I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy
bule...@columbus.rr.com
Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer — once fired by then-
Vice President Al Gore for failing to conform to Gore’s hysterical
views on global warming – has now declared that man-made warming fears
are “mistaken.”........................
http://www.rlcil.org/2008/12/29/former-science-advisor-for-al-gore-global-warming-fears-mistaken/
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Doesn't matter... Obama's "Green Team" will ignore fact and plod
forth.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Labor Unions Cause Global Warming
bill....@ieee.org
Will Happer is more interested in nuclear magnetic resonance than
climatology, so his opinion isn't all that interesting.
It seems that he was a "Jason"
http://www.amazon.com/Jasons-Secret-History-Sciences-Postwar/dp/0143038478
so he is probably used to entertaining improbable ideas to keep well-
heeled right-wing nut cases happy and generous.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> Doesn't matter... Obama's "Green Team" will ignore fact and plod
> forth.
It looks like he's already implementing his new energy policy in
Hawaii.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
krw
mike.t...@earthlink.net says...>
> >
> > Doesn't matter... Obama's "Green Team" will ignore fact and plod
> > forth.
>
>
> It looks like he's already implementing his new energy policy in
> Hawaii.
That plan will work well in Minnesota this time of the year.
Michael A. Terrell
He should do it in DC, year round, too.
krw
mike.t...@earthlink.net says...>
> >
> > In article <QMCdnStHHvhFnsTU...@earthlink.com>,
> > mike.t...@earthlink.net says...>
> > > Jim Thompson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't matter... Obama's "Green Team" will ignore fact and plod
> > > > forth.
> > >
> > >
> > > It looks like he's already implementing his new energy policy in
> > > Hawaii.
> >
> > That plan will work well in Minnesota this time of the year.
>
>
> He should do it in DC, year round, too.
I'm sure the White House has sufficient backup for even AlBore, why
should Obama bin Biden care any more than he has in HI.
Michael A. Terrell
Wait till the diesel runs out. :)
JosephKK
wrote:
>
It looks like a error in determining direction, IPCC (AGW) is
political policy trying to override scientific integrity. The
altogether too easy impeachment of the "oh so necessary Michael Mann
result" infuriates those politicos magnificently.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
But doesn't change the inevitable.
Fortunately, the group of people that will be most impacted by AGW
regulations are the very leftist fairies that voted for Democrats ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Postings via gmail, yahoo, hotmail, aioe, uar or googlegroups, and
wild-cross-posts are now automatically kill-filed using Agent v5.0
To be white-listed, send request via the E-mail icon on my website
Bill Sloman
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> schreef in
bericht news:jdrpl4h43h8shq3nu...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:12:36 -0800, JosephKK <quiett...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), bule...@columbus.rr.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Vice President Al Gore for failing to conform to Gore's hysterical
>>>are "mistaken."........................
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.rlcil.org/2008/12/29/former-science-advisor-for-al-gore-global-warming-fears-mistaken/
>>
>>It looks like a error in determining direction, IPCC (AGW) is
>>political policy trying to override scientific integrity. The
>>altogether too easy impeachment of the "oh so necessary Michael Mann
>>result" infuriates those politicos magnificently.
Trust krw to put his faith in the wrong politicians. The IPCC isn't
political - it exists to tell politicians what is most likely to happen to
the global climate over the next couple of hundred years. If he doesn't like
their predictions, he needs to learn a bit more about the science involved,
rather than looking for support from denialist web-sites funded by the coal
industry and other groups with vested interests in not believing what the
science is telling them
> But doesn't change the inevitable.
Yes, it's going to get warmer over the next couple of hundred years. How
much warmer is is uncertain - anything from 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F to 11.5
°F) over the next hundred years - but more than enough to worry about in any
event.
> Fortunately, the group of people that will be most impacted by AGW
> regulations are the very leftist fairies that voted for Democrats ;-)
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson does cultivate these fatuous
delusions.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
JosephKK
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:12:36 -0800, JosephKK <quiett...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), bule...@columbus.rr.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer — once fired by then-
>>>Vice President Al Gore for failing to conform to Gore’s hysterical
>>>views on global warming – has now declared that man-made warming fears
>>>are “mistaken.”........................
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.rlcil.org/2008/12/29/former-science-advisor-for-al-gore-global-warming-fears-mistaken/
>>
>>It looks like a error in determining direction, IPCC (AGW) is
>>political policy trying to override scientific integrity. The
>>altogether too easy impeachment of the "oh so necessary Michael Mann
>>result" infuriates those politicos magnificently.
