Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
142 views
Skip to first unread message
Thad Floryan
Jun 23, 2012, 5:20:00 PM6/23/12
to
Green ‘drivel’ exposed
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun Saturday, June 23, 2012 03:45 PM EDT
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a
startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been
unduly "alarmist" about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia
theory -- that the Earth operates as a single, living organism-- has had a
profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many "environmentalists," who have degrees in political science,
Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured
working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific
organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first
enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other
pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the
modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium
have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted,
Lovelock acknowledged, "the problem is we don’t know what the climate is
doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago." Now, Lovelock has given a
follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers
more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years
worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would
die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that
mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear
the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were
incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many
climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit
error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his
theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse
gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists,
Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which
environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, "Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the
moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very
cross with the greens for trying to knock it ... Let’s be pragmatic and
sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be
going mad on it." (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations
program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN
environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of
conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce
deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
"It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the
Christian religion," Lovelock observed. "I don’t think people have noticed
that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use ... The greens
use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people
round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air."
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, "so-called ‘sustainable development’ ... is meaningless
drivel ... We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes
are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t
stand windmills at any price."
(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it
and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the
truth. You don’t know it."
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun Saturday, June 23, 2012 03:45 PM EDT
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a
startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been
unduly "alarmist" about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia
theory -- that the Earth operates as a single, living organism-- has had a
profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many "environmentalists," who have degrees in political science,
Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured
working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific
organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first
enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other
pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the
modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium
have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted,
Lovelock acknowledged, "the problem is we don’t know what the climate is
doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago." Now, Lovelock has given a
follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers
more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years
worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would
die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that
mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear
the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were
incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many
climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit
error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his
theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse
gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists,
Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which
environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, "Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the
moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very
cross with the greens for trying to knock it ... Let’s be pragmatic and
sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be
going mad on it." (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations
program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN
environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of
conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce
deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
"It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the
Christian religion," Lovelock observed. "I don’t think people have noticed
that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use ... The greens
use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people
round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air."
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, "so-called ‘sustainable development’ ... is meaningless
drivel ... We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes
are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t
stand windmills at any price."
(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it
and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the
truth. You don’t know it."
Ben
Jun 23, 2012, 5:29:55 PM6/23/12
to
Sam Wormley
Jun 23, 2012, 5:39:27 PM6/23/12
to
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/climate-madness
> The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?
> The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 23, 2012, 6:07:05 PM6/23/12
to
doesn't exist, ass hat.
bjacoby
Jun 23, 2012, 6:22:17 PM6/23/12
to
So, "Sam", destroying the planet to "save" it is your idea of a logical
sane policy?
And I'd add that there is no proof that the world has been "kept safe"
from atomic bombs by this or any other idiot scheme. I'd point to the
large radiation belts created by illegal atomic testing in space which
are STILL THERE, which by Svensmark's theories just COULD be the actual
cause of the "global Warming" that you have been ascribing to CO2.
Thad Floryan
Jun 23, 2012, 6:54:43 PM6/23/12
to
I just noticed the article's URL missed getting copy'n'pasted:
<http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel>
Sorry 'bout that.
<http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel>
Sorry 'bout that.
RichA
Jun 23, 2012, 7:45:18 PM6/23/12
to
On Jun 23, 5:39 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/climate-mad...
birthrates of 12-14 per thousand, and you who are too stupid and
backward to even feed themselves. THAT would be the best thing that
could happen to Earth's environment you could do.
> http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/climate-mad...
>
> > The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
> from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
> the reckless insanity of climate change?
I agree. Lets drop multiple atomic bombs on countries that have
> > The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
> from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
> the reckless insanity of climate change?
birthrates of 12-14 per thousand, and you who are too stupid and
backward to even feed themselves. THAT would be the best thing that
could happen to Earth's environment you could do.
Wally W.
Jun 23, 2012, 8:02:56 PM6/23/12
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 23, 2012, 8:04:43 PM6/23/12
to
per thousand?
Or did you mean all those with a rate greater that 12-13 per thousand?
At 14 per thousand, you would be nuking 142 of the 221 countries.
At 12 per thousand, you would be nuking 162 of the 221 countries, or
73% of the countries of the world.
And since several of those 162 countries are suspected of having access to
nuclear weapons themselves, the outcome might be a bit messy.
Fredric L. Rice
Jun 24, 2012, 12:07:13 AM6/24/12
to
Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>certain about anything.
Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
>(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>certain about anything.
right wing Christian loon?
---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Vote Romney November 6th, enjoy your pink slip on November 9th.
Super-Kamiokande, because science is "of Satan."
bjacoby
Jun 24, 2012, 12:35:18 AM6/24/12
to
On 6/24/2012 12:07 AM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> Thad Floryan<th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>> certain about anything.
>
> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> right wing Christian loon?
How can a person posting as "Ph.D." actually be this fucking stupid
> Thad Floryan<th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>> certain about anything.
>
> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> right wing Christian loon?
about science?
1. The "Ph.D." a lie.
2. Got the degree online from one of those fake degree places.
3. It's a degree in "political science".
4. Got it at Oral Roberts University and has been bitter as hell ever
since because the MIT grads get all the non-janitorial jobs!
So you are saying it's "impossible" for the sun to orbit the earth? Not
only do you not understand that concept, but you also seem unaware that
such a statement is the mathematical equivalent to saying "I'm a moron".
And to top off your incredible lack of intellect, you call James Ephraim
Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, Ph.D, The "Godfather" of global warming, a
"fucking insane right wing Christian loon"? What an absolutely
incredible display of ignorance, political ineptitude, and just plain
bad manners.
Obviously your degree is NOT in political science, library science, or
even football officiating.
Thad Floryan
Jun 24, 2012, 12:39:42 AM6/24/12
to
On 6/23/2012 9:07 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>> certain about anything.
>
> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> right wing Christian loon?
It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. I did NOT write the above,
> Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>> certain about anything.
>
> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> right wing Christian loon?
that's a quote from Lovelock per this article:
<http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel>
(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
Thad Floryan
Jun 24, 2012, 12:43:19 AM6/24/12
to
On 6/23/2012 9:07 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>> certain about anything.
>
> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> right wing Christian loon?
You licking Worm Spamley's ass again after he attempted to divert
>
>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>> certain about anything.
>
> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> right wing Christian loon?
this thread to something about nukes? You two clowns are the insane
loons.
Sam Wormley
Jun 24, 2012, 12:58:06 AM6/24/12
to
On 6/23/12 11:39 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> It would seem you're the blind ignoramus.
Some background information from the American Institute of Physics,
> It would seem you're the blind ignoramus.
American Physical Society, etc.
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> CO2 and its effect on climate
> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>
> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
>
Then there is the evidence for AGW.
>
> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> Study of True Global Warming Signal Finds Remarkably Steady Rate of Manmade Warming since 1979
> http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/
> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
>
> The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
> http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
>
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>
Finally the radiative forcings give a good picture of
what is driving global warming.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/1000px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
>
Sam Wormley
Jun 24, 2012, 1:02:21 AM6/24/12
to
On 6/23/12 11:43 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>
> You licking Worm Spamley's ass again after he attempted to divert
> this thread to something about nukes? You two clowns are the insane
> loons.
There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>
> You licking Worm Spamley's ass again after he attempted to divert
> this thread to something about nukes? You two clowns are the insane
> loons.
> The Last Great Global Warming
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming
>
> Rob Dunbar: The threat of ocean acidification
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfgbVjb688
>
> Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/ocean-acidification-could-become-worst-in-at-least-300-million-years.ars
>
> Global Warming Leads to 150,000 Deaths Every Year
> http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandhealth/a/gw_deaths.htm
>
> Climate Armageddon: How the World's Weather Could Quickly Run Amok [Excerpt]
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-worlds-weather-could-quickly-run-amok
>
> Physics Today | Humans may be driving Earth toward catastrophe
> http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2012/06/humans-may-be-driving-earth-toward-catastrophe/
>
> Climate MADness
> http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/climate-madness
>
> Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html
>
David Staup
Jun 24, 2012, 10:05:26 AM6/24/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qtqdnTHro77AAnvS...@mchsi.com...
> On 6/23/12 11:43 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>
>>
>> You licking Worm Spamley's ass again after he attempted to divert
>> this thread to something about nukes? You two clowns are the insane
>> loons.
>
> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
Yes Sam, troubling signs!
>
>>
>> You licking Worm Spamley's ass again after he attempted to divert
>> this thread to something about nukes? You two clowns are the insane
>> loons.
>
> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
Signs that hubris and greed are STILL major drivers in "science". Just as
Lavoisier observed over two hundred years ago.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 24, 2012, 12:11:38 PM6/24/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/23/12 11:43 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>
>>
>> You licking Worm Spamley's ass again after he attempted to divert
>> this thread to something about nukes? You two clowns are the insane
>> loons.
>
> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
No "troubling signs"; just Chicken Little, arm waving, puerile nonsense
>
>>
>> You licking Worm Spamley's ass again after he attempted to divert
>> this thread to something about nukes? You two clowns are the insane
>> loons.
>
> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
from "climate science", ass hat.
Chris L Peterson
Jun 24, 2012, 12:50:08 PM6/24/12
to
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
nothing will change.
wrote:
> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
nothing will change.
Fredric L. Rice
Jun 24, 2012, 2:30:52 PM6/24/12
to
Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>On 6/23/2012 9:07 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>>> certain about anything.
>> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
>> right wing Christian loon?
>It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. I did NOT write the above,
Then why did you quote it, you fucking right wing cultloon?
>On 6/23/2012 9:07 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
>>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
>>> certain about anything.
>> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
>> right wing Christian loon?
>It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. I did NOT write the above,
Chris.B
Jun 24, 2012, 2:49:11 PM6/24/12
to
Were y'all on that bus tormenting that nice (newly rich) old lady?
Dy'all get so excited by ornithology, crystal formation or large piles
of bat droppings?
Thought not. ;-)
Dy'all get so excited by ornithology, crystal formation or large piles
of bat droppings?
Thought not. ;-)
bjacoby
Jun 25, 2012, 12:20:29 AM6/25/12
to
On 6/24/2012 2:30 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> Thad Floryan<th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> On 6/23/2012 9:07 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
>>> right wing Christian loon?
>> It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. I did NOT write the above,
>
> Then why did you quote it, you fucking right wing cultloon?
It's obvious Rice-a-roni wrote it from the illiterate quality of the
> Thad Floryan<th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> On 6/23/2012 9:07 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
>>> right wing Christian loon?
>> It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. I did NOT write the above,
>
> Then why did you quote it, you fucking right wing cultloon?
writing. "Real" writers actually have a vocabulary.
RichA
Jun 25, 2012, 8:14:42 AM6/25/12
to
On Jun 24, 2:30 pm, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> >> Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> >>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
> >>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
> >>> certain about anything.
> >> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> >> right wing Christian loon?
> >It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. I did NOT write the above,
>
> Then why did you quote it, you fucking right wing cultloon?
Calm down, calm down. Just a couple vallium and you'll be alright.
> >>> (4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
> >>> thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
> >>> certain about anything.
> >> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> >> right wing Christian loon?
> >It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. I did NOT write the above,
>
> Then why did you quote it, you fucking right wing cultloon?
David Staup
Jun 25, 2012, 4:36:40 PM6/25/12
to
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:e7heu7p09lbrak5ss...@4ax.com...
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 26, 2012, 2:47:01 AM6/26/12
to
On Jun 24, 12:07 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
Sun-Jupiter barycenter is outside the Sun's surface (not that Lovelock
or Floryan even mentioned planetary orbits in the first place.)
> Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> >(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
> >thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
> >certain about anything.
>
> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> right wing Christian loon?
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/
> >(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
> >thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
> >certain about anything.
>
> Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you fucking insane
> right wing Christian loon?
Sun-Jupiter barycenter is outside the Sun's surface (not that Lovelock
or Floryan even mentioned planetary orbits in the first place.)
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 26, 2012, 2:51:54 AM6/26/12
to
On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
fossil fuel to maintain.
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>
> You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
> by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
> nothing will change.
It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
>
> > There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>
> You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
> by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
> nothing will change.
warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
fossil fuel to maintain.
SteveP
Jun 26, 2012, 7:42:35 AM6/26/12
to
truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
automatically loses some credibility.
Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
concerned.
The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
factors over which we have some control.
Steve P.
Martin Brown
Jun 26, 2012, 9:09:09 AM6/26/12
to
On 26/06/2012 12:42, SteveP wrote:
> On 6/26/2012 2:51 AM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>>>
>>> You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
>>> by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
>>> nothing will change.
>>
>> It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
>> warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
>> fossil fuel to maintain.
>
> I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in its
> truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
> terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
> automatically loses some credibility.
It isn't just an apparent ideological bias. The US right whingers think
> On 6/26/2012 2:51 AM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>>>
>>> You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
>>> by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
>>> nothing will change.
>>
>> It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
>> warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
>> fossil fuel to maintain.
>
> I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in its
> truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
> terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
> automatically loses some credibility.
that trashing the planet for fun and profit is their birth right.
Only in America does climate change denial split on partisan political
lines. In the UK it was Tory (right wing) Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher that first put AGW onto the world agenda.
> Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
> concerned.
types as prostitute their science for big tobacco and fast food. The
canonical denier for hire was the late Fred Seitz and here is what his
paymasters thought of him long before the Oregon petition:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html
Pity really he was an excellent solid state physicist until he supped
with the devil. He is the role model for all modern deniers for hire.
> The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
> come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
> factors over which we have some control.
>
> Steve P.
political will to do anything even remotely useful. Much of what is
being done is of very limited use. Some of it even counter productive -
like subsidising people to install solar PV in high latitude cloudy
countries like the UK. Nuclear power is the only carbon free game in
town but governments are very nervous about that post Fukushima.
