
=v= No, the problem is that you cross-posted your message to a
bunch of newsgroups where it's off-topic, in violation of the
very rudiments of Usenet courtesy. I merely set followups to
the subset of newsgroups where it's on-topic.
> If there's so much science, why do the Global Warmies need the
> lie of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick [blah blah blah].
=v= Again the denialists keep repeating decade- or decades-old
"controversies" that have been scrutinized and (where needed)
corrected long ago. Nothing in particular relies on MBH98;
there have been several workings of the data that reached the
same conclusion. You got nothin' there.
=v= This is the typical denialist strategy: Just keep dredging
up the same old long-debunked crap over and over again to waste
everyone's time playing whack-a-mole.
> Furthermore, are you aware that the same "science" was quoted
> by Velikovsky and Daniken in support of their wacky theories?
=v= Wow, this is even more pathetic than the usual denialist
fare. Did you read that somewhere or did it originate somewhere
Andre Jute
wants to find Whitehead and Russell in the library and hit himself in
the head with it until he flattens the point on his head, and then
keep hitting himself until he flattens himself out of his misery.
The Moon is made of cheese. It could possibly go mouldy. Then it could
smother us all. Therefore we should build a tower to keep the Moon off
us.
So the Moon is either made of cheese like the IPCC [International
Processing Committee (Cheese), a bureau of the United Nations] claims
-- with further claims that they have "unanimous scientific support"
for this claim -- or it is not. We can either do something or we can
do nothing.
Four scenario arise:
1.1 The Moon is made of cheese and goes mouldy. We build a tower to
keep it off us. It doesn't smother us all.
1.1 The Moon is not made of cheese and therefore cannot go mouldy and
smother us all, but we build a tower all the same. Our descendents
will curse us for the stupid debt but they'll have a tower to look up
to as they die of hunger. (What did the Easter Islanders look at as
they died of hunger after they chopped down the last date palm to roll
those huge idol-heads into place?)
2.1 The Moon is made of cheese and goes mouldy. We don't build a
tower. Before the mouldy Moon can crush us, the tower, waiting for
centuries, crumbles away. The Moon still doesn't crush us because
sunspots cause the mouldy cheese to melt. We eat tuna and cheddar
melts all day long.
2.2 The Moon isn't made of cheese and we don't build a tower. Our
descendents think we are pretty smart not to saddle them with a huge
debt burden for hysterical vapours.
Choose only one sensible option.
Andre Jute
It's not me who's the mouldy old git. My brain is in gear.
Andre Jute
by hand of one Jym Dyer, a clown who thinks he can shut down thought
by screeching louder and more threateningly than all the other
"environmental" baboons.
That congenital loser Jym Dyer also had my replay directed to
alt.shut.the.hell.up.geek where I found -- guess what -- lots of other
replies to the losers among the global warmies who don't have the
answers to defend their faith, and so direct the replies of their
interlocutors into limbo.
Shameless scum, these global warmies.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly
Bill Baka
I agree to part of this thread. I haven't driven a car more than 50 feet
in about 5 years but it gets old when the daughter has one car at Sac
State and the wife has the other one running around tone. Some projects
require real hauling ability and to that end I will uncover my
1966/440H.P. 10 MPG guzzler/muscle car. I keep the battery in the
bedroom not only as a UPS battery but to keep it at a float charge of
exactly (for me)13.7 Volts. I'm thinking of putting a Tremec 6-speed in
it for the double overdrive than have some fool cop pull me over and ask
me about my mileage. "Oh, about 30 MPG when I drive at 65 MPH in top gear.".
Just so know, those Tremecs are going to be very hot items in the
future. It only takes about 14 HP to make by brick giant Chrysler
maintain 65 MPH and it you take that along with the absolute most
efficient RPM to put out that much power it is under 900 RPM.
Too bad the auto industry (shame on them all) won't admit that a 9,000
RPM Honda racing motor could be beaten (badly) by a 50 year old motor
design. To add insult to injury I rebuilt a 1961 Rambler 196 C.I."
flathead back in 1989 that got over 40 MPG on the freeway.
The 50 MPG car is doable by anybody who will do it and not worry about
the prissy sissies not buying it because it does not have the luxuries
they except.
Rant off unless someone wants to take it to another thread.