>>
>
>But doesn't change the inevitable.
>
>Fortunately, the group of people that will be most impacted by AGW
>regulations are the very leftist fairies that voted for Democrats ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Probably true, but some of them like Al Bore are intent on getting
really wealthy from it.
Eeyore
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Will Happer is more interested in nuclear magnetic resonance than
> climatology, so his opinion isn't all that interesting.
Neither is yours.
Eeyore
Bill Sloman wrote:
> The IPCC isn't political - it exists to tell politicians what is most likely to happen to
> the global climate over the next couple of hundred years.
It exists only to ensure its own survival. If they said "there's no problem" they'd be out of jobs.
Talk about loaded dice !
Graham
Eeyore
JosephKK wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >
> >Fortunately, the group of people that will be most impacted by AGW
> >regulations are the very leftist fairies that voted for Democrats ;-)
> >
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> Probably true, but some of them like Al Bore are intent on getting
> really wealthy from it.
I think he's going to be really disappointed there. Serious questions are already being raised in Europe
by the *citizens* and some more astute politicians about the value of allegedly 'green' AGW taxes etc.
No-one can afford them for one thing ! "It's the economy stupid" time again.
Graham
Bill Sloman
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:495EFDF2...@hotmail.com...
Eeyore's idea of serious question is something he'd been spoon-fed by an
Exxon-Mobil funded web-site.
Since one of the side-effects of further global warming would be the
replacement of the Thames
flood barrier with something bigger, capble of standing off even higher
storm surge, there are significant
costs assocoated with stupid complacency - the original barrier cost half a
billion pounds when it was built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
Eeyore comforts himself with the idea that sea-levels are going down (a
little) at the moment, but - like
every other stupid optimist - he's a little too prone to extrapolate short
term noise as a long term trend
when the short term trend suits his preferences.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Eeyore isn't interested in opinions - or facts - that don't conform with
his preconceptions. It makes him look remarkably stupid from time to
time.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Eeyore
Bill Sloman wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> schreef
> > JosephKK wrote:
> >> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Fortunately, the group of people that will be most impacted by AGW
> >> >regulations are the very leftist fairies that voted for Democrats ;-)
> >> >
> >> > ...Jim Thompson
> >>
> >> Probably true, but some of them like Al Bore are intent on getting
> >> really wealthy from it.
> >
> > I think he's going to be really disappointed there. Serious questions are
> > already being raised in Europe
> > by the *citizens* and some more astute politicians about the value of
> > allegedly 'green' AGW taxes etc.
> > No-one can afford them for one thing ! "It's the economy stupid" time
> > again.
>
> Eeyore's idea of serious question is something he'd been spoon-fed by an
> Exxon-Mobil funded web-site.
IDIOT. I did my own research using google etc after Jon Kirwan's idiotic "you
must be stupid not to understand" typical AGWist comment when I innocently
asked how exactly CO2 was supposed to affect temperature about 2 years ago.
Thanks Jon, you did me a great favour.
Graham
Eeyore
Bill Sloman wrote:
> Since one of the side-effects of further global warming would be the
> replacement of the Thames
> flood barrier with something bigger, capble of standing off even higher
> storm surge, there are significant
> costs assocoated with stupid complacency - the original barrier cost half a
> billion pounds when it was built.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
It was already known it would need replacing at some time when it was built as
that part of Britain (SE) is slowly sinking.
Conversely the NW is rising. See Maorecambe Bay for example.
WRONG AGAIN ! I suggest you do some research.
Graham
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
Headlines that say, "Everything's OK" don't sell many tabloids.
Cheers!
Rich
krw
Bill Sloman
He might have done, if your research skills allowed you to find anything
except
Exxon-Mobil funded web-sites.
As it is, you've told us that the current rise in the CO2 level in the
atmosphere
is due to CO2 coming out of solution in the oceans, which happens to be
obviously wrong, since it is inconsistent with the Suess Effect,
and you've told us that Greenland is accumulating ice in the centre faster
than it is losing it at the edges, when the GRACE satellites tell us that
the
centre only accumulated 54 gigatons of ice last year, which the edges
lost 155 gigatons.
As a researcher, Sara Palin might find you useful, but anybody with
two neurones to rub together would be much better off on their own.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Your idea of "wrong" is somewhat ideosyncratic
The southeast of England is sinking at at rate of 1mm per year, and London
itself
is sinking about twice as fast as the clay beneath compresses.