We were doing more useful energy conservation work during the OPEC
induced acute oil shortage in the 1970's with the SaveIt campaign.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Chris L Peterson
Jun 26, 2012, 10:14:13 AM6/26/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP <smarsh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
>come too late.
If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
understand the science.
There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
for instance).
wrote:
>The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
>come too late.
understand the science.
There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
for instance).
Steve P
Jun 26, 2012, 12:41:23 PM6/26/12
to
-Steve
(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
oriel36
Jun 26, 2012, 1:26:44 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 6:41 pm, Steve P <smarshallp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:14:13 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP <smarshallp...@gmail.com>
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:14:13 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > >The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
> > >come too late.
>
> > If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
> > understand the science.
>
> > There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
> > human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
> > reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
> > among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
> > probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
> > for instance).
>
> You're not the guy I'm worried about. You're already convinced. :-)
>
> -Steve
> (I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
>
>
You poor unfortunate people ! - the Earth turns once in 24 hours and
>
> > >The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
> > >come too late.
>
> > If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
> > understand the science.
>
> > There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
> > human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
> > reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
> > among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
> > probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
> > for instance).
>
> You're not the guy I'm worried about. You're already convinced. :-)
>
> -Steve
> (I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
>
>
keeps in step without ever diverging hence the massive daily
temperature fluctuations in response to the daily rotation of the
planet.
The beginning of empirical modeling aka - 'the universal theory of
gravity' is based on 24 hour days and rotations falling out of step by
an astonishing 4 rotations for 4 orbital circuits/4 years.
Humanity has actually something within its control - the arrival of
common sense and astronomers as its is their absence which created
this utter debacle and many more like it.
Chris L Peterson
Jun 26, 2012, 1:30:30 PM6/26/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve P
<smarsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that
<smarsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
corporations are more important than people.
David Staup
Jun 26, 2012, 2:08:55 PM6/26/12
to
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:gasju7d0v4mdiqn53...@4ax.com...
oriel36
Jun 26, 2012, 3:01:27 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 7:30 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve P
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve P
>
> <smarshallp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
>
> That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that
> corporations are more important than people.
Peterson,the wider population is important and especially children and
> >(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
>
> That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that
> corporations are more important than people.
their education.
For whatever reason that escapes me,the pure contempt for basic
astronomical principles seems less likely than a situation which is
far more pernicious for the advancement of our race.There is no known
reason why anyone would accept models for the Earth's daily and
orbital motions which project a false picture where rotations overrun
the orbital circuit even though common experience and basic
intelligence registers 1461 rotations in 1461 days.
You actually think you are doing humanity a favor but then again the
type of dissent you face is not much better - maybe someday ,and
hopefully soon,it will strike a group of individuals that what passes
for astronomy today is causing a degradation and a wider malaise than
just in science alone.
bjacoby
Jun 26, 2012, 9:54:27 PM6/26/12
to
experimental evidence does not?
And just WHAT "human activity" is driving "global warming"? And how is
it if it's "understated" how is it that Hansen's original "estimates"
all OVERESTIMATE measured "warming"? And that includes Scenario C which
impossibly surmised NO increase in CO2 which didn't happen. And you seem
to understand that in "science" all theories are established by a
democratic vote and by how many "experts" agree with you?
And you forgot to mention that NASA GISS data (previously used to
promote the idea of global warming) has shown NO land temperature
increase for the last 12 years.
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSCHART.htm
AS far as I know Human activity has not ceased in this period. So even
your previous post hoc fallacy falls apart.
Having had your "understanding" of science torn apart in sci.physics,
now it seems you are looking for "fresh gullible meat" here.
====
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers
your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your
hypothesis is wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Chris L Peterson
Jun 26, 2012, 10:24:48 PM6/26/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:54:27 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
>So you understand science and anyone who disagrees with you or demands
>experimental evidence does not?
I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
and there is no longer reasonable doubt. Climate science has moved far
beyond the question of whether humans are radically modifying the
climate, and is investing its efforts in understanding all the
mechanisms involved, generating longer and more accurate predictions
of where we're headed, and figuring out ways to mitigate the damage.
Nobody who understands the science even a little, or understands the
value of near 100% consensus in any area of science, has reasonable
cause to doubt AGW. Those who express serious doubt do so either
through ignorance, science denial (a mental aberration related to
conspiracy belief), or some sort of self-interest.
wrote:
>So you understand science and anyone who disagrees with you or demands
>experimental evidence does not?
and there is no longer reasonable doubt. Climate science has moved far
beyond the question of whether humans are radically modifying the
climate, and is investing its efforts in understanding all the
mechanisms involved, generating longer and more accurate predictions
of where we're headed, and figuring out ways to mitigate the damage.
Nobody who understands the science even a little, or understands the
value of near 100% consensus in any area of science, has reasonable
cause to doubt AGW. Those who express serious doubt do so either
through ignorance, science denial (a mental aberration related to
conspiracy belief), or some sort of self-interest.
bjacoby
Jun 27, 2012, 1:08:07 AM6/27/12
to
POLITICAL statement and has nothing to do with the scientific method.
If you have any doubts, simply read the Feynman quote again.
Chris L Peterson
Jun 27, 2012, 1:46:22 AM6/27/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:08:07 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
>I trust everyone here is smart enough to recognize that the above is a
>POLITICAL statement and has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Everybody here who understands science recognizes where the political
statement is.
wrote:
>I trust everyone here is smart enough to recognize that the above is a
>POLITICAL statement and has nothing to do with the scientific method.
statement is.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 6:06:22 AM6/27/12
to
On Jun 26, 7:42 am, SteveP <smarshallp...@gmail.com> wrote:
laws and taxes) to solve a problem, real or perceived, without having
already taken all possible measures to reduce or eliminate his/her own
contribution to the perceived problem. In such case, terms such as
"warmingista", "chardonnay socialist", "limo liberal" are entirely
appropriate and quite accurate, since they underscore the purely
political nature of the issue as currently presented.
> Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
> concerned.
Better to call things as they are. If warmingistas truly believe the
"actual science" then they should behave accordingly, yet they do not.
> The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
> come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
> factors over which we have some control.
Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of fossil
fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish instead to
make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they. That
is politics, pure and simple.
> On 6/26/2012 2:51 AM, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>
> >> You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
> >> by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
> >> nothing will change.
>
> > It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
> > warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
> > fossil fuel to maintain.
>
> I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in its
> truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
> terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
> automatically loses some credibility.
One loses all credibility by suggesting that steps be taken (such as
>
> > On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>
> >> You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
> >> by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
> >> nothing will change.
>
> > It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
> > warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
> > fossil fuel to maintain.
>
> I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in its
> truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
> terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
> automatically loses some credibility.
laws and taxes) to solve a problem, real or perceived, without having
already taken all possible measures to reduce or eliminate his/her own
contribution to the perceived problem. In such case, terms such as
"warmingista", "chardonnay socialist", "limo liberal" are entirely
appropriate and quite accurate, since they underscore the purely
political nature of the issue as currently presented.
> Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
> concerned.
"actual science" then they should behave accordingly, yet they do not.
> The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
> come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
> factors over which we have some control.
fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish instead to
make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they. That
is politics, pure and simple.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 6:21:54 AM6/27/12
to
On Jun 26, 1:30 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve P
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve P
>
> <smarshallp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
>
> That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that
> corporations are more important than people.
Perhaps you are not aware that oil companies sell stock and that if
> >(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)
>
> That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that
> corporations are more important than people.
you have a retirement or investment fund that some of that is likely
to be in the form of oil company stock.
Furthermore, if you hate oil companies so much, then put your money
where your mouth is and stop burning oil in any form and stop using
products made from oil or made by buring oil. People got along
without oil just a few generations ago, I suggest you do the same.
Your supposition that someone else would think corporations are more
important than people is very childish and ignorant. Most businesses
are incorporated for reasons having to do with liability and taxes
(and you like taxes...on others.) Certainly, if you had a business it
would be important to you, probably more important than the concerns
of other people. ("No, I'm sorry, I can't lower the price of the
food, if I did I wouldn't be able to stay in business")
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 6:55:57 AM6/27/12
to
On Jun 26, 9:09 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
him to lucrative speaking engagements, or numerous lefty celebrities
who make millions making crud for the "entertainment" industry, or
career warmingistas who fly private planes to "climate
conferences" (vacations) in various cities and ride in limos while
there. Or millions of left-voting people (many in Europe) who talk a
good game about "saving the environment" and then drive their SUVs to
the airport to catch a plane for a business trip or wasteful
vacation. Hypocrites all, and that probably includes you.
wrote:
> On 26/06/2012 12:42, SteveP wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/26/2012 2:51 AM, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>
> >>> You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
> >>> by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
> >>> nothing will change.
>
> >> It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
> >> warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
> >> fossil fuel to maintain.
>
> > I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in its
> > truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
> > terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
> > automatically loses some credibility.
>
> It isn't just an apparent ideological bias. The US right whingers think
> that trashing the planet for fun and profit is their birth right.
No, that would be left-wingnut Owl Bore, with his private jet taking
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/26/2012 2:51 AM, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.
>
> >>> You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
> >>> by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
> >>> nothing will change.
>
> >> It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
> >> warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
> >> fossil fuel to maintain.
>
> > I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in its
> > truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
> > terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
> > automatically loses some credibility.
>
> It isn't just an apparent ideological bias. The US right whingers think
> that trashing the planet for fun and profit is their birth right.
him to lucrative speaking engagements, or numerous lefty celebrities
who make millions making crud for the "entertainment" industry, or
career warmingistas who fly private planes to "climate
conferences" (vacations) in various cities and ride in limos while
there. Or millions of left-voting people (many in Europe) who talk a
good game about "saving the environment" and then drive their SUVs to
the airport to catch a plane for a business trip or wasteful
vacation. Hypocrites all, and that probably includes you.
Chris L Peterson
Jun 27, 2012, 11:05:00 AM6/27/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:21:54 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Furthermore, if you hate oil companies so much, then put your money
>where your mouth is and stop burning oil in any form and stop using
>products made from oil or made by buring oil.
Once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand what other
>Furthermore, if you hate oil companies so much, then put your money
>where your mouth is and stop burning oil in any form and stop using
>products made from oil or made by buring oil.
people are saying. I don't hate oil companies. I recognize that they
have a rational reason to argue against AGW, in the same way that
cigarette companies have a rational reason to argue that their product
is safe. However, the resources that these companies command make it
possible for them to sway people with their lies, and therefore cause
significant social harm.
Chris.B
Jun 27, 2012, 12:09:47 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 5:05 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
> and therefore cause significant social harm.
I am increasingly convinced that North America is just the latest in a
long line of experimental, societal tests to destruction. Probably
designed by some higher being with an incredibly wicked sense of
humour. :-)
There has been no economic empire (yet) which has not destroyed itself
through blind overexploitation, overindulgence and becoming completely
riddled with corruption from top to bottom. Slavery and inequality
have always been their downfall. The more they had, the more it had to
be defended. Their territory had to be extended to the furthest limits
of their available boundaries. Until obtaining increasingly tenuous
resources, by theft, was no longer enough to support the massive
wastage at the centre of their human hive.
The cost of defence from their countless, well-earned enemies, soon
outbalanced the income from the wholesale destruction of other's
rights. By demeaning others by class, language, name, clan, sex, race
and colour they poisoned their own minds. With their toxic hatred of
the reality they, themselves, had wrought. Economic or religious
occupation is no better than military occupation. The results are much
the same and just as damaging to both oppressor and their slave
underdogs.
It is not a vacuum which nature abhors. It is a monopoly!
Will you never learn?
> and therefore cause significant social harm.
long line of experimental, societal tests to destruction. Probably
designed by some higher being with an incredibly wicked sense of
humour. :-)
There has been no economic empire (yet) which has not destroyed itself
through blind overexploitation, overindulgence and becoming completely
riddled with corruption from top to bottom. Slavery and inequality
have always been their downfall. The more they had, the more it had to
be defended. Their territory had to be extended to the furthest limits
of their available boundaries. Until obtaining increasingly tenuous
resources, by theft, was no longer enough to support the massive
wastage at the centre of their human hive.
The cost of defence from their countless, well-earned enemies, soon
outbalanced the income from the wholesale destruction of other's
rights. By demeaning others by class, language, name, clan, sex, race
and colour they poisoned their own minds. With their toxic hatred of
the reality they, themselves, had wrought. Economic or religious
occupation is no better than military occupation. The results are much
the same and just as damaging to both oppressor and their slave
underdogs.
It is not a vacuum which nature abhors. It is a monopoly!
Will you never learn?
Paul Schlyter
Jun 27, 2012, 1:53:53 PM6/27/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:06:22 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of fossil
> fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish instead to
> make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they.
That
> is politics, pure and simple.
Of course it's politics! The opposite (i.e. not making others
> Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of fossil
> fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish instead to
> make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they.
That
> is politics, pure and simple.
reduce...) is also politics. No matter what choice you make it
becomes politics. Science can only tell you what will happen if you
do this or that, but it cannot decide what choice you actually should
make. To make that choice requires politics, in particular when a
large number of people are involved in the decision!
oriel36
Jun 27, 2012, 2:39:45 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 7:53 pm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
There is no such thing as science in the issue of climate,the actual
modification for the explanation why temperatures vary with latitude
as the Earth makes a circuit of the Sun is being held up by people who
refuse to accept that one 24 hour day and one rotation of the Earth
keep in step.