Bill Baka
Opus
So, what's your data for the moon either 1. being made of cheese or 2.
going moldy?
I already put out upsides of treating GCC as true. It places us on
renewable energy resources that let us stop funneling money to people
that don't like us except for our money, and we stop burning money.
One of the other upsides is that renewables that create electricity
directly , solar, wind, and wave, create no pollution aside from the
existence of the apparatus, and for wind and wave the slight issues of
possible leaking lubricants.
And like I said the only downside is the opportunity costs for
developing the renewable energy resources. That isn't like burning
money, which is what we are doing with non-renewable energy. Let me
repeat that: Consuming non-renewable resources as energy is burning
money. Once we burn it to create electricity, heat our homes, drive
our cars, whatever, it's GONE! we can't use it for anything else. You
can't make plastics from it (at least with current technology), you
can't do anything with it, because it's no longer a hydrocarbon, it's
CO2 and H2O. Switching to renewables frees up hydrocarbons for making
things we can only make from hydrocarbons, like bicycle tires ;)
Edward Dolan
> Below my sig we have a truly inept wannabe philosopher, who maybe
wants to find Whitehead and Russell in the library and hit himself in
the head with it until he flattens the point on his head, and then
keep hitting himself until he flattens himself out of his misery.
Both of the above named philosophers were morons and I would not be caught
dead reading a single word of theirs.
>The Moon is made of cheese. It could possibly go mouldy. Then it could
smother us all. Therefore we should build a tower to keep the Moon off
us.
Andre Jute attempting to be witty! How pathetic!
> So the Moon is either made of cheese like the IPCC [International
Processing Committee (Cheese), a bureau of the United Nations] claims
-- with further claims that they have "unanimous scientific support"
for this claim -- or it is not. We can either do something or we can
do nothing.
[...]
It is the height of assholeness to suppose that industrialization is not
effecting the atmosphere and hence the climate. Folks, I do not know how you
get to be so dense. Andr� Jute does not even have the excuse that he is
making money off of the status quo since he claims to be green in his
lifestyle.
I attribute his denseness in these matters to too much reading and not
enough TV viewing. Anyone who watches lots of TV like I do will know the
truth. Yea, Andre Jute has simply read too many books which could easily
account for his assholeness. Ed Dolan the Great is a former college
librarian and well knows the danger of too much reading. It can turn your
brain to mush.
Andre Jute
There's no substitute for cubic inches. A standard Volvo 245 estate,
with the Swedish tractor engine slung out and a SBC shoehorned in,
gets *at least* 50 per cent better mileage if driven at the same speed
generally, and (much more important) accelerated at the same rate.
Andre Jute
Check Designing and Building Special Cars by Andre Jute for
calculations to show how this works
Andre Jute
for you to jump up like a jack in the box laughing like a maniac and
shouting, "The joke's on you, the joke's on you!" Who can take such
crap seriously except your choir?
Your prescription for saving the world, while it sounds nice to old
conservationists like me, is wishful thinking. Alternative fuels to
the petroleum/coal group will never provide more than 3 per cent of
the world's energy requirement. Even the head of the largest wind-
powered electricity generating company in the world now says there is
a natural limit to how many windmills can be put up.
There are only two feasible alternatives. One is to put the entire
Sahara under solar panels and spend the money -- and wear the nasty
vistas of pylons -- for a distribution system that will inevitably be
lossy, but at least clean (after the steel for it is smelted). The
other is nice clean nuclear power, which only looks clean. Anything
else is fiddling around the edges of the problem.
The problem with the greenies is that like all lefties of the marxist
stamp they whine gratingly that something should be done, and then
deny the doers the means to do anything effective.
Andre Jute
Show me the global warming!
Andre Jute
> It is the height of assholeness to suppose that industrialization is not
> effecting the atmosphere and hence the climate.
You keep saying it, sonny, but you offer no proof of either of the two
links you make: industrialization > atmosphere, and atmosphere >
climate. Where's the proof, sport? It's all assumption; that's not
science, that's faith. -- AJ
Bill Sornson
> I haven't driven a car more than 50 feet in about 5 years
ROTFL Good one, Bill! ROTFL
Bill "good ol' Ernest T. Baka" S.