Sea-level rise over the last century was 1.8mm per year; the rate over the
last
few decades is a bit higher - 3.1mm/year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
If the climate warms further, and the ice starts sliding off off Greenland
and
Antarctica even faster - at the moment they both seem to be showing a nett
loss
about 100 gigatons of ice each every year - this rate will increase even
further.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> If the climate warms further, and the ice starts sliding off off Greenland
> and
> Antarctica even faster - at the moment they both seem to be showing a nett
> loss
> about 100 gigatons of ice each every year - this rate will increase even
> further.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What exactly should China, Brazil, India and Russia do about this?
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Burn Slowman as a sacrifice to the AGW goddess ?:-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The difference between a horse's asshole & Bill Sloman's mouth?
Lipstick!
bill....@ieee.org
Build elaborate sea defences around their major ports?
They can't afford the consequences of run-away global warming any more
than we can, and - in the long term - are under exactly the same
imperative as we are to get the bulk of their energy from renewable
sources - hydro power, wind power and solar power.
They have the advantage that Europe and America have done a lot of
development work in these areas, and have already pushed the
techologies into volume production. Assuming the usual rule of thumb -
that increasing the volume manufactured halves the unit price - wind
power is expected to be as cheap (per kilowatt) as coal fired
generating stations around 2030 and solar power around 2045. If
production and installation are subsidised to increase production,
this will happen sooner - Germany has already pretty much single-
handed increased the market enough to halve the unit price - and if
the environmental costs of burning fossil carbon are extracted from
the users in a "pollutor pays" carbon tax, the break-even point will
come up even earlier.
Obviously, the carbon tax and the subsidies should end up fiscally
neutral. This is obviously going to raise the price of energy, which
isn't going to help the economy, but the increases won't be as large
or as fast as we experienced in the 1973 oil crisis, where the price
of oil quadrupled in a year.
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/04/horton/horton.htm
This didn't destroy civilisation back then. Dealing with global
warming isn't going to destroy it now.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
Site.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:50:54 -0800 (PST), buleg...@columbus.rr.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 7, 7:43 pm, "Bill Sloman" <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >What exactly should China, Brazil, India and Russia do about this?
>
> Burn Slowman as a sacrifice to the AGW goddess ?:-)
Probably not an acceptable offering - I'd inject too much carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere.
You'd probably have to compost sacrificial victims to win her favour;
not a practice that would liturgist would like, since any ceremony to
get the gods on side has to hold the attention of the audience, and
composting is neither quick nor dramatic.
Since, anthropogenic global warming is scientific theory rather than a
religious belief, the people who take it seriously aren't big on
ritual, and don't seem to employ any liturgists. Jim doesn't seem to
read anything that isn't rabid right-wing nonsense, and he may not be
aware of this.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Bill Slomanwrote:
Graham's grasp of game theory is a feeble as his grasp of climatolgy.
The IPCC is a group of climatologists. While the persistence of the
problem might be good for the group, any single climatologist who
could manage to publish a convincing demostration that anthropogenic
global warming was a falsified hypothesis would become instantly
famous, would have his pick of the top positions in the field and
would have a good prospect of a Nobel Prize within a few years.
It's a classic case of the Prisoner's Dilemma, with the added extra
encouragement that if all the climatologists did refrain from talking,
someone outside the field - like Steve McIntyre - would probably come
up with the same idea within a few years, so that anybody who failed
to use their advantage would almost certainly lose it.
--
Bill Sloman. Nijmegen
bule...@columbus.rr.com
>
> Build elaborate sea defences around their major ports?
>
> They can't afford the consequences of run-away global warming any more
> than we can, and - in the long term - are under exactly the same
> imperative as we are to get the bulk of their energy from renewable
> sources - hydro power, wind power and solar power.
>
> They have the advantage that Europe and America have done a lot of
> development work in these areas, and have already pushed the
> techologies into volume production. Assuming the usual rule of thumb -
> that increasing the volume manufactured halves the unit price - wind
> power is expected to be as cheap (per kilowatt) as coal fired
> generating stations around 2030 and solar power around 2045.
That will be true becuase governments will make it expensive to fire
coal, not becuase the other technologies will get cheaper. However,
if these technologies become cheap, then I will be the first to
welcome them. I want cheap electricity. Heck, If Al Gore can sell me
electricity for 5cents/KWh (unsubsidized) I might even buy his book.