Perhaps among yourselves as empiricists you may claim to be
astronomers but that is politics of the mob for no astronomer could
suffer something as cruel as the loss on the most immediate experience
of planetary dynamics as the Sun rises and sets in response to the
exists is the lack of real astronomers,it doesn't matter if they are
paid or not - a society that cannot explain what is behind the 24 hour
day has concerns that are many,many times greater than global warming
or,what it really represents,human control over the planet's
temperature.
modification for the explanation why temperatures vary with latitude
as the Earth makes a circuit of the Sun is being held up by people who
refuse to accept that one 24 hour day and one rotation of the Earth
keep in step.
Perhaps among yourselves as empiricists you may claim to be
astronomers but that is politics of the mob for no astronomer could
suffer something as cruel as the loss on the most immediate experience
of planetary dynamics as the Sun rises and sets in response to the
daily rotation of the planet.
Definitely a situation for the ages - the only reason this debacle
exists is the lack of real astronomers,it doesn't matter if they are
paid or not - a society that cannot explain what is behind the 24 hour
day has concerns that are many,many times greater than global warming
or,what it really represents,human control over the planet's
temperature.
David Staup
Jun 27, 2012, 2:49:46 PM6/27/12
to
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:ffrku7ldlljqsbov5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:54:27 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>So you understand science and anyone who disagrees with you or demands
>>experimental evidence does not?
>
> I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
> and there is no longer reasonable doubt.
Hubris and Greed
> wrote:
>
>>So you understand science and anyone who disagrees with you or demands
>>experimental evidence does not?
>
> I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
> and there is no longer reasonable doubt.
drivel snipped
Mark Storkamp
Jun 27, 2012, 4:34:47 PM6/27/12
to
In article <ffrku7ldlljqsbov5...@4ax.com>,
climate scientist excludes all those with differing views, then all
climate scientists do indeed believe that. And it make for a very simple
world outlook too.
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:54:27 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So you understand science and anyone who disagrees with you or demands
> >experimental evidence does not?
>
> I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
> and there is no longer reasonable doubt.
True for a suitable definition of 'universally'. If your definition of
> wrote:
>
> >So you understand science and anyone who disagrees with you or demands
> >experimental evidence does not?
>
> I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
> and there is no longer reasonable doubt.
climate scientist excludes all those with differing views, then all
climate scientists do indeed believe that. And it make for a very simple
world outlook too.
Dr J R Stockton
Jun 27, 2012, 3:15:32 PM6/27/12
to
In sci.astro.amateur message <jngju79rvajqnd21l...@4ax.com
>, Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:14:13, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
posted:
>There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
>human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
>reports.
True, but irrelevant.
The real questions are :
Is it warming ?
Is warming bad, now or soon ?
What can be done about it ?
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
>, Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:14:13, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
posted:
>There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
>human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
>reports.
The real questions are :
Is it warming ?
Is warming bad, now or soon ?
What can be done about it ?
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 10:38:13 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 11:05 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
"That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that
corporations are more important than people."
(Try not to edit so much, idiot.)
> I recognize that they
> have a rational reason to argue against AGW, in the same way that
> cigarette companies have a rational reason to argue that their product
> is safe.
The key difference being that cigarettes serve no useful purpose,
whereas fossil fuel use raises a person's standard of living as it has
yours.
> However, the resources that these companies command make it
> possible for them to sway people with their lies, and therefore cause
> significant social harm.
By "significant social harm" you must mean people getting into their
cars to drive hundreds of miles for frivolous purposes?
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:21:54 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Furthermore, if you hate oil companies so much, then put your money
> >where your mouth is and stop burning oil in any form and stop using
> >products made from oil or made by buring oil.
>
> Once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand what other
> people are saying. I don't hate oil companies.
Your words imply otherwise:
> >Furthermore, if you hate oil companies so much, then put your money
> >where your mouth is and stop burning oil in any form and stop using
> >products made from oil or made by buring oil.
>
> Once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand what other
> people are saying. I don't hate oil companies.
"That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that
corporations are more important than people."
> I recognize that they
> have a rational reason to argue against AGW, in the same way that
> cigarette companies have a rational reason to argue that their product
> is safe.
whereas fossil fuel use raises a person's standard of living as it has
yours.
> However, the resources that these companies command make it
> possible for them to sway people with their lies, and therefore cause
> significant social harm.
cars to drive hundreds of miles for frivolous purposes?
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 10:39:33 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 4:34 pm, Mark Storkamp <mstork...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ffrku7ldlljqsbov5npne73i3nbs0rg...@4ax.com>,
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:54:27 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> In article <ffrku7ldlljqsbov5npne73i3nbs0rg...@4ax.com>,
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:54:27 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >So you understand science and anyone who disagrees with you or demands
> > >experimental evidence does not?
>
> > I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
> > and there is no longer reasonable doubt.
>
> True for a suitable definition of 'universally'. If your definition of
> climate scientist excludes all those with differing views, then all
> climate scientists do indeed believe that. And it make for a very simple
> world outlook too.
Peterson has one of the simplest world outlooks imaginable.
>
> > >So you understand science and anyone who disagrees with you or demands
> > >experimental evidence does not?
>
> > I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
> > and there is no longer reasonable doubt.
>
> True for a suitable definition of 'universally'. If your definition of
> climate scientist excludes all those with differing views, then all
> climate scientists do indeed believe that. And it make for a very simple
> world outlook too.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 10:57:29 PM6/27/12
to
civilian death rate orders of magnitude lower than other countries in
the War. (How's that EU working out for you?)
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 11:07:21 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 1:53 pm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
not politics. On the whole, "AGW" is only about grabbing power and
loot.
> Science can only tell you what will happen if you
> do this or that, but it cannot decide what choice you actually should
> make. To make that choice requires politics, in particular when a
> large number of people are involved in the decision!
The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach. This will
give them some small amount of credibility, of which they currently
have none.
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:06:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of fossil
> > fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish instead to
> > make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they.
> That
> > is politics, pure and simple.
>
> Of course it's politics! The opposite (i.e. not making others
> reduce...) is also politics. No matter what choice you make it
> becomes politics.
If one leaves others alone and attends to one's own behavior that is
> > Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of fossil
> > fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish instead to
> > make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they.
> That
> > is politics, pure and simple.
>
> Of course it's politics! The opposite (i.e. not making others
> reduce...) is also politics. No matter what choice you make it
> becomes politics.
not politics. On the whole, "AGW" is only about grabbing power and
loot.
> Science can only tell you what will happen if you
> do this or that, but it cannot decide what choice you actually should
> make. To make that choice requires politics, in particular when a
> large number of people are involved in the decision!
give them some small amount of credibility, of which they currently
have none.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 10:53:32 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 3:15 pm, Dr J R Stockton
<reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <jngju79rvajqnd21lidvhjkmnk47i29...@4ax.com>, Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:14:13, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
> Is warming bad, now or soon ?
Would you prefer cooling? Seriously.
> What can be done about it ?
Don't hold your breath waiting for Peterson to do anything that he
would find personally inconvenient.
<reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <jngju79rvajqnd21lidvhjkmnk47i29...@4ax.com>, Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:14:13, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
>
> posted:
>
> >There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
> >human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
> >reports.
>
> True, but irrelevant.
>
> The real questions are :
> Is it warming ?
Since about the early 1600s.
> posted:
>
> >There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
> >human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
> >reports.
>
> True, but irrelevant.
>
> The real questions are :
> Is it warming ?
> Is warming bad, now or soon ?
> What can be done about it ?
would find personally inconvenient.
SteveP
Jun 27, 2012, 11:30:12 PM6/27/12
to
On 6/27/2012 6:21 AM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Perhaps you are not aware that oil companies sell stock and that if
> you have a retirement or investment fund that some of that is likely
> to be in the form of oil company stock.
Mmmm, petroleum soaked mammon. Omnomnomnom.
> Perhaps you are not aware that oil companies sell stock and that if
> you have a retirement or investment fund that some of that is likely
> to be in the form of oil company stock.
Fidelity would simply move the fund into other stocks. It's not a big
deal for them to do that. Sell one, by the other. They do it all the time.
Chris L Peterson
Jun 28, 2012, 12:35:52 AM6/28/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:34:47 -0500, Mark Storkamp
<msto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
>> and there is no longer reasonable doubt.
>
>True for a suitable definition of 'universally'. If your definition of
>climate scientist excludes all those with differing views, then all
>climate scientists do indeed believe that. And it make for a very simple
>world outlook too.
The consensus for AGW among climate scientists is greater than 95%.
<msto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I understand that AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists,
>> and there is no longer reasonable doubt.
>
>True for a suitable definition of 'universally'. If your definition of
>climate scientist excludes all those with differing views, then all
>climate scientists do indeed believe that. And it make for a very simple
>world outlook too.
That's pretty universal. Only an idiot would base his medical
decisions on what just one doctor in 20 suggested.
Martin Brown
Jun 28, 2012, 3:11:39 AM6/28/12
to
On 27/06/2012 20:15, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message<jngju79rvajqnd21l...@4ax.com
>> , Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:14:13, Chris L Peterson<c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
> posted:
>
>> There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
>> human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
>> reports.
>
> True, but irrelevant.
>
> The real questions are :
> Is it warming ?
Yes. And by the looks of it accelerating - although not by as much as
> In sci.astro.amateur message<jngju79rvajqnd21l...@4ax.com
>> , Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:14:13, Chris L Peterson<c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
> posted:
>
>> There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
>> human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
>> reports.
>
> True, but irrelevant.
>
> The real questions are :
> Is it warming ?
was first thought during the late 1980's and 90's when a ~60y periodic
component contrived to make the rise from 1970 on look alarmingly steep.
Don't forget that global warming isn't necessarily uniform. The UK could
well revert to temperatures more appropriate to its latitude if in a
warmer world the jet stream shifts or the Atlantic conveyor stalls.
> Is warming bad, now or soon ?
ultimately get. Trouble is that time horizon is too far away for
politicians to be interested. All they ever care about is fund raising
to get re-elected next year or the year after. Margaret Thatcher was an
interesting exception (she trained as a chemist). Most of them though
are lawyers and think that everything can be solved with clever words.
> What can be done about it ?
Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and
prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the
public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our
generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence.
You can bet your bottom dollar that when the chickens come home to roost
the politicians will *blame* scientists for not making clear to them
what the consequences of business as usual would be.
We are stuck with the problem of an uneducated population who believe
whatever bunch of lies the politicians tell them. The US situation is
exceptionally bad in that AGW splits entirely on party political lines.
And with a bipolar disorder that means both sides think the other is the
spawn of satan. US politics is severely disfunctional.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Paul Schlyter
Jun 28, 2012, 6:15:36 AM6/28/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:07:21 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:53 pm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:06:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> > > Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of
fossil
> > > fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish
instead to
> > > make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they.
> > That
> > > is politics, pure and simple.
> >
> > Of course it's politics! The opposite (i.e. not making others
> > reduce...) is also politics. No matter what choice you make it
> > becomes politics.
> If one leaves others alone and attends to one's own behavior that is
> not politics. On the whole, "AGW" is only about grabbing power and
> loot.
Preaching isolationism is ***definitely*** one kind of politics!
> On Jun 27, 1:53 pm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:06:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> > > Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of
fossil
> > > fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish
instead to
> > > make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they.
> > That
> > > is politics, pure and simple.
> >
> > Of course it's politics! The opposite (i.e. not making others
> > reduce...) is also politics. No matter what choice you make it
> > becomes politics.
> If one leaves others alone and attends to one's own behavior that is
> not politics. On the whole, "AGW" is only about grabbing power and
> loot.
Whatever response mankind will give to AGW one cannot escape the fact
that the response must come through politics of one kind or another.
> > Science can only tell you what will happen if you
> > do this or that, but it cannot decide what choice you actually
should
> > make. To make that choice requires politics, in particular when a
> > large number of people are involved in the decision!
> The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach. This will
> give them some small amount of credibility, of which they currently
> have none.
One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't **want**
to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons. From an
egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll probably
die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe. Those who have
kids whom they care about will need to have a longer time perspective
than that though.
Bob C.
Jun 28, 2012, 7:56:40 AM6/28/12
to
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
dozens of electric car models now available...
SteveP
Jun 28, 2012, 8:20:47 AM6/28/12
to
On 6/28/2012 3:11 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 27/06/2012 20:15, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In sci.astro.amateur message<jngju79rvajqnd21l...@4ax.com
>> The real questions are :
> On 27/06/2012 20:15, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In sci.astro.amateur message<jngju79rvajqnd21l...@4ax.com
>
>> What can be done about it ?
>
> Build more nuclear power plants and maximise energy efficiency.
>
> Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and
> prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the
> public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our
> generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence.
Not only can you reduce your energy footprint easily, but it can be fun
>> What can be done about it ?
>
> Build more nuclear power plants and maximise energy efficiency.
>
> Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and
> prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the
> public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our
> generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence.
and _save you money_.
I don't understand the reluctance.
Even the largest of touring motorcycles get routinely > 40MPG. Scooters
get 70MPG+ in the over 250cc class (plenty of power to get you 20 miles
at 60MPH one way to work). Motorcycling is not only fun, but it teaches
self control, courtesy, and cooperation on the road. People who drive
cars but have never had to negotiate traffic on a motorcycle, by and
large behave like bullies, petulant children, and are constantly putting
their own interest above those of others (on the road), kind of like the
current breed of U.S. republicans (<g>). The "me and mine first"
attitude, and not paying enough attention to the immediate "environment"
is what gets people injured.
I've been wanting a commuter car that gets greater than 50MPG for
decades. But it has to be cheap to purchase (like a motorcycle). This is
where government intervention is a problem. Safety, means bloat when it
comes to automobiles. We need a class of vehicle that is somewhere
between a motorcycle and a 4 door sedan that is not required to have a
bunch of heavyweight safety equipment. Something that is no more "safe"
than a motorcycle, but is workable in inclement weather. Problem is,
people who can't do without luxury on the road. Cripes man, we're
talking about your daily commute of 20 to 25 miles one way. And, if
you're commuting more than that, you should probably consider changing
careers, or moving closer to work.