Nate Nagel
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:54:52 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no substitute for cubic inches. A standard Volvo 245 estate,
>> with the Swedish tractor engine slung out and a SBC shoehorned in,
>> gets *at least* 50 per cent better mileage if driven at the same speed
>> generally, and (much more important) accelerated at the same rate.
>
> that.
To be fair, a F1 engine would be a lot less peaky if displacement were
allowed to increase but some other method of limiting power were used.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Clive George
news:h8eot...@news5.newsguy.com...
> Still Just Me. wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:54:52 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's no substitute for cubic inches. A standard Volvo 245 estate,
>>> with the Swedish tractor engine slung out and a SBC shoehorned in,
>>> gets *at least* 50 per cent better mileage if driven at the same speed
>>> generally, and (much more important) accelerated at the same rate.
>>
>> No substitute? Most folks in Formula 1 racing would disagree with
>> that.
>
> To be fair, a F1 engine would be a lot less peaky if displacement were
> allowed to increase but some other method of limiting power were used.
Weren't the most powerful F1 engines also the smallest displacement?
Edward Dolan
I would have a difficult time explaining precisely how gravity works too,
but yet we know there is something holding the planets in their orbits. Is
it a pull or a push? Who the hells knows? Or maybe you can tell us what is
dark matter and what is dark energy? So it is with industrialization, the
atmosphere and the climate. If it is not interconnected, then lets us all go
back to elementary school and learn to do our numbers yet once again. Does 2
+ 2 still equal 4 or does it now equal some other number?
Edward Dolan
> Yo, Opus, I didn't reply to this letter of yours since I was waiting
for you to jump up like a jack in the box laughing like a maniac and
shouting, "The joke's on you, the joke's on you!" Who can take such
crap seriously except your choir?
> Your prescription for saving the world, while it sounds nice to old
conservationists like me, is wishful thinking. Alternative fuels to
the petroleum/coal group will never provide more than 3 per cent of
the world's energy requirement. Even the head of the largest wind-
powered electricity generating company in the world now says there is
a natural limit to how many windmills can be put up.
> There are only two feasible alternatives. One is to put the entire
Sahara under solar panels and spend the money -- and wear the nasty
vistas of pylons -- for a distribution system that will inevitably be
lossy, but at least clean (after the steel for it is smelted). The
other is nice clean nuclear power, which only looks clean. Anything
else is fiddling around the edges of the problem.
The ultimate solution to the world's energy problem is nuclear power, but it
still needs some refinements to get the danger out of it. It is just a
matter of time until they get it right.
> The problem with the greenies is that like all lefties of the marxist
stamp they whine gratingly that something should be done, and then
deny the doers the means to do anything effective.
Even so, we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels. For one thing, it is not a
limitless resource. But more importantly, does it not bother you to be
pouring noxious fumes into the atmosphere, the same atmosphere that we all
have to breath?
By the way, Marxist governments have been the worst polluters the world has
ever known. The old Soviet Union was a basket case in that respect as were
all their Eastern European dependencies. I think China today may be the
worst of the worst.
Bill Baka
> On Sep 11, 1:14 am, Bill Baka <bb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I agree to part of this thread. I haven't driven a car more than 50 feet
>> in about 5 years but it gets old when the daughter has one car at Sac
>> State and the wife has the other one running around tone. Some projects
>> require real hauling ability and to that end I will uncover my
>> 1966/440H.P. 10 MPG guzzler/muscle car. I keep the battery in the
>> bedroom not only as a UPS battery but to keep it at a float charge of
>> exactly (for me)13.7 Volts. I'm thinking of putting a Tremec 6-speed in
>> it for the double overdrive than have some fool cop pull me over and ask
>> me about my mileage. "Oh, about 30 MPG when I drive at 65 MPH in top gear.".
Correction, my Mustang would have gotten about 40 MPG (or more) while
the Chrysler might hit 35.
>>
>> Just so know, those Tremecs are going to be very hot items in the
>> future. It only takes about 14 HP to make by brick giant Chrysler
>> maintain 65 MPH and it you take that along with the absolute most
>> efficient RPM to put out that much power it is under 900 RPM.
>> Too bad the auto industry (shame on them all) won't admit that a 9,000
>> RPM Honda racing motor could be beaten (badly) by a 50 year old motor
>> design. To add insult to injury I rebuilt a 1961 Rambler 196 C.I."