Funny thing is, I don't recall him actually investing his [not] hard
earned money into companies that will fail if the promised
technologies fail.
>If production and installation are subsidised to increase production,
> this will happen sooner - Germany has already pretty much single-
> handed increased the market enough to halve the unit price - and ****if****
> the environmental costs of burning fossil carbon are extracted from
> the users in a "pollutor pays" carbon tax, the break-even point will
> come up even earlier.
>
It is that very unscientific "if" that I object to. I mean,
considering that going to church may save your soul from eternal
damnation, it is actually a bargain to give all your money to the
church. Same logic man.
> Obviously, the carbon tax and the subsidies should end up fiscally
> neutral.
Fiscally neutral is only possible if they don't exist. Just like a
"neutral" government is only possible to the extent it is a weak
government.
> This is obviously going to raise the price of energy, which
> isn't going to help the economy, but the increases won't be as large
> or as fast as we experienced in the 1973 oil crisis, where the price
> of oil quadrupled in a year.
We have shown that we can endure short term market spikes, like the
couple of years in the seventies. We cannot endure a fourfold
increase in energy that will not abate.
>
> http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/04/horton/horton.htm
>
> This didn't destroy civilisation back then. Dealing with global
> warming isn't going to destroy it now.
And here is the rub. **NOT** dealing with global warming is not going
to destroy civilization either.
ingvald44
> And here is the rub. **NOT** dealing with global warming is not going
> to destroy civilization either.
Hey anything that delays the next inevitable ice age can't be all bad...
Bobo The Chimp
I can't understand what's BAD about nicer weather all over the place,
longer growing seasons, and lusher rain forest growth, other than the
paranoid delusions of the Goraholics.
When did the greenies go from tree-hugging to tree-hating?
--
Cheers!
Rich^H^H^H^HBoBo
Don Klipstein
>On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:12:24 -0500, ingvald44 wrote:
>> bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>> And here is the rub. **NOT** dealing with global warming is not going
>>> to destroy civilization either.
>>
>> Hey anything that delays the next inevitable ice age can't be all bad...
>
>I can't understand what's BAD about nicer weather all over the place,
>longer growing seasons, and lusher rain forest growth, other than the
>paranoid delusions of the Goraholics.
What's nicer about July being any warmer at all than before in
Philadelphia when I am riding a bicycle uphill on the sunny side of the
street? I would consider Chicago or Yellowknife in January to be an
improvement over that!
>When did the greenies go from tree-hugging to tree-hating?
What's so tree-hating? The world grew trees plenty well with 280 ppmv
CO2! How have trees fared after CO2 rose from that? I remember someone
posting before maybe a year possibly a couple years ago some figure for
plant growth improving 7% from before, and atmospheric CO2 is now more
like 380 ppmv - about a 36% increase.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:12:24 -0500, ingvald44 wrote:
>> bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>> And here is the rub. **NOT** dealing with global warming is not going
>>> to destroy civilization either.
>>
>> Hey anything that delays the next inevitable ice age can't be all bad...
>
>I can't understand what's BAD about nicer weather all over the place,
>longer growing seasons, and lusher rain forest growth,
><snip>
To handle CO2, plants usually require stomata (pores) which allow the
exchange of gases. Some are able to develop more stomata (limited by
genetics, of course) in the presence of a greater concentration of
CO2. But not all and even in the cases of those which can adjust to a
degree, the additional stomata ALSO happen to mean a greater loss of
moisture to the air. Often, that's not so good. In other words,
there is a price to pay. Besides, plants also require additional
water, minerals, and a variety of supplements beyond the CO2. Without
an increase in those supplies as well, a higher concentration of CO2
isn't much help. There's another issue -- plant respiration rates.
But rather than belabor that, I'll leave you to digest the above
first.
Jon
Nobody
> I can't understand what's BAD about nicer weather all over the place,
> longer growing seasons, and lusher rain forest growth
Learn what happens when you take a massively complex system of PDEs and
apply an instantaneous[1] change to one of its inputs.
[1] Relative to the time constants involved.
Or even what what happens if you gently nudge a previously-stable system
outside of its (uncharted) stable region (see also: Verhulst, Julia,
Mandelbrot, et al).
But don't worry, it's nice[2] weather and it probably[3] won't wipe out
mankind.
[2] For those living where the weather is typically colder than they
prefer; for a substantial proportion of the world's population, hotter
weather means drought, famine and dehydration.
[3] This does not constitute a warranty.