2x6 home construction and heating with baseboard recirculated water in
areas where heating is necessary has a HUGE impact on reducing oil and
electricity consumption (small water pump vs. large fan). Add a water
heating zone to the furnace and attach an 80 gallon super-store, and you
reduce your electricity consumption even further. This is so underplayed
in the Northeast U.S. (can't speak for elsewhere) that it's mind
boggling. Also, installing ceiling fans in every room, and only using AC
when outdoor temperatures demand it. Learn to live with indoor
temperatures of 80 degrees in summer.
When I had my new house built, I opted to spend the additional $2500 USD
for the exterior to be constructed using 2" x 6" lumber. It's a 2000 sq
ft building with three full bathrooms and 4 bedrooms, and it uses no
more than 600 gallons of heating oil per year. Sans electric water
heater, my electric bill is never more than $100 for a given month (and
generally under $80), and that includes running the ceiling fans in
every room in warmer months. I also have one 10000 BTU air conditioner
in one upstairs window and I can maintain a comfortable 10 degree
reduction over outdoor temperatures throughout the house by managing the
air flow. Since it rarely gets above 90 degrees where I live, and I have
the ceiling fans to circulate air, that does nicely.
I didn't even have to try. I just made some informed decisions when I
built my home. That information was the result of listening to those who
have been studying global warming and energy consumption since the '70s.
When I tell people that I only use 600 gallons of oil per year to heat
my house, they don't believe me. Most of them are using that much in
just two months between January 1st and March 1st. The heating season
starts here in mid October, and ends in mid April. These folks are using
on the order of 1000 gallons.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 28, 2012, 6:43:15 AM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 3:11 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
You could try to be a bit more sure of what you say.
> > Is warming bad, now or soon ?
>
> In the medium term, but what we do now will affect how bad it will
> ultimately get. Trouble is that time horizon is too far away for
> politicians to be interested. All they ever care about is fund raising
> to get re-elected next year or the year after. Margaret Thatcher was an
> interesting exception (she trained as a chemist). Most of them though
> are lawyers and think that everything can be solved with clever words.
It's amazing how many 0bama bumper stickers one sees plastered on the
rear ends of some rather large vehicles.
> > What can be done about it ?
>
> Build more nuclear power plants and maximise energy efficiency.
Fukushima Daichi.
> Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
Most cars in Europe do NOT do anywhere near 50 MPG and the average
real-world MPG in the US is rather higher than 20 MPG. My vehicle
probably does better than the European average. Now, you may very
have a vehicle that does better, on diesel perhaps. However, it takes
more crude to make diesel and furthermore anyone who is a warmingista
should not be riding in cars anyway. They should instead walk, bike
or in the worst case take a bus or train.
> What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and
> prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the
> public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our
> generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence.
Do you drive a car? Or travel on planes?
> You can bet your bottom dollar that when the chickens come home to roost
> the politicians will *blame* scientists for not making clear to them
> what the consequences of business as usual would be.
When/if the "chickens come home to roost" there will be a different
crop of politicians anyway.
> We are stuck with the problem of an uneducated population who believe
> whatever bunch of lies the politicians tell them. The US situation is
> exceptionally bad in that AGW splits entirely on party political lines.
> And with a bipolar disorder that means both sides think the other is the
> spawn of satan. US politics is severely disfunctional.
Again, we get back to the odd phenomena of the 0bama bumper sticker.
But perhaps those driving around with them aren't warmingistas after
all...maybe they are UAW supporters hoping for another bailout from
0bama. Once we get out of the bad habit of voting for the likes of
0bama, Princess Pelozi and Harry What's-his-name, we will find out
that Republicans and conservatives (don't confuse the two) are the
true environmentalists.
wrote:
> On 27/06/2012 20:15, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>
> > In sci.astro.amateur message<jngju79rvajqnd21lidvhjkmnk47i29...@4ax.com
>
> >> , Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:14:13, Chris L Peterson<c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
> > posted:
>
> >> There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
> >> human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
> >> reports.
>
> > True, but irrelevant.
>
> > The real questions are :
> > Is it warming ?
>
> Yes. And by the looks of it accelerating - although not by as much as
> was first thought during the late 1980's and 90's when a ~60y periodic
> component contrived to make the rise from 1970 on look alarmingly steep.
>
> Don't forget that global warming isn't necessarily uniform. The UK could
> well revert to temperatures more appropriate to its latitude if in a
> warmer world the jet stream shifts or the Atlantic conveyor stalls.
You qualified your statements an average of three times per sentence.
> > posted:
>
> >> There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
> >> human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
> >> reports.
>
> > True, but irrelevant.
>
> > The real questions are :
> > Is it warming ?
>
> Yes. And by the looks of it accelerating - although not by as much as
> was first thought during the late 1980's and 90's when a ~60y periodic
> component contrived to make the rise from 1970 on look alarmingly steep.
>
> Don't forget that global warming isn't necessarily uniform. The UK could
> well revert to temperatures more appropriate to its latitude if in a
> warmer world the jet stream shifts or the Atlantic conveyor stalls.
You could try to be a bit more sure of what you say.
> > Is warming bad, now or soon ?
>
> In the medium term, but what we do now will affect how bad it will
> ultimately get. Trouble is that time horizon is too far away for
> politicians to be interested. All they ever care about is fund raising
> to get re-elected next year or the year after. Margaret Thatcher was an
> interesting exception (she trained as a chemist). Most of them though
> are lawyers and think that everything can be solved with clever words.
rear ends of some rather large vehicles.
> > What can be done about it ?
>
> Build more nuclear power plants and maximise energy efficiency.
> Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
real-world MPG in the US is rather higher than 20 MPG. My vehicle
probably does better than the European average. Now, you may very
have a vehicle that does better, on diesel perhaps. However, it takes
more crude to make diesel and furthermore anyone who is a warmingista
should not be riding in cars anyway. They should instead walk, bike
or in the worst case take a bus or train.
> What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and
> prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the
> public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our
> generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence.
> You can bet your bottom dollar that when the chickens come home to roost
> the politicians will *blame* scientists for not making clear to them
> what the consequences of business as usual would be.
crop of politicians anyway.
> We are stuck with the problem of an uneducated population who believe
> whatever bunch of lies the politicians tell them. The US situation is
> exceptionally bad in that AGW splits entirely on party political lines.
> And with a bipolar disorder that means both sides think the other is the
> spawn of satan. US politics is severely disfunctional.
But perhaps those driving around with them aren't warmingistas after
all...maybe they are UAW supporters hoping for another bailout from
0bama. Once we get out of the bad habit of voting for the likes of
0bama, Princess Pelozi and Harry What's-his-name, we will find out
that Republicans and conservatives (don't confuse the two) are the
true environmentalists.
Linus Das
Jun 28, 2012, 9:41:27 AM6/28/12
to
I am waiting for the Prius owners to chime in with "a lousy 50 mpg? Alexandria (my beautiful pink Prius) achieves 83.6 mpg." ;-))))))
Desertphile
Jun 28, 2012, 10:16:07 PM6/28/12
to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:20:00 -0700, Thad Floryan
<th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> Green ‘drivel’ exposed
> The godfather of global warming lowers
What the bloody fuck does "The godfather of global warming" mean?
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself." -- Desertphile
<th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> Green ‘drivel’ exposed
> The godfather of global warming lowers
What the bloody fuck does "The godfather of global warming" mean?
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself." -- Desertphile
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 29, 2012, 6:26:56 AM6/29/12
to
On Jun 28, 7:56 am, "Bob C." <bobinator2...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
fuels. As the number of electric cars increases, that percentage will
also increase, since most of the new generating capacity needed to
charge up the cars will likely burn coal.
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> A gallon of what? It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the
> dozens of electric car models now available...
Worldwide, over 40% of electric cars run on coal or other fossil
> > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> A gallon of what? It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the
> dozens of electric car models now available...
fuels. As the number of electric cars increases, that percentage will
also increase, since most of the new generating capacity needed to
charge up the cars will likely burn coal.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 29, 2012, 6:47:29 AM6/29/12
to
On Jun 28, 8:20 am, SteveP <smarshallp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 3:11 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> > On 27/06/2012 20:15, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> >> In sci.astro.amateur message<jngju79rvajqnd21lidvhjkmnk47i29...@4ax.com
> On 6/28/2012 3:11 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> > On 27/06/2012 20:15, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> >> The real questions are :
>
> >> What can be done about it ?
>
> > Build more nuclear power plants and maximise energy efficiency.
>
> > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> > What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and
> > prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the
> > public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our
> > generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence.
>
> Not only can you reduce your energy footprint easily, but it can be fun
> and _save you money_.
>
> I don't understand the reluctance.
>
> Even the largest of touring motorcycles get routinely > 40MPG. Scooters
> get 70MPG+ in the over 250cc class (plenty of power to get you 20 miles
> at 60MPH one way to work).
There are many small cars on the market that get 30-40 MPG, or 100+
>
> >> What can be done about it ?
>
> > Build more nuclear power plants and maximise energy efficiency.
>
> > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> > What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and
> > prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the
> > public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our
> > generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence.
>
> Not only can you reduce your energy footprint easily, but it can be fun
> and _save you money_.
>
> I don't understand the reluctance.
>
> Even the largest of touring motorcycles get routinely > 40MPG. Scooters
> get 70MPG+ in the over 250cc class (plenty of power to get you 20 miles
> at 60MPH one way to work).
PMPG when used to carpool.
> Motorcycling is not only fun, but it teaches
> self control, courtesy, and cooperation on the road.
drivers on the road, given how they speed, tailgate and weave through
traffic.
> People who drive
> cars but have never had to negotiate traffic on a motorcycle, by and
> large behave like bullies, petulant children, and are constantly putting
> their own interest above those of others (on the road),
> kind of like the
> current breed of U.S. republicans (<g>).
Democrats?
> The "me and mine first"
> attitude, and not paying enough attention to the immediate "environment"
> is what gets people injured.
their own fault.
> I've been wanting a commuter car that gets greater than 50MPG for
> decades.
used if you look.
> But it has to be cheap to purchase (like a motorcycle).
> This is
> where government intervention is a problem. Safety, means bloat when it
> comes to automobiles. We need a class of vehicle that is somewhere
> between a motorcycle and a 4 door sedan that is not required to have a
> bunch of heavyweight safety equipment. Something that is no more "safe"
> than a motorcycle, but is workable in inclement weather. Problem is,
> people who can't do without luxury on the road. Cripes man, we're
> talking about your daily commute of 20 to 25 miles one way. And, if
> you're commuting more than that, you should probably consider changing
> careers, or moving closer to work.
people.
> 2x6 home construction and heating with baseboard recirculated water in
> areas where heating is necessary has a HUGE impact on reducing oil and
> electricity consumption (small water pump vs. large fan). Add a water
> heating zone to the furnace and attach an 80 gallon super-store, and you
> reduce your electricity consumption even further. This is so underplayed
> in the Northeast U.S. (can't speak for elsewhere) that it's mind
> boggling. Also, installing ceiling fans in every room, and only using AC
> when outdoor temperatures demand it. Learn to live with indoor
> temperatures of 80 degrees in summer.
>
> When I had my new house built, I opted to spend the additional $2500 USD
> for the exterior to be constructed using 2" x 6" lumber. It's a 2000 sq
> ft building with three full bathrooms and 4 bedrooms, and it uses no
> more than 600 gallons of heating oil per year.
been more green.
> Sans electric water
> heater, my electric bill is never more than $100 for a given month (and
> generally under $80), and that includes running the ceiling fans in
> every room in warmer months.
maybe $100 or so during a couple of the warmest months.
> I also have one 10000 BTU air conditioner
> in one upstairs window and I can maintain a comfortable 10 degree
> reduction over outdoor temperatures throughout the house by managing the
> air flow. Since it rarely gets above 90 degrees where I live, and I have
> the ceiling fans to circulate air, that does nicely.
>
> I didn't even have to try. I just made some informed decisions when I
> built my home. That information was the result of listening to those who
> have been studying global warming and energy consumption since the '70s.
> When I tell people that I only use 600 gallons of oil per year to heat
> my house, they don't believe me. Most of them are using that much in
> just two months between January 1st and March 1st. The heating season
> starts here in mid October, and ends in mid April. These folks are using
> on the order of 1000 gallons.
carbon footprints.
Bob C.
Jun 29, 2012, 6:47:39 AM6/29/12
to
"Linus Das" <linu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:56:40 AM UTC, Bob C. wrote:
>
> > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
> >
> > A gallon of what? It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the
> > dozens of electric car models now available...
>
> That is rich coming from an Audi A8 owner! :-/
> I am waiting for the Prius owners to chime in with "a lousy 50 mpg? Alexandria
> (my beautiful pink Prius) achieves 83.6 mpg." ;-))))))
Bob C.
Jun 29, 2012, 6:48:50 AM6/29/12
to
car is charged by my home solar panels (yes, even in the UK on a cloudy day, the
panels supply 100% of my electricity and heating needs, and charge my car).
There are many charging points around the UK that are completely free; I've now
driven the LEAF over 3,000 km and not paid a single penny for electricity. The
electricity that supplies the charging point that I use the most (near Tebay, M6 J38)
is sourced from a nearby wind farm.
SteveP
Jun 29, 2012, 8:39:58 AM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/2012 6:47 AM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> All of you should move to warmer climates in order to reduce your
> carbon footprints.
>
"<queue the crickets>"
> All of you should move to warmer climates in order to reduce your
> carbon footprints.