>> flathead back in 1989 that got over 40 MPG on the freeway.
Replying to my own post here. If the Rambler had started life as
something other than a brick and had under-body air flow sheets it might
have made 50 MPG.
>>
>> The 50 MPG car is doable by anybody who will do it and not worry about
>> the prissy sissies not buying it because it does not have the luxuries
>> they except.
The next time you go to a dealer and they try to impress you with their
fancy body design, have them put one on a lift you can walk under and
you will see how much wind power gets wasted churning under the car.
Like I said, 50 MPG and a hot rod is totally possible today.
>>
>> Rant off unless someone wants to take it to another thread.
>>
>> Bill Baka
>
> There's no substitute for cubic inches. A standard Volvo 245 estate,
> with the Swedish tractor engine slung out and a SBC shoehorned in,
> gets *at least* 50 per cent better mileage if driven at the same speed
> generally, and (much more important) accelerated at the same rate.
I don't know how you do it but it sounds interesting.
Bill Baka
Tom Sherman °_°
restrictions) were reputed to have a specific output of slightly more
than 900 hp/L.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Replying to my own post here. If the Rambler had started life as
> something other than a brick and had under-body air flow sheets it might
> have made 50 MPG.
>>>
>>> The 50 MPG car is doable by anybody who will do it and not worry about
>>> the prissy sissies not buying it because it does not have the luxuries
>>> they except.
>
> The next time you go to a dealer and they try to impress you with their
> fancy body design, have them put one on a lift you can walk under and
> you will see how much wind power gets wasted churning under the car.
> Like I said, 50 MPG and a hot rod is totally possible today.
More than 80 mph on about 0.6 horsepower!
<http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/VarnaAtWedStart.JPG>.
Nate Nagel
which was about the time that they started limiting boost *and*
displacement rather than just displacement, because the cars were
getting "too fast" again... (a problem since the late 30's, really - it
is possible to make cars too powerful/fast to really safely race on
available "road" courses given unlimited displacement and/or boost)
Bill Baka
> The Honda qualifying engines of the late 1980's (before boost
> restrictions) were reputed to have a specific output of slightly more
> than 900 hp/L.
>
world is about 3-4 stories high, 5 or 6 men can stand comfortably in a
cylinder and it's red line is less than 200 RPM. It puts out about
100,000 horsepower at 102 RPM.
Japan, some shipbuilder, for got which.
BTW, this has nothing to do with efficiency except at the very low end.
I don't care if an engine winds to 50,000 RPM, 90% of the fuel will go
into making the pistons go up and down.
I would gear *up* my Ford Taurus and Toyota Tercel but they are front
wheel drive and I think they all came with the same final gear.
Bill Baka
Bill Baka
tires loose while running about 30 MPH in first gear is kind of a kick
in the pants. The fact that I got 33 MPG out of it in fifth, one
overdrive, made it even nicer. If I had a 6 speed with double over-drive
and a slightly taller rear end (under 2.73?) might have made for 50 MPG.
I only averaged about 20 to 22 MPG around town since my right foot is a
bit heavy, but a car can be made both faster than snot and a gas miser too.
Bill Baka
Neil Brooks
Wasn't your time better spent accusing Jym Dyer of spelling his OWN
name wrong??
Edward Dolan
"Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:82458b17-d4af-4e2a...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
You may have Mr. Sornson confused with me. I am the one who is always
getting after others for not knowing their own names. Your name (Neil
Brooks) looks OK to me, so you can pass, but I am not much in favor of those
who have "funny" spellings.
Bill Sornson
> "Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:82458b17-d4af-4e2a...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 4:31 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>> I haven't driven a car more than 50 feet in about 5 years
>>
>> ROTFL Good one, Bill! ROTFL
>>
>> Bill "good ol' Ernest T. Baka" S.
>
>>>> Wasn't your time better spent accusing Jym Dyer of spelling his OWN
> name wrong??
>
> You may have Mr. Sornson confused with me. I am the one who is always
> getting after others for not knowing their own names. Your name (Neil
> Brooks) looks OK to me, so you can pass, but I am not much in favor
> of those who have "funny" spellings.