>
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 7:48:07 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 28, 6:15 am, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> Whatever response mankind will give to AGW one cannot escape the fact
> that the response must come through politics of one kind or another.
No, each person can judge the merits of the arguments, observe what
steps others may or may not be taking and make decisions based on all
of that. "Politics," meaning taxes, penalties and regulations, need
not be involved at all.
> > > Science can only tell you what will happen if you
> > > do this or that, but it cannot decide what choice you actually
> should
> > > make. To make that choice requires politics, in particular when a
> > > large number of people are involved in the decision!
> > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach. This will
> > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they currently
> > have none.
>
> They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
> One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't **want**
> to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons.
Warmingistas don't seem to feel the need to reduce their footprints to
levels that would match what many skeptics already achieve.
> From an
> egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll probably
> die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
I would have no reason to feel "guilty" about my CO2 footprint, since
it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
> Those who have
> kids whom they care about will need to have a longer time perspective
> than that though.
Owl Bore has four kids. If everyone had that many kids, world
population would double every 30 years or so (assuming that all
offspring survived to young adulthood.) He flies around on private
planes and lives in large dwellings, complete with energy-guzzling
luxuries. Here's a clue for you: If he were not a warmingista, he
would still have a large CO2 footprint.
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:07:21 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 1:53 pm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:06:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> > > > Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of
> fossil
> > > > fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish
> instead to
> > > > make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they.
> > > That
> > > > is politics, pure and simple.
>
> > > Of course it's politics! The opposite (i.e. not making others
> > > reduce...) is also politics. No matter what choice you make it
> > > becomes politics.
> > If one leaves others alone and attends to one's own behavior that is
> > not politics. On the whole, "AGW" is only about grabbing power and
> > loot.
>
> Preaching isolationism is ***definitely*** one kind of politics!
Not at all.
> > On Jun 27, 1:53 pm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:06:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> > > > Warmingistas certainly can have control over their own use of
> fossil
> > > > fuels, yet make only token gestures, at best. They wish
> instead to
> > > > make _others_ reduce, even those who already use less than they.
> > > That
> > > > is politics, pure and simple.
>
> > > Of course it's politics! The opposite (i.e. not making others
> > > reduce...) is also politics. No matter what choice you make it
> > > becomes politics.
> > If one leaves others alone and attends to one's own behavior that is
> > not politics. On the whole, "AGW" is only about grabbing power and
> > loot.
>
> Preaching isolationism is ***definitely*** one kind of politics!
> Whatever response mankind will give to AGW one cannot escape the fact
> that the response must come through politics of one kind or another.
steps others may or may not be taking and make decisions based on all
of that. "Politics," meaning taxes, penalties and regulations, need
not be involved at all.
> > > Science can only tell you what will happen if you
> > > do this or that, but it cannot decide what choice you actually
> should
> > > make. To make that choice requires politics, in particular when a
> > > large number of people are involved in the decision!
> > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach. This will
> > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they currently
> > have none.
>
> They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't **want**
> to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons.
levels that would match what many skeptics already achieve.
> From an
> egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll probably
> die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
> Those who have
> kids whom they care about will need to have a longer time perspective
> than that though.
population would double every 30 years or so (assuming that all
offspring survived to young adulthood.) He flies around on private
planes and lives in large dwellings, complete with energy-guzzling
luxuries. Here's a clue for you: If he were not a warmingista, he
would still have a large CO2 footprint.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 8:00:55 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 6:47 am, "Bob C." <bobinator2...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
the road somewhere, destroying the planet. If you bought it new (or
nearly new,) shame on you.
> "Linus Das" <linus_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:56:40 AM UTC, Bob C. wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:56:40 AM UTC, Bob C. wrote:
>
> > > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> > > A gallon of what? It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the
> > > dozens of electric car models now available...
>
> > That is rich coming from an Audi A8 owner! :-/
>
> I sold the 17-mpg A8 a while ago; I now drive a Nissan LEAF plug-in electric car.
Sold the A8? You should have had it scrapped...it is likely still on
>
> > > > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> > > A gallon of what? It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the
> > > dozens of electric car models now available...
>
> > That is rich coming from an Audi A8 owner! :-/
>
> I sold the 17-mpg A8 a while ago; I now drive a Nissan LEAF plug-in electric car.
the road somewhere, destroying the planet. If you bought it new (or
nearly new,) shame on you.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 8:13:00 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 6:48 am, "Bob C." <bobinator2...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
maybe 1% of most countries' current needs. After that the choice is
food or fuel.
> My Nissan LEAF electric
> car is charged by my home solar panels (yes, even in the UK on a cloudy day, the
> panels supply 100% of my electricity and heating needs, and charge my car).
So your apartment manager lets you put up solar panels!? If they are
keeping your apartment heated in winter then you must have them not
only on the roof but out in the yard too!
> There are many charging points around the UK that are completely free;
ROTFLMAO! _SOMEONE_ (but maybe not you) is PAYING for them!
> I've now
> driven the LEAF over 3,000 km and not paid a single penny for electricity.
Can everyone get that sort of deal?
> The
> electricity that supplies the charging point that I use the most (near Tebay, M6 J38)
> is sourced from a nearby wind farm.
If that charging point is connected to a fossil fuel powered grid,
then you CANNOT say that charging point's electricity comes only from
nearby windmills.
> <wsnel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 7:56 am, "Bob C." <bobinator2...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> > > A gallon of what? It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the
> > > dozens of electric car models now available...
>
> > Worldwide, over 40% of electric cars run on coal or other fossil
> > fuels. As the number of electric cars increases, that percentage will
> > also increase, since most of the new generating capacity needed to
> > charge up the cars will likely burn coal.
>
> I dunno. I've found renewable sources are easy to find.
Lufthansa ran out of bio jet fuel. Recycled cooking oil can supply
> > On Jun 28, 7:56 am, "Bob C." <bobinator2...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Plenty of cars can do 50+ mpg (except in America where 20 is the norm).
>
> > > A gallon of what? It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the
> > > dozens of electric car models now available...
>
> > Worldwide, over 40% of electric cars run on coal or other fossil
> > fuels. As the number of electric cars increases, that percentage will
> > also increase, since most of the new generating capacity needed to
> > charge up the cars will likely burn coal.
>
> I dunno. I've found renewable sources are easy to find.
maybe 1% of most countries' current needs. After that the choice is
food or fuel.
> My Nissan LEAF electric
> car is charged by my home solar panels (yes, even in the UK on a cloudy day, the
> panels supply 100% of my electricity and heating needs, and charge my car).
keeping your apartment heated in winter then you must have them not
only on the roof but out in the yard too!
> There are many charging points around the UK that are completely free;
> I've now
> driven the LEAF over 3,000 km and not paid a single penny for electricity.
> The
> electricity that supplies the charging point that I use the most (near Tebay, M6 J38)
> is sourced from a nearby wind farm.
then you CANNOT say that charging point's electricity comes only from
nearby windmills.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 8:23:30 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 8:39 am, SteveP <smarshallp...@gmail.com> wrote:
You said that your house is 2000 square feet and uses 600 gallons of
oil per winter. What carbon-footprint reducing advice do you dare
offer to someone who gets by with less than half that amount of
energy? Or what would you dare to say to someone who lives in 800
square feet (and has a proportionately lower energy use?)
Now, queue the crickets, once again.
> On 6/29/2012 6:47 AM, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > All of you should move to warmer climates in order to reduce your
> > carbon footprints.
>
> "<queue the crickets>"
Of course we can hear the crickets.. YOU have no response.
>
> > All of you should move to warmer climates in order to reduce your
> > carbon footprints.
>
> "<queue the crickets>"
You said that your house is 2000 square feet and uses 600 gallons of
oil per winter. What carbon-footprint reducing advice do you dare
offer to someone who gets by with less than half that amount of
energy? Or what would you dare to say to someone who lives in 800
square feet (and has a proportionately lower energy use?)
Now, queue the crickets, once again.
Paul Schlyter
Jun 30, 2012, 8:49:54 AM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach. This
will
> > > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they
currently
> > > have none.
> > They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
True - and that implies you don't have any credibility.
> > > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach. This
will
> > > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they
currently
> > > have none.
> > They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
> > One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't
**want**
> > to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons.
> Warmingistas don't seem to feel the need to reduce their footprints
to
> levels that would match what many skeptics already achieve.
awhile....
> > From an
> > egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll
probably
> > die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
> I would have no reason to feel "guilty" about my CO2 footprint,
since
> it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
an equally large footprints.
> > Those who have
> > kids whom they care about will need to have a longer time
perspective
> > than that though.
> Owl Bore has four kids. If everyone had that many kids, world
> population would double every 30 years or so (assuming that all
> offspring survived to young adulthood.) He flies around on private
> planes and lives in large dwellings, complete with energy-guzzling
> luxuries. Here's a clue for you: If he were not a warmingista, he
> would still have a large CO2 footprint.
particular individual does, what matters is what the large masses of
people do.
From your logic one can defend even murder: just point to some
prominent killer who perhaps even has succeeded in evading justice,
and say "if he kills, why shouldn't I be allowed to kill???"
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 9:38:41 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 8:49 am, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > > One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't
> **want**
> > > to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons.
> > Warmingistas don't seem to feel the need to reduce their footprints
> to
> > levels that would match what many skeptics already achieve.
>
> If so, why don't they too become deniers? Think about that for
> awhile....
A better question for you to think about (if possible) is "Why don't
the warmingistas practice what they preach?"
Why should a warmingista have a swimming pool if not for
"comfortability?"
> > > From an
> > > egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll
> probably
> > > die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
> > I would have no reason to feel "guilty" about my CO2 footprint,
> since
> > it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
>
> It's far too high to be sustainable if everyone on Earth would have
> an equally large footprints.
Your carbon footprint is unsustainable, according to what you seem to
believe.
> > > Those who have
> > > kids whom they care about will need to have a longer time
> perspective
> > > than that though.
> > Owl Bore has four kids. If everyone had that many kids, world
> > population would double every 30 years or so (assuming that all
> > offspring survived to young adulthood.) He flies around on private
> > planes and lives in large dwellings, complete with energy-guzzling
> > luxuries. Here's a clue for you: If he were not a warmingista, he
> > would still have a large CO2 footprint.
>
> You miss the important point here: what matters is not what one
> particular individual does, what matters is what the large masses of
> people do.
The individuals who want something to be done by others must first set
a good example themselves, yet by and large they do not. So instead
they will attempt to force others to do what they themselves will not.
> From your logic one can defend even murder: just point to some
> prominent killer who perhaps even has succeeded in evading justice,
> and say "if he kills, why shouldn't I be allowed to kill???"
It would be good if you were to learn at least something about logic
before bloviating on this forum.
If someone murders, he is violating the natural rights of another. We
punish that behavior whenever possible.
Most people do not want to murder others in any case, and would never
even have cause to use the fact that someone else got away with murder
as an excuse.
You seem to be saying that someone who is a skeptic needs to justify
his CO2 emissions, not matter how small, whereas a TRUE BELIEVER can
do whatever he wants.
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach. This
> will
> > > > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they
> currently
> > > > have none.
> > > They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> > A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
>
> True - and that implies you don't have any credibility.
How am I a hypocrite?
> > > > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach. This
> will
> > > > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they
> currently
> > > > have none.
> > > They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> > A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
>
> True - and that implies you don't have any credibility.
> > > One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't
> **want**
> > > to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons.
> > Warmingistas don't seem to feel the need to reduce their footprints
> to
> > levels that would match what many skeptics already achieve.
>
> If so, why don't they too become deniers? Think about that for
> awhile....
the warmingistas practice what they preach?"
Why should a warmingista have a swimming pool if not for
"comfortability?"
> > > From an
> > > egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll
> probably
> > > die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
> > I would have no reason to feel "guilty" about my CO2 footprint,
> since
> > it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
>
> It's far too high to be sustainable if everyone on Earth would have
> an equally large footprints.
believe.
> > > Those who have
> > > kids whom they care about will need to have a longer time
> perspective
> > > than that though.
> > Owl Bore has four kids. If everyone had that many kids, world
> > population would double every 30 years or so (assuming that all
> > offspring survived to young adulthood.) He flies around on private
> > planes and lives in large dwellings, complete with energy-guzzling
> > luxuries. Here's a clue for you: If he were not a warmingista, he
> > would still have a large CO2 footprint.
>
> You miss the important point here: what matters is not what one
> particular individual does, what matters is what the large masses of
> people do.
a good example themselves, yet by and large they do not. So instead
they will attempt to force others to do what they themselves will not.
> From your logic one can defend even murder: just point to some
> prominent killer who perhaps even has succeeded in evading justice,
> and say "if he kills, why shouldn't I be allowed to kill???"
before bloviating on this forum.
If someone murders, he is violating the natural rights of another. We
punish that behavior whenever possible.
Most people do not want to murder others in any case, and would never
even have cause to use the fact that someone else got away with murder
as an excuse.
You seem to be saying that someone who is a skeptic needs to justify
his CO2 emissions, not matter how small, whereas a TRUE BELIEVER can
do whatever he wants.
David Staup
Jun 30, 2012, 9:55:28 AM6/30/12
to
"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.3090...@individual.net...
period....look at the explosion of plant and animal and insect
life......warmer climate, higher (18X higher) CO2, higher oxygen content.
The most productive period in the history of the planet....
JOIN me
take plastic over paper and burn them
breath a lot
buy an electric car...which due to transmission losses actually creates MORE
CO2
Mulch...rotting produces more CO2 than burning
Together we can turn this planet into the garden it once was!
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 10:30:45 AM6/30/12
to
utilize O2 very efficiently.