So now Brooks is defending Bill Baka! LOL (And still can't grasp the
concept of being plonked.) (AND he humped my post TWO WEEKS after I wrote
it. But you've "let it go, Neil"...right?!? ROTFL )
While I doubt that anyone puts more miles on their vehicles than the
Brookses (to and from the airport among other carbon-consuming commutes),
Baka brags about his driving exploits (imagined and imagined-er) way too
much to believe the "50 feet in 5 years" claim.
Bill "so funny it's really sad" S.
--
"We aren't ready for a black, even half black, that much is true.
We better never be ready for a Hispanic or we are doomed.
A woman will get in sooner or later, as will a half-black."
-- Bill Baka
Neil Brooks
> >news:82458b17-d4af-4e2a...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 11, 4:31 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
> >> Bill Baka wrote:
> >>> I haven't driven a car more than 50 feet in about 5 years
>
> >> ROTFL Good one, Bill! ROTFL
>
> >> Bill "good ol' Ernest T. Baka" S.
>
> >>>> Wasn't your time better spent accusing Jym Dyer of spelling his OWN
> > name wrong??
>
> > You may have Mr. Sornson confused with me. I am the one who is always
> > getting after others for not knowing their own names. Your name (Neil
> > Brooks) looks OK to me, so you can pass, but I am not much in favor
> > of those who have "funny" spellings.
>
> So now Brooks is defending Bill Baka! LOL (And still can't grasp the
> concept of being plonked.) (AND he humped my post TWO WEEKS after I wrote
> it. But you've "let it go, Neil"...right?!? ROTFL )
The whole "plonked" thing is very cool.
It's nothing more than YOUR attempt to prevent YOU from facing YOUR
absolute lack of impulse control -- a major hallmark of Dry Drunk
Syndrome.
http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/literature/drydrunk.htm
Of course, you can't HELP but reply to the people that you "have
plonked" when their contributions are quoted.
Again: zero impulse control. That HAS to suck, huh?
> While I doubt that anyone puts more miles on their vehicles than the
> Brookses (to and from the airport among other carbon-consuming commutes),
As always, Sornson, you are absolutely unafraid to concoct whatever
story fits your pre-determined worldview.
And THAT is one of the major hallmarks of an absolute idiot.
No reference required. Pretty self-explanatory.
Edward Dolan
http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/literature/drydrunk.htm
>>>>> I doubt that Mr. Sornson "plonks" anyone. It is just his way to
>>>>> telling you to go fuck yourself for being so stupid.
>>>>> Bill Sornson has a very dry wit which I for one appreciate. But I like
>>>>> Bill Baka too. He is at the other extreme of personality. Hells Bells,
>>>>> even Neil Brooks is OK by me. Hey, we need all types here on Usenet.
>>>>> Otherwise, we would all bore one another to death.
Bill Sornson
> "Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c24062be-69f5-4678...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 8:31 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Neil Brooks" <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:82458b17-d4af-4e2a...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 11, 4:31 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>>> I haven't driven a car more than 50 feet in about 5 years
>>
>>>> ROTFL Good one, Bill! ROTFL
>>
>>>> Bill "good ol' Ernest T. Baka" S.
>>
>>>>>> Wasn't your time better spent accusing Jym Dyer of spelling his
>>>>>> OWN name wrong??
>>
>>> You may have Mr. Sornson confused with me. I am the one who is
>>> always getting after others for not knowing their own names. Your
>>> name (Neil Brooks) looks OK to me, so you can pass, but I am not
>>> much in favor of those who have "funny" spellings.
>>
>> So now Brooks is defending Bill Baka! LOL (And still can't grasp the
>> concept of being plonked.) (AND he humped my post TWO WEEKS after I
>> wrote it. But you've "let it go, Neil"...right?!? ROTFL )
>
> The whole "plonked" thing is very cool.
>
> It's nothing more than YOUR attempt to prevent YOU from facing YOUR
> absolute lack of impulse control
Someone explain "projection" to the Vicodin addict. Just can't stop posting
blatant lies and vile attacks against me -- yet when I made VAGUE and
OBSCURE references to his bullshit (driving better after smoking pot,
offering to write a letter for one of the best communicators around, trying
to mooch a room in France for a carbon-laden "vacation" from his busy
schedule of multiple 'scrips and guvment checks, etc. etc. etc.), he goes
batshit ballistic.
Neil, keep popping those pills and collecting Disability (AKA "committing
fraud"). And whatever you do, don't stop dwelling on your hatred and bitter
resentment in order to keep from looking at your own glaring shortcomings.
In short, loser, fuck off and/or eat shit and die.
Bill "you pick the order" S.
--
Employment gives health, sobriety, and morals. Constant employment and
well-paid labor produce general prosperity, content, and cheerfulness.
- Daniel Webster
--
"If your morals make you dreary, depend on it they are wrong."
- Robert Louis Stevenson
--
"Neil has got to try harder to correlate his galactic scale intelligence
with his subatomic class."
- Anonymous
Edward Dolan
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:4abc65ba$1...@news.x-privat.org...
[...]
> Employment gives health, sobriety, and morals. Constant employment and
> well-paid labor produce general prosperity, content, and cheerfulness.
> - Daniel Webster
Employment does not produce much in the way of contentment or cheerfulness
whereas idleness does.
> "If your morals make you dreary, depend on it they are wrong."
> - Robert Louis Stevenson
Stevenson was a genius compared to that dolt Webster.
Bill Sornson
> "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote in message
> news:4abc65ba$1...@news.x-privat.org...
> [...]
>> Employment gives health, sobriety, and morals. Constant employment
>> and well-paid labor produce general prosperity, content, and
>> cheerfulness. - Daniel Webster
> Employment does not produce much in the way of contentment or
> cheerfulness whereas idleness does.
Well then Neil should be fucking ecstatic! LOL
>> "If your morals make you dreary, depend on it they are wrong."
>> - Robert Louis Stevenson
> Stevenson was a genius compared to that dolt Webster.
Notice how ANGRY and BITTER liberals like Neil are? They're deeply aware of
their blatant hypocrisy and fraudulence; comes out in flailing attacks and
vile lies. (ANYTHING to avoid looking inward.)
BS
Edward Dolan
I must admit I am like a ping-pong ball myself - constantly gravitating from
one extreme to the other. I hate liberals but I don't like dyed-in-the-wool
conservatives any better. I have never found anyone in my life that was even
remotely like me. I hope that is true of you too.
I have read that no two snowflakes are ever exactly alike. I think that must
be even more true of us humans.
Neil Brooks
[nothing true, and nothing worth a shit]
Ahhhh, Bill.
It's no wonder you got dumped by two wives :-)
You're SUCH a loser :-)
Neil Brooks
What am I lying about?
What anger? What bitterness? I just enjoy pointing out what a mean
spirited asshole you have ALWAYS been on these newsgroups.
And fraud?? What fraud??
I welcome any information, Bill. You, on the other hand, have NO USE
for facts. It's just a small part of your overwhelming pathology.
See: Dry Drunk Syndrome ... just for starters :-)
Edward Dolan
On Sep 25, 12:39 am, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>> [nothing true, and nothing worth a shit]
> Ahhhh, Bill.
> It's no wonder you got dumped by two wives :-)
Love 'em and leave 'em. What is wrong with that? Women soon tire of men and
we men soon tire of them also. Let's face it, women are basically creatures
from another planet. Any man who claims to get along with women is not any
man I would ever want to have anything to do with.
> You're SUCH a loser :-)
We are all losers. That is what it means to be human. If you don't think you
are a loser too, then you are the ultimate loser. Not to have a clue about
any of this means that you have never even lived.
What I like best about Tom Sherman is that he is not the eternal optimist.
He is not yet as profound as I am, but then who is. Mr. Sherman has a dark
despairing side which means that he could become a conservative in the near
future.
"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
- Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard
Now I am going to finish up with "La Dame aux Camelias", a ballet performed
by the Paris Ballet on YouTube where I am going to lie down with Chopin and
die. Chopin wrote the saddest most sorrowful music of any composer who ever
lived. I find that I am totally in sync with that mood myself these days.
Yea, I am tired of life and only want to rest peacefully in a grave.
AMuzi
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:54:17 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote in message
>> news:4abc65ba$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>> [...]
>>> Employment gives health, sobriety, and morals. Constant employment and
>>> well-paid labor produce general prosperity, content, and cheerfulness.
>>> - Daniel Webster
>> Employment does not produce much in the way of contentment or cheerfulness
>> whereas idleness does.