> buy an electric car...which due to transmission losses actually creates MORE
> CO2
FREE! If you don't believe that, look at Bob C's post from 6-29-2012,
6:48 am.
> Mulch...rotting produces more CO2 than burning
> Together we can turn this planet into the garden it once was!
Paul Schlyter
Jun 30, 2012, 11:45:26 AM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:55:28 -0500, "David Staup"
<dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> such fools you are.....look at the CO2 levels during the
carboniferous
> period....look at the explosion of plant and animal and insect
> life......warmer climate, higher (18X higher) CO2, higher oxygen
content.
> The most productive period in the history of the planet....
Do you really want those insects back?
<dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> such fools you are.....look at the CO2 levels during the
carboniferous
> period....look at the explosion of plant and animal and insect
> life......warmer climate, higher (18X higher) CO2, higher oxygen
content.
> The most productive period in the history of the planet....
The Carbon era surely had a lot of life, but we wouldn't lile such an
environment. But in one way you're right: life on Earth will flouriah
even if we vanish.
Paul Schlyter
Jun 30, 2012, 12:02:16 PM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:38:41 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 30, 8:49 am, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach.
This
> > will
> > > > > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they
> > currently
> > > > > have none.
> > > > They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> > > A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
> >
> > True - and that implies you don't have any credibility.
> How am I a hypocrite?
Perhaps you're merely ignorant...
> On Jun 30, 8:49 am, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach.
This
> > will
> > > > > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they
> > currently
> > > > > have none.
> > > > They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> > > A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
> >
> > True - and that implies you don't have any credibility.
> How am I a hypocrite?
> > > > One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't
> > **want**
> > > > to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons.
> > > Warmingistas don't seem to feel the need to reduce their
footprints
> > to
> > > levels that would match what many skeptics already achieve.
> >
> > If so, why don't they too become deniers? Think about that for
> > awhile....
> A better question for you to think about (if possible) is "Why
don't
> the warmingistas practice what they preach?"
like Al Gore so why do you choose him of all as your example?
> Why should a warmingista have a swimming pool if not for
> "comfortability?"
pools!!! Your examples are very very biased.
> > > > From an
> > > > egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll
> > probably
> > > > die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
> > > I would have no reason to feel "guilty" about my CO2 footprint,
> > since
> > > it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
> >
> > It's far too high to be sustainable if everyone on Earth would
have
> > an equally large footprints.
> Your carbon footprint is unsustainable, according to what you seem
to
> believe.
> > > > Those who have
> > > > kids whom they care about will need to have a longer time
> > perspective
> > > > than that though.
> > > Owl Bore has four kids. If everyone had that many kids, world
> > > population would double every 30 years or so (assuming that all
> > > offspring survived to young adulthood.) He flies around on
private
> > > planes and lives in large dwellings, complete with
energy-guzzling
> > > luxuries. Here's a clue for you: If he were not a
> e
> > > would still have a large CO2 footprint.
> >
> > You miss the important point here: what matters is not what one
> > particular individual does, what matters is what the large masses
of
> > people do.
> The individuals who want something to be done by others must first
set
> a good example themselves, yet by and large they do not. So instead
> they will attempt to force others to do what they themselves will
not.
A few of them, like Al Gore, don't, and you love to pick those few as
> > > would still have a large CO2 footprint.
> >
> > You miss the important point here: what matters is not what one
> > particular individual does, what matters is what the large masses
of
> > people do.
> The individuals who want something to be done by others must first
set
> a good example themselves, yet by and large they do not. So instead
> they will attempt to force others to do what they themselves will
not.
your examples. Is this due to ignorance or hypocricy?
> > From your logic one can defend even murder: just point to some
> > prominent killer who perhaps even has succeeded in evading
justice,
> > and say "if he kills, why shouldn't I be allowed to kill???"
> It would be good if you were to learn at least something about logic
> before bloviating on this forum.
> If someone murders, he is violating the natural rights of another.
We
> punish that behavior whenever possible.
creatures kill all the time. And humans do too, e.g. in war, when
hunting, or in our slaughteries.
> Most people do not want to murder others in any case, and would
never
> even have cause to use the fact that someone else got away with
murder
> as an excuse.
CO2 footprint? If others behave badly, that's no good excuse for
behaving badly too. So stop trying to follow the example of Al
Gore!!i
> You seem to be saying that someone who is a skeptic needs to justify
> his CO2 emissions, not matter how small, whereas a TRUE BELIEVER can
> do whatever he wants.
claim by quotes from what I actually said. And note that your
misinterpretations is not what I said.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 12:10:12 PM6/30/12
to
Of course, it's too late for Owl Bore (and other warmingistas) to
participate. Yet there are still other steps that he (and you) can
take.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 12:30:45 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 12:02 pm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > > > > One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't
> > > **want**
> > > > > to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons.
> > > > Warmingistas don't seem to feel the need to reduce their
> footprints
> > > to
> > > > levels that would match what many skeptics already achieve.
>
> > > If so, why don't they too become deniers? Think about that for
> > > awhile....
> > A better question for you to think about (if possible) is "Why
> don't
> > the warmingistas practice what they preach?"
>
> A lot of them practice what they preach.
No, most of them do NOT. What planet do you live on, anyway?
> Only a small minority live
> like Al Gore so why do you choose him of all as your example?
One big reason is that those who fancy themselves as green paid to see
his "movie," paid to hear him speak, gave him awards and prizes...
> > Why should a warmingista have a swimming pool if not for
> > "comfortability?"
>
> The vast majority of the "warmingistas" do not have private swimming
> pools!!! Your examples are very very biased.
Many of them do, you can be sure of it. That any of them do works to
prove my point.
> > > > > From an
> > > > > egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll
> > > probably
> > > > > die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
> > > > I would have no reason to feel "guilty" about my CO2 footprint,
> > > since
> > > > it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
>
> > > It's far too high to be sustainable if everyone on Earth would
> have
> > > an equally large footprints.
> > Your carbon footprint is unsustainable, according to what you seem
> to
> > believe.
>
> ....and my footprint is probably smaller than yours....
You probably have not taken into account the CO2 that is formed on
your behalf. Besides, you almost certainly are far worse than the
average world citizen. For one thing, you are enjoying a carbon
intensive infrastructure (Internet) not generally available or
affordable to much of the world. The policies that you would want to
have enacted would harm many of them and more so than you.
You said yourself that "politics" would be needed to solve the
"problem" did you not?
And, Owl Bore most certainly would support legislation (with loopholes
of course.)
> > > From your logic one can defend even murder: just point to some
> > > prominent killer who perhaps even has succeeded in evading
> justice,
> > > and say "if he kills, why shouldn't I be allowed to kill???"
> > It would be good if you were to learn at least something about logic
> > before bloviating on this forum.
> > If someone murders, he is violating the natural rights of another.
> We
> > punish that behavior whenever possible.
>
> You confuse human rights with natural rights. In natural wildlife
> creatures kill all the time. And humans do too, e.g. in war, when
> hunting, or in our slaughteries.
We do not tolerate humans murdering innocent humans. That is because
we are humans. Maybe you aren't?
> > Most people do not want to murder others in any case, and would
> never
> > even have cause to use the fact that someone else got away with
> murder
> > as an excuse.
>
> Good, really good!!! Now why not try to apply the same logic to your
> CO2 footprint? If others behave badly, that's no good excuse for
> behaving badly too. So stop trying to follow the example of Al
> Gore!!i
I am not following his or your examples wrt CO2 emissions, nor am I
following his or your tactics wrt forcing others to do what you do
not.
> > You seem to be saying that someone who is a skeptic needs to justify
> > his CO2 emissions, not matter how small, whereas a TRUE BELIEVER can
> > do whatever he wants.
>
> I never ever said that!! If you want to claim I did, support your
> claim by quotes from what I actually said. And note that your
> misinterpretations is not what I said.
That's pretty much what you implied. You criticize skeptics and label
them as deniers even when they actually are contributing less to the
perceived problem than the much more vocal, obnoxious and hypocritical
believers. Yours is an irrational viewpoint.
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:38:41 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 8:49 am, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> > > > > > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach.
> This
> > > will
> > > > > > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they
> > > currently
> > > > > > have none.
> > > > > They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> > > > A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
>
> > > True - and that implies you don't have any credibility.
> > How am I a hypocrite?
>
> Perhaps you're merely ignorant...
If you think I am being a hypocrite then you need to show how.
> > On Jun 30, 8:49 am, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> > > > > > The warmingistas can begin by practicing what they preach.
> This
> > > will
> > > > > > give them some small amount of credibility, of which they
> > > currently
> > > > > > have none.
> > > > > They actually do to a larger extent than the deniers.
> > > > A hypocrite simply has no credibility. Period.
>
> > > True - and that implies you don't have any credibility.
> > How am I a hypocrite?
>
> Perhaps you're merely ignorant...
> > > > > One strong motivation for being a denier is that you don't
> > > **want**
> > > > > to reduce your CO2 footprint for comfortability reasons.
> > > > Warmingistas don't seem to feel the need to reduce their
> footprints
> > > to
> > > > levels that would match what many skeptics already achieve.
>
> > > If so, why don't they too become deniers? Think about that for
> > > awhile....
> > A better question for you to think about (if possible) is "Why
> don't
> > the warmingistas practice what they preach?"
>
> A lot of them practice what they preach.
> Only a small minority live
> like Al Gore so why do you choose him of all as your example?
his "movie," paid to hear him speak, gave him awards and prizes...
> > Why should a warmingista have a swimming pool if not for
> > "comfortability?"
>
> The vast majority of the "warmingistas" do not have private swimming
> pools!!! Your examples are very very biased.
prove my point.
> > > > > From an
> > > > > egotistical perspective this works quite well because you'll
> > > probably
> > > > > die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
> > > > I would have no reason to feel "guilty" about my CO2 footprint,
> > > since
> > > > it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
>
> > > It's far too high to be sustainable if everyone on Earth would
> have
> > > an equally large footprints.
> > Your carbon footprint is unsustainable, according to what you seem
> to
> > believe.
>
> ....and my footprint is probably smaller than yours....
your behalf. Besides, you almost certainly are far worse than the
average world citizen. For one thing, you are enjoying a carbon
intensive infrastructure (Internet) not generally available or
affordable to much of the world. The policies that you would want to
have enacted would harm many of them and more so than you.
"problem" did you not?
And, Owl Bore most certainly would support legislation (with loopholes
of course.)
> > > From your logic one can defend even murder: just point to some
> > > prominent killer who perhaps even has succeeded in evading
> justice,
> > > and say "if he kills, why shouldn't I be allowed to kill???"
> > It would be good if you were to learn at least something about logic
> > before bloviating on this forum.
> > If someone murders, he is violating the natural rights of another.
> We
> > punish that behavior whenever possible.
>
> You confuse human rights with natural rights. In natural wildlife
> creatures kill all the time. And humans do too, e.g. in war, when
> hunting, or in our slaughteries.
we are humans. Maybe you aren't?
> > Most people do not want to murder others in any case, and would
> never
> > even have cause to use the fact that someone else got away with
> murder
> > as an excuse.
>
> Good, really good!!! Now why not try to apply the same logic to your
> CO2 footprint? If others behave badly, that's no good excuse for
> behaving badly too. So stop trying to follow the example of Al
> Gore!!i
following his or your tactics wrt forcing others to do what you do
not.
> > You seem to be saying that someone who is a skeptic needs to justify
> > his CO2 emissions, not matter how small, whereas a TRUE BELIEVER can
> > do whatever he wants.
>
> I never ever said that!! If you want to claim I did, support your
> claim by quotes from what I actually said. And note that your
> misinterpretations is not what I said.
them as deniers even when they actually are contributing less to the
perceived problem than the much more vocal, obnoxious and hypocritical
believers. Yours is an irrational viewpoint.
Chris L Peterson
Jun 30, 2012, 1:01:49 PM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:45:26 +0200, Paul Schlyter
<pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
>The Carbon era surely had a lot of life, but we wouldn't lile such an
>environment. But in one way you're right: life on Earth will flouriah
>even if we vanish.
We don't know that life was more diverse during that period. And while
<pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
>The Carbon era surely had a lot of life, but we wouldn't lile such an
>environment. But in one way you're right: life on Earth will flouriah
>even if we vanish.
it's true that life will do fine in the long run, it definitely runs
through cycles of greater and fewer species, and larger and smaller
populations. We're currently in the middle of one of the great
extinction events that have occurred over the last billion years, and
that is largely due to human activity- and most recently, global
warming has become a significant component.
At the moment, life isn't doing well at all. And more personally, most
of the consequences of AGW are very harmful to humans and human
society.
Paul Schlyter
Jun 30, 2012, 2:12:36 PM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:01:49 -0600, Chris L Peterson
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> We don't know that life was more diverse during that period. And
while
> it's true that life will do fine in the long run, it definitely runs
> through cycles of greater and fewer species, and larger and smaller
> populations. We're currently in the middle of one of the great
> extinction events that have occurred over the last billion years,
and
> that is largely due to human activity- and most recently, global
> warming has become a significant component.
I don't think humans have been around for any signiificant fraction
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> We don't know that life was more diverse during that period. And
while
> it's true that life will do fine in the long run, it definitely runs
> through cycles of greater and fewer species, and larger and smaller
> populations. We're currently in the middle of one of the great
> extinction events that have occurred over the last billion years,
and
> that is largely due to human activity- and most recently, global
> warming has become a significant component.
of that last billion years -- perhaps you meant a million years?
> At the moment, life isn't doing well at all. And more personally,
most
> of the consequences of AGW are very harmful to humans and human
> society.
many of the present humans think they can ignore it.
bjacoby
Jun 30, 2012, 2:43:36 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/2012 8:13 AM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> My Nissan LEAF electric
>> car is charged by my home solar panels (yes, even in the UK on a cloudy day, the
>> panels supply 100% of my electricity and heating needs, and charge my car).
>
> So your apartment manager lets you put up solar panels!? If they are
> keeping your apartment heated in winter then you must have them not
> only on the roof but out in the yard too!
>
>> There are many charging points around the UK that are completely free;
>
> ROTFLMAO! _SOMEONE_ (but maybe not you) is PAYING for them!
This is just nonsense. I happen to OWN solar panels. The only way the
>> My Nissan LEAF electric
>> car is charged by my home solar panels (yes, even in the UK on a cloudy day, the
>> panels supply 100% of my electricity and heating needs, and charge my car).
>
> So your apartment manager lets you put up solar panels!? If they are
> keeping your apartment heated in winter then you must have them not
> only on the roof but out in the yard too!
>
>> There are many charging points around the UK that are completely free;
>
> ROTFLMAO! _SOMEONE_ (but maybe not you) is PAYING for them!
above statments could be true if ACRES were covered in them. And then
ask how much those panels cost and how much pollution it produced to
build them?
Solar panels on a car are simply Pie in the Sky nonsense lies.
You are hard pressed to get enough solar power to run a washing machine
let alone a car. That takes some serious energy. "quantity" is a foreign
concept to greenies...
Bottom line is that solar panels are great for running a radio or
thermometer or garden light out in the middle of nowhere. As a real
solution to replacing fossil fuels, it's all just made up stories.
Paul Schlyter
Jun 30, 2012, 2:43:08 PM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:10:12 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.vhemt.org/
> Of course, it's too late for Owl Bore (and other warmingistas) to
> participate. Yet there are still other steps that he (and you) can
> take.
...and you too. You're a human, aren't you?
> http://www.vhemt.org/
> Of course, it's too late for Owl Bore (and other warmingistas) to
> participate. Yet there are still other steps that he (and you) can
> take.
Btw, humans are a species, not a race....
Chris L Peterson
Jun 30, 2012, 2:48:16 PM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:12:36 +0200, Paul Schlyter
<pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
>I don't think humans have been around for any signiificant fraction
>of that last billion years -- perhaps you meant a million years?
There have been several major extinction events over the last billion
<pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
>I don't think humans have been around for any signiificant fraction
>of that last billion years -- perhaps you meant a million years?
years, with the most recent being the one we're currently in. The
_current_ extinction event (sometimes called the Quaternary extinction
event, but increasingly the Anthropocene extinction event) is
primarily due to human activity- of which global warming is one
component.
>It'll be most harmful to future humans and human society. That's why
>many of the present humans think they can ignore it.
century or more. It's sorry, though perhaps understandable, that many
people don't identify much with distant future generations. But it's
truly appalling the number of people currently willing to throw their
children and grandchildren under the bus.
oriel36
Jun 30, 2012, 2:58:17 PM6/30/12
to
than in the once great disciplines of science.It is you and your
colleagues which positively refuse to accept that the Earth turns a
certain number of times it completes four circuits around the Sun and
what is more relevant than the fact that this is a matter of stopping
immediately,looking at the details and providing a stable foundation
on which to build a proper explanation which designates the Earth's
climate as largely equatorial in contrast to the polar climate of
Uranus or any number of new approaches to planetary dynamics and
terrestrial effects.
You appeal to future generations while the present generation suffers
greatly from as much as the silence surrounding the noble discipline
of astronomy as it does the aggressive modelers who have no
compunction to promote conclusions and select inputs which they choose
to support their conclusion - in this case human control over the
planet's temperature.
However loud and crude you shout across at each other,I will stand my
ground for those future generations who may have a chance to reason
things out properly instead of this disgusting generation who do
nothing apart from what is lucrative - schoolboys with lifestyles to
protect.
The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times for the equivalent 4
orbital circuits - anyone who disputes this is an enemy of mankind.
Paul Schlyter
Jun 30, 2012, 3:20:36 PM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:30:45 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > A lot of them practice what they preach.
> No, most of them do NOT. What planet do you live on, anyway?
Earth - that major part of the Earth which is outside the US and
> > A lot of them practice what they preach.
> No, most of them do NOT. What planet do you live on, anyway?
which most americans hardly knows exists.....
> > Only a small minority live
> > like Al Gore so why do you choose him of all as your example?
> One big reason is that those who fancy themselves as green paid to
see
> his "movie," paid to hear him speak, gave him awards and prizes...
Well, Gore should be given credit for having brought AGW to the
attention to people in general. Before Gore, hardly anyone except the
specialists knew about AGW at all. But Gore is of course not a
scientist.
> > > Why should a warmingista have a swimming pool if not for
> > > "comfortability?"
> > The vast majority of the "warmingistas" do not have private
swimming
> > pools!!! Your examples are very very biased.
> Many of them do, you can be sure of it. That any of them do works
to
> prove my point.
are much less common. And if you consider one single example a
"proof", then you can "prove" almost anything - just find that single
example which "proves your point" and ignore anything else.
> > > > > > From an
> > > > > > egotistical perspective this works quite well because
you'll
> > > > probably
> > > > > > die before the effects from AGW becomes too severe.
> > > > > I would have no reason to feel "guilty" about my CO2
footprint,
> > > > since
> > > > > it is certainly no higher than that of most warmingistas.
> > > > It's far too high to be sustainable if everyone on Earth would
> > have
> > > > an equally large footprints.
> > > Your carbon footprint is unsustainable, according to what you
seem
> > to believe.
> > ....and my footprint is probably smaller than yours....
> You probably have not taken into account the CO2 that is formed on
> your behalf. Besides, you almost certainly are far worse than the
> average world citizen. For one thing, you are enjoying a carbon
> intensive infrastructure (Internet) not generally available or
> affordable to much of the world. The policies that you would want to
> have enacted would harm many of them and more so than you.
an american and I'm not. And the USA is the country with the biggest
CO2 footprint per citizen in the world. If you could cut down your
CO2 footprint per citizen to Swedish levels, a lot would be gained.
Btw the Internet is nowadays available to a majority of the world's
population. When poor countries expand their telephone networks they
usually skip wired telephones and go directly to cell phones, which
nowadays are really cheap (except the high end models). And once you
have a cell phone, you also have Internet access.
decision.of business as usual i.e. ignoring the matter) is a
political decision. That's the very definition of politics: deciding
what society actually should choose to do among all things society
could do.
> And, Owl Bore most certainly would support legislation (with
loopholes
> of course.)
part (bginging AGW to the attention of the masses) and I don't think
he'll have much influence on our actions in the future. Btw, it seems
like you didn't know at all about AGW before Gore brought it up - is
that so?
> > > > From your logic one can defend even murder: just point to some
> > > > prominent killer who perhaps even has succeeded in evading
> > justice,
> > > > and say "if he kills, why shouldn't I be allowed to kill???"
> > > It would be good if you were to learn at least something about
logic
> > > before bloviating on this forum.
> > > If someone murders, he is violating the natural rights of
another.
> > We
> > > punish that behavior whenever possible.
> > You confuse human rights with natural rights. In natural wildlife
> > creatures kill all the time. And humans do too, e.g. in war, when
> > hunting, or in our slaughteries.
> We do not tolerate humans murdering innocent humans. That is
because
> we are humans. Maybe you aren't?
killing is war, and Capital Punishment. Soldiers killing innocent
prople in war is tolerated far too often. Sometimes innocent people
have been executed by the justice system, and later when that error
has been revealed the reaction has been "oops, a mistake, we're
sorry" but not much more. That's why Capital Punishment is
unacceptable in a democracy: if done in error it cannot be undone.
And errors do happen, we cannot completely eliminate them.
> > > Most people do not want to murder others in any case, and would
> > never
> > > even have cause to use the fact that someone else got away with
> > murder as an excuse.
> > Good, really good!!! Now why not try to apply the same logic to
your
> > CO2 footprint? If others behave badly, that's no good excuse for
> > behaving badly too. So stop trying to follow the example of Al
> > Gore!!i
> I am not following his or your examples wrt CO2 emissions, nor am I
> following his or your tactics wrt forcing others to do what you do
> not.
> > > You seem to be saying that someone who is a skeptic needs to
justify
> > > his CO2 emissions, not matter how small, whereas a TRUE
BELIEVER can
> > > do whatever he wants.
> > I never ever said that!! If you want to claim I did, support your
> > claim by quotes from what I actually said. And note that your
> > misinterpretations is not what I said.
> That's pretty much what you implied. You criticize skeptics and
label
> them as deniers even when they actually are contributing less to the
> perceived problem than the much more vocal, obnoxious and
hypocritical
> believers. Yours is an irrational viewpoint.
However, if you contribute more to the problem and are unwilling to
change that, then you have personal reasons to deny the problem, at
least in the short run. In the long run things will be different, but
perhaps you count on dying before that happens.
Bob C.
Jun 30, 2012, 4:19:17 PM6/30/12
to
SteveP
Jun 30, 2012, 4:30:26 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/2012 2:43 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> Bottom line is that solar panels are great for running a radio or
> thermometer or garden light out in the middle of nowhere. As a real
> solution to replacing fossil fuels, it's all just made up stories.
I read an article somewhere about a guy who used solar panels to charge
> Bottom line is that solar panels are great for running a radio or
> thermometer or garden light out in the middle of nowhere. As a real
> solution to replacing fossil fuels, it's all just made up stories.
the batteries required to operate his remote observatory.
Not to go on topic or anything.
Steve Paul
SteveP
Jun 30, 2012, 5:00:06 PM6/30/12
to
On 6/30/2012 8:23 AM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> You said that your house is 2000 square feet and uses 600 gallons of
> oil per winter.
No, I said I reduced my fuel oil consumption to 600 gallons per year,
> You said that your house is 2000 square feet and uses 600 gallons of
> oil per winter.
and I explained that I did so using 2x6 exterior construction, and
forced water baseboard heat. Which is a deviation from standard building
practice, locally.
What you also don't know, is that my previous house was 1350 square
feet, and it was an energy pig, consuming more than 900 gallons per year
(heating months only) and the blower on the air circulator, plus the
power vent on the furnace exhaust would double my electric bill during
the heating months (from $65 to $130)... in the years 1996 to 2003.
You're requirement that I move, is ludicrous, and totally kills any
credibility you had. Hence I queued the crickets. What did you think I
was going to say to that? It's just stupid logic.
And, since I'm not even feigning to be friends with you in real life,
I'm done with you. You're a jackass. Rather than give credit where
credit is due, you claim it's not enough.
Go pick on Al Gore.
palsing
Jun 30, 2012, 6:05:57 PM6/30/12
to
On Saturday, June 30, 2012 11:58:17 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
>
> The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times for the equivalent 4
> orbital circuits - anyone who disputes this is an enemy of mankind.
Absolutely true, with respect to the sun. I sure don't want to be an enemy of mankind.
>
> The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times for the equivalent 4
> orbital circuits - anyone who disputes this is an enemy of mankind.
It is also true that the Earth turns about 1465 times for the equivalent 4 orbital circuits with respect to the fixed stars - and anyone who disputes this has all the intelligence and insight of a mud fence.
bjacoby
Jul 1, 2012, 1:48:13 AM7/1/12
to
On 6/30/2012 4:19 PM, Bob C. wrote:
> "bjacoby"<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> Ahem:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZyvjXHlBvA&feature=plcp
Look at that guy's hands! What's he doing? Selling weight-loss remedies
on late night TV?
Maybe you didn't read the part where I said I OWN solar panels. $200
each. Max output in average daylight without tracking and concentration
about 24 watts. (couple of amps at 12 volts) If you even pushed it and
optimized to 50 watts, that's still 50 panels to get 20 amps at 120volts
(assuming no conversion losses) 12volts X 10 panels = 120 volts X five
to get 20 amps. (2.4 Kw) Which is the size of the gasoline generator I
have to run my washing machine in emergencies.
It's quite obvious to me that the claimed 6 Kw to charge the car is
really what scientists call "typical data" which means "the best data
you ever saw when conditions were totally optimum! Sorry. Late night
weight loss probably will leave you fat and this guy has a sales pitch
going.
I'm not saying the system is worthless. It's not. It's just you are
being sold on a big sales pitch here that exaggerates performance
including lifetime. Of special cost are not only the cells (which tend
to lose output as windows get cruddy) but battery technology is VERY
expensive too (and not even mentioned) (My huge lead-acid deep cycle
marine battery died in a couple of years because of the charging
characteristic of the solar panels.) Other battery technology is equally
behind the curve. (and that goes for the batteries in the cars as well.
Bottom line: Lots of promise here, but current hype is basically a lot
of over-blown pie in the sky. I still say, it's great technology for
running a thermometer on a mountain top, but as a practical substitute
for fossil fuels it's still for dreamers. Anyone who investigates this
soon figures out that it only works with large government subsidies (and
as we recently saw, even that may not be enough).
Turning all those tens of thousands of nukes into electricity is a far
better solution for real power. And will make the world much safer at
the same time.
> "bjacoby"<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> Ahem:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZyvjXHlBvA&feature=plcp
Look at that guy's hands! What's he doing? Selling weight-loss remedies
on late night TV?
Maybe you didn't read the part where I said I OWN solar panels. $200
each. Max output in average daylight without tracking and concentration
about 24 watts. (couple of amps at 12 volts) If you even pushed it and
optimized to 50 watts, that's still 50 panels to get 20 amps at 120volts
(assuming no conversion losses) 12volts X 10 panels = 120 volts X five
to get 20 amps. (2.4 Kw) Which is the size of the gasoline generator I
have to run my washing machine in emergencies.
It's quite obvious to me that the claimed 6 Kw to charge the car is
really what scientists call "typical data" which means "the best data
you ever saw when conditions were totally optimum! Sorry. Late night
weight loss probably will leave you fat and this guy has a sales pitch
going.