>>
>>> "If your morals make you dreary, depend on it they are wrong."
>>> - Robert Louis Stevenson
>> Stevenson was a genius compared to that dolt Webster.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>
> claim the same.
I-55 in Chicago
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tim McNamara
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
> Notice how ANGRY and BITTER liberals like Neil are? They're deeply
> aware of their blatant hypocrisy and fraudulence; comes out in
> flailing attacks and vile lies. (ANYTHING to avoid looking inward.)
ROTFLMAO. You too, Bill, do anything to avoid looking inward along with
the rest of the looney fringe. You'd much rather blame everybody else
for your problems.
Bill Sornson
> I-55 in Chicago
And this guy starred in Gandhi:
"Being forced to work, and forced to do your best, will breed in you
temperance and self-control, diligence and strength of will, cheerfulness
and content, and a hundred virtues which the idle never know."
- Charles Kingsley
Bill "Ben's GGG Uncle?" S.
Tom Sherman °_°
(Adlai II, not RL).
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
AMuzi
Who, when told "Every thinking American is for you!"
replied, "Thank you, madam, but I need a majority"
Tom Sherman °_°
Edward Dolan
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-D31748....@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <4abc...@news.x-privat.org>,
> "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>> Notice how ANGRY and BITTER liberals like Neil are? They're deeply
>> aware of their blatant hypocrisy and fraudulence; comes out in
>> flailing attacks and vile lies. (ANYTHING to avoid looking inward.)
>
> ROTFLMAO. You too, Bill, do anything to avoid looking inward along with
> else
> for your problems.
The only loony fringe I know about are Minnesota liberals like Tim McNamara.
He is the reason for Minnesota assholes like Humphrey, Mondale, E. McCarthy
... Hells Bells, the list just goes on and on forever.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> "Being forced to work, and forced to do your best, will breed in you
> temperance and self-control, diligence and strength of will, cheerfulness
> and content, and a hundred virtues which the idle never know."
> - Charles Kingsley
I am the world's foremost expert on idleness having spent almost my entire
life in that state of bliss. Let me tell you, work is vastly overrated. It
is akin to enslavement if truth be told. But hey, if you have been in
harness all of your life, then you don't know any better. I do not condemn
the workers of the world, I pity them!
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
news:h9jh5o$1ds$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
> I used to live in a roach motel a few blocks from where he is buried
> (Adlai II, not RL).
The lowly cockroach will survive us all. I would never even think of staying
in a motel that did not have its fair share of cockroaches. They supply
endless hours of entertainment watching them scamper about, far better than
anything on the freaking TV.
By the way, Adlai was a liberal wimp and the American people were right not
to trust him with the presidency. Carter was a wimp too and so is Obama. I
say fuck 'em all!
Tim McNamara
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
Dickensian logic at its finest. Bah humbug!
Dan O
> In article <4abd3e2...@news.x-privat.org>,
>
> Dickensian logic at its finest. Bah humbug!
I can't imagine how anyone could be forced to do their best - seems
like an oxymoron. (Was this Kingsley guy a working man?) Best is
motivated from within.
AMuzi
>>>>> Employment gives health, sobriety, and morals. Constant employment and
>>>>> well-paid labor produce general prosperity, content, and cheerfulness.
>>>>> - Daniel Webster
>>>> Employment does not produce much in the way of contentment or cheerfulness
>>>> whereas idleness does.
>>>>> "If your morals make you dreary, depend on it they are wrong."
>>>>> - Robert Louis Stevenson
>>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>>> Stevenson was a genius compared to that dolt Webster.
>> Still Just Me! wrote:
>>> But Webster has a Highway named after him. I don't think Stevenson can
>>> claim the same.
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> I-55 in Chicago
* Still Just Me * wrote:
> I stand (er, sit actually) corrected.
To anyone in the Midwest "I-55" is "Stevenson" (just not
Robert Louis Stevenson)
Today it's more like:
http://www.lone-star.net/mall/literature/rls/Wind.htm
http://quotations.about.com/cs/poemlyrics/a/The_Wind_Blew_S.htm?terms=A+Child
http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/robert_louis_stevenson/poems/2135
And for Mr Sherman especially:
http://www.bartleby.com/246/962.html
including the phrase "�Gray, recumbent tombs of the dead"