I'm not saying the system is worthless. It's not. It's just you are
being sold on a big sales pitch here that exaggerates performance
including lifetime. Of special cost are not only the cells (which tend
to lose output as windows get cruddy) but battery technology is VERY
expensive too (and not even mentioned) (My huge lead-acid deep cycle
marine battery died in a couple of years because of the charging
characteristic of the solar panels.) Other battery technology is equally
behind the curve. (and that goes for the batteries in the cars as well.
Bottom line: Lots of promise here, but current hype is basically a lot
of over-blown pie in the sky. I still say, it's great technology for
running a thermometer on a mountain top, but as a practical substitute
for fossil fuels it's still for dreamers. Anyone who investigates this
soon figures out that it only works with large government subsidies (and
as we recently saw, even that may not be enough).
Turning all those tens of thousands of nukes into electricity is a far
better solution for real power. And will make the world much safer at
the same time.
bjacoby
Jul 1, 2012, 2:28:03 AM7/1/12
to
On 6/28/2012 10:16 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:20:00 -0700, Thad Floryan
> <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> Green ‘drivel’ exposed
>> The godfather of global warming lowers
>
> What the bloody fuck does "The godfather of global warming" mean?
You really are as stooopid as you appear, aren't you?
I'd suggest starting with a good primary school education where you can
learn to actually read.
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:20:00 -0700, Thad Floryan
> <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> Green ‘drivel’ exposed
>> The godfather of global warming lowers
>
> What the bloody fuck does "The godfather of global warming" mean?
You really are as stooopid as you appear, aren't you?
I'd suggest starting with a good primary school education where you can
learn to actually read.
Bob C.
Jul 1, 2012, 7:21:28 AM7/1/12
to
"bjacoby" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 6/30/2012 4:19 PM, Bob C. wrote:
> > "bjacoby"<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > Ahem:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZyvjXHlBvA&feature=plcp
> >
> On 6/30/2012 4:19 PM, Bob C. wrote:
> > "bjacoby"<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > Ahem:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZyvjXHlBvA&feature=plcp
> >
> Maybe you didn't read the part where I said I OWN solar panels. $200
> each. Max output in average daylight without tracking and concentration
> about 24 watts. (couple of amps at 12 volts) If you even pushed it and
> optimized to 50 watts, that's still 50 panels to get 20 amps at 120volts
> (assuming no conversion losses) 12volts X 10 panels = 120 volts X five
> to get 20 amps. (2.4 Kw) Which is the size of the gasoline generator I
> have to run my washing machine in emergencies.
Panel efficiency has doubled every year for the last several years.
> each. Max output in average daylight without tracking and concentration
> about 24 watts. (couple of amps at 12 volts) If you even pushed it and
> optimized to 50 watts, that's still 50 panels to get 20 amps at 120volts
> (assuming no conversion losses) 12volts X 10 panels = 120 volts X five
> to get 20 amps. (2.4 Kw) Which is the size of the gasoline generator I
> have to run my washing machine in emergencies.
Also, you need to spend $1,500 per panel for the high-efficiency technology.
$200 panels are nothing but toys.
> I'm not saying the system is worthless. It's not. It's just you are
> being sold on a big sales pitch here that exaggerates performance
> including lifetime. Of special cost are not only the cells (which tend
> to lose output as windows get cruddy) but battery technology is VERY
> expensive too (and not even mentioned) (My huge lead-acid deep cycle
> marine battery died in a couple of years because of the charging
> characteristic of the solar panels.) Other battery technology is equally
> behind the curve. (and that goes for the batteries in the cars as well.
G=EMC^2
Jul 1, 2012, 10:30:23 AM7/1/12
to
On Jul 1, 2:28 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 10:16 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:20:00 -0700, Thad Floryan
> > <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 10:16 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:20:00 -0700, Thad Floryan
>
> >> Green ‘drivel’ exposed
> >> The godfather of global warming lowers
>
> > What the bloody fuck does "The godfather of global warming" mean?
>
> You really are as stooopid as you appear, aren't you?
>
> I'd suggest starting with a good primary school education where you can
> learn to actually read.
Godfather owns Progress Energy,and that fits with CO2 + radium
> >> Green ‘drivel’ exposed
> >> The godfather of global warming lowers
>
> > What the bloody fuck does "The godfather of global warming" mean?
>
> You really are as stooopid as you appear, aren't you?
>
> I'd suggest starting with a good primary school education where you can
> learn to actually read.
+Lead=cancer
SteveP
Jul 1, 2012, 10:51:45 AM7/1/12
to
On 6/30/2012 3:20 PM, Paul Schlyter wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:30:45 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> One big reason is that those who fancy themselves as green paid to
> see
>> his "movie," paid to hear him speak, gave him awards and prizes...
>
> Each and every one of them?
>
> Well, Gore should be given credit for having brought AGW to the
> attention to people in general. Before Gore, hardly anyone except the
> specialists knew about AGW at all. But Gore is of course not a scientist.
>
Well, there's "knowing about" and then there's being "aware of". I think
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:30:45 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> One big reason is that those who fancy themselves as green paid to
> see
>> his "movie," paid to hear him speak, gave him awards and prizes...
>
> Each and every one of them?
>
> Well, Gore should be given credit for having brought AGW to the
> attention to people in general. Before Gore, hardly anyone except the
> specialists knew about AGW at all. But Gore is of course not a scientist.
>
most here in the U.S. who graduated from high school post 1970 are made
aware of the idea of global warming via public education.
I also think most of those Americans make adjustments in lifestyle based
on that awareness. Recycling for example is widely in use in my town.
> Whatever you say about me applies to you even more. You see, you're an
> american and I'm not. And the USA is the country with the biggest CO2
> footprint per citizen in the world. If you could cut down your CO2
> footprint per citizen to Swedish levels, a lot would be gained.
ignorant of. Somehow I think that's unlikely to change.
There is still a lot of open country here for those who choose not live
in cities, and that leads to longer commutes for a large part of the
population. As long as people have the choice to spend less money on
more space outside the city (far suburbs) than what people pay for space
in the city (and near suburbs), people are going to continue to burn
gasoline and choose safety over fuel economy when it comes to their
personal transportation.
THIS is where there seems to be a failure of political will in the US,
primarily on the conservative side of the aisle. As long as they
continue to present any sort of regulation as a "job destroying" "market
killer", the government is weak to "encourage" the automobile industry
toward producing larger fleets of hyper-miler vehicles. As a result,
those of us who might switch to ever smaller and more fuel efficient
vehicles will likely not, for one simple reason. Safety.
Not sure what traffic is like where you live, but where I live, safety
appears to mean driving something that gets not much more than 30 MPG,
and often significantly less.
I admit that I like a car with high performance characteristics.
Given the choice of driving 50 miles with 0-60MPH acceleration times of
6 seconds or less, and driving 100 miles with 0-60MPH acceleration times
of 10 seconds or more, I'll take the 6 second car. Reason, safety and _fun_.
In an earlier lifetime, I had a Toyota Corolla that got 38 MPG highway
and 30-ish around town. It was "fun" enough to drive, but when my
commute changed from secondary highways (45-50MPH) to major highways
(65-75MPH), I chose to size up for safety. When an 18 wheel truck or a
large car/SUV driven by someone talking on a cell phone rides up your
butt and hangs less than one car length behind you at 70MPH, you start
thinking twice about how safe a 2800 lbs 4 door sedan really is.
I currently drive a 2008 Chevy Malibu withe a 3.6L V6 VVT motor rated at
250 ft-lbs maximum output mated to a 6 speed automatic transmission.
When driven with a light foot, I can get an average of 27 MPG combined
hwy/city (which is pretty much all of my average 270 miles per week). On
longer highway runs at 70MPH, the motor consistently produces 32MPG.
It's a really nice car. My solution to its inefficiency? Drive it less,
and ride the motorcycle more. I have bags (paniers) on my motorcycle
that allow me to use it for errands, even small grocery shopping trips.
Now, if trucks were restricted to the center or right lane, and if
everyone on the highway drove a smaller car and technology were enabled
to cut off your cell phone service when the inbuilt GPS determined that
you were traveling above 60 MPH, then I would also drive a smaller car.
And there you have the mentality of most Americans. As long as the
automobile industry continues to produce and market large high
performance vehicles in mass quantities, the downsizing of American
energy consumption on the roads will be slow. But also make no mistake,
people here by and large have shifted away from SUVs, and into more fuel
efficient sedans.
I also spoke of owning a 2000 square foot home. Apparently some in here
consider that large (it's not for the neighborhood). From an energy
consumption perspective, it doesn't matter how large your home is. What
matters, is how you go about heating or cooling it. If Family A lives in
a 1000 square foot space and uses energy to heat or cool the entire
space 24/7, and Family B lives in 2000 square feet of space that is
broken up into two 1000 square foot zones where one zone consumes energy
during the day, and the other zone at night, then they have the same
level of consumption, but Family B is going to be more comfortable
because their day space (living room, kitchen, dining room) is not the
same area as their night space (bedrooms).
The latter arrangement includes my 2000 square feet of living space,
which is occupied by four people. And in fact, I have three energy
(heating) zones, so I am likely using equal or less energy than the
family occupying 1000 square feet.
Just a friendly discussion.
Blue Flavius
Jul 1, 2012, 12:29:32 PM7/1/12
to
Thad Floryan wrote:
> Green ‘drivel’ exposed
> The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
> Green ‘drivel’ exposed
Why trust the word of a known liar who says that global warming is
happening?
You must be another gullible socialist.
Paul Schlyter
Jul 1, 2012, 2:07:16 PM7/1/12
to
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Blue Flavius
<random_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why trust the word of a known liar who says that global warming is
> happening?
Because in this case his word agrees with the word of 95+% of all
<random_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why trust the word of a known liar who says that global warming is
> happening?
climate researchers.
Of course one shouldn't trust the word of just one single person in
such a serious matter. One should listen to many persons.
oriel36
Jul 1, 2012, 2:48:03 PM7/1/12
to
On Jul 1, 12:05 am, palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2012 11:58:17 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times for the equivalent 4
> > orbital circuits - anyone who disputes this is an enemy of mankind.
>
> Absolutely true, with respect to the sun. I sure don't want to be an enemy of mankind.
>
As the Earth is moving around its orbital circumference it is also
> On Saturday, June 30, 2012 11:58:17 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times for the equivalent 4
> > orbital circuits - anyone who disputes this is an enemy of mankind.
>
> Absolutely true, with respect to the sun. I sure don't want to be an enemy of mankind.
>
turning in its daily cycle,for each 4 cycles/circumferences it will
turn 1461 times to the nearest rotation,while the natural cycle
reduces to 365 1/4 rotations per circuit,the technical and historical
details can format the natural equivalency into 3 years of 365
rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations otherwise known as a leap year.
Without the 24 hour days and rotations keeping in step it is
impossible to get a handle on the Earth's largely equatorial climate
and even basic cause and effect.
I have never,ever seen humans behave in such a reckless way,it is not
a matter of being wrong but actually resolving an issue that takes
astronomy and terrestrial sciences out of a civil or political mode
and deal with the matter in a step by step approach for the best
possible reasons.The visual techniques to imagine the Earth both
moving around its orbital circumference while turning is basic and why
anyone would then go out of their way to imagine 24 hour days falling
out with rotations is close to inconceivable yet this is the norm.
David Friedman
Jul 1, 2012, 3:01:20 PM7/1/12
to
In article <4FE63300...@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a
> startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been
> unduly "alarmist" about climate change.
It's worth noting that his previous position was much more extreme than
the IPCC projections--extreme enough to make both his past prediction
and his previous qualification of limited interest. He apparently was
claiming that by the end of the century, earth would be so warm that
only the arctic would be habitable. Contrast that to IPCC projections of
three degrees C or, which would leave even the equator still
habitable--especially since increases would be larger in colder than
warmer areas.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a
> startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been
> unduly "alarmist" about climate change.
It's worth noting that his previous position was much more extreme than
the IPCC projections--extreme enough to make both his past prediction
and his previous qualification of limited interest. He apparently was
claiming that by the end of the century, earth would be so warm that
only the arctic would be habitable. Contrast that to IPCC projections of
three degrees C or, which would leave even the equator still
habitable--especially since increases would be larger in colder than
warmer areas.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
Martin Brown
Jul 2, 2012, 2:54:01 AM7/2/12
to
On 01/07/2012 19:07, Paul Schlyter wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Blue Flavius
> <random_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why trust the word of a known liar who says that global warming is
>> happening?
>
> Because in this case his word agrees with the word of 95+% of all
> climate researchers.
And most other scientists with relevant qualifications in the physical
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Blue Flavius
> <random_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why trust the word of a known liar who says that global warming is
>> happening?
>
> Because in this case his word agrees with the word of 95+% of all
> climate researchers.
sciences too. In fact the main opposition comes from a select handful of
very high profile ultra-ultra-right wing mostly American scientists that
prostitute their scientific credentials for the highest bidder.
The canonical player in the field of paid denier for hire was the late
Fred Seitz who designed the game plan to keep the suckers all smoking
tobacco. You should look back at their track record on car seatbelts,
smoking and the ozone hole to separate the wheat from the chaff.
There are one or two honest scientific climate sceptics but the vast
majority are in bed with extreme "free market" think tanks.
> Of course one shouldn't trust the word of just one single person in such
> a serious matter. One should listen to many persons.
issues where big business and the actual science have been in conflict.
You will see a clear pattern where "deniers for hire" are concerned.
The problem is that the US population are wedded to profligate waste and
do not want to hear what the scientists have to say.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Paul Schlyter
Jul 2, 2012, 3:06:20 AM7/2/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages