Re: Can anyone trust science anymore?
James Hogg
> Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in news:2009122623484416807-
> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>
>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>>
>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other
>>> Bollocks" by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN
>>> 978-1-84454-718-0) and although only into the first few pages, it
>>> seems to be making the point that a lot of "science" is agenda
>>> driven with beliefs and opinions presented as "facts".
>> Feldman and Marks are not specialists in the field. Their views
>> should be viewed exactly in those terms
>
> Isn't that the case with most 'scientists' working on global warming
> and putting their name to papers?
>
>>> Interestingly, it says that C02 concentration is less than 0.038%
>>> of the atmosphere, which is something we very rarely hear about,
>>> and
> that
>>> water vapour has a much greater effect in controlling the
>>> planet's temperature - if I have picked that up correctly.
>>> Everyone knows that in winter clear skies at night usually mean
>>> frost.
>> Err... as a science teacher I've been teaching kids that carbon
> dioxide
>> makes up about 0.03% of the atmosphere every year for the last 25
>> years. Didn't you learn that at school?
>
> Err.. isn't that what he said? 0.03% ~= 0.038%?
Yes but he said "we very rarely hear about" it. Andrew pointed out that
it's common knowledge as taught in school.
--
James
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEE6CE2A...@62.141.42.83...
> Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in news:2009122623484416807-
> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>
>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>>
>>>
>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other Bollocks"
>>> by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0) and although
>>> only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the point that a
>>> lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented
>>> as "facts".
Surefire best-seller.
Check the top twenty on Amazon. Last time I checked about half of them had
titles along the lines of "Buy this book and stop feeling guilty about
destroying your kids future"
I bought three or four myself.
It is Mid-Winter all over the planet after all.
Magnus
news:Z6Odndy5_LvV86rW...@westnet.com.au:
I think you'll find it's midwinter primarily in the northern hemisphere,
unless of course it's snowing on Bondi Beach.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> amacm...@aol.com wrote in
> news:th4fj55cdhu8p4g64...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:43:32 +0000, Malcolm
>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
> Oh dear! Another potentially interesting thread reduced to a personal
> slanging match.
>
> Zzzzzzzzzz!
I quite liked Scotty's post (downthread...upthread? I dunno...
call it "elsethread") though...information without abuse,
who'd'a thunk it? :-) And I think the people he cites raise
valid points wrt the sociology of science...the problem of
assigning value judgements to scientific facts in order to
determine social policy is, and always has been, a thorny
one.
For myself, I believe the topic warrants discussion, how-
ever as you point out, USENET may not be a place were
such a discussion can be (civilly) had. I doubt a thread
about ideas (instead of personalities) can survive for long
even if the primary participants are reasonable...there are
simply too many sophomoric zealots who believe disrup-
tion, hectoring and loudly beating a conceptual drum are
how one exchanges ideas and conducts a discussion...in
the end, this ilk always succeed in driving Reason from the
arena.
Deirdre
________________
Ideas are not responsible for their followers.
The Phantom Piper
>
> It is Mid-Winter all over the planet after all.
I also like the added stupidity concerning CO2 levels
vis Michele Bachmann's pet theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ
"As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed
as harmful! But there isn’t even one study that
can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a
harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because
carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless
gas. Carbon dioxide is natural! It is not harmful. It
is part of Earth’s life cycle. And yet we’re being told
that we have to reduce this natural substance and
reduce the American standard of living to create
an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally
occuring in the earth!"
Arsenic and Radon are also "naturally occuring in the earth,"
perhaps we can have some of them (and some nice, fresh,
"harmless" CO2) pumped into the rightards' homes for them
to enjoy as "part of Earth's life cycle"...
Amazed,
The Phantom Piper
HardySpicer
wrote:
You'll find that small levels of radiation do you no harnm either and
may even protect you. Some 'scientific" studies in Chernoble have
shown that the people in the area have greater immunity to cancer.
Yes it's times like this that I am glad I don't work in any of these
dodgy climate so-called science. They just don't know enough, the
problem is too hard for the majority. Greenhouse gas at face value
makes a lot of sense. That's how Venus has ended up - over-heated.
However, when you put mankind into the equation that's where the sums
get distorted. Whether mankind is to blame at all. It is better to err
on the side of safety and reduce greenhouse gases to a minimum - for
sure. This means only one thing - introduce nuclear power. Why are the
greenies not jumping up and down demanding nuclear energy then??
Because they have an agenda, they are not interested in the warming
planet, they are intersted in introducing a system whereby African and
3rd world countries get aid from the west in the name of global
warming. The more the west stuff up the better for them. They are
anarchists who will jump at any oppurtunity. Now there you have the
real facts. What about the Scientists? Well a lot of the wishy-washy
social sciencetists type people are now in government themselves and
they give out the money to "scientific" groups supporting their
philisophy. Ask for millions for fision research and forget it - ask
for millions for researching wind power and you have a better chance.
This of course is the complete opposite from what happened 30 years
ago when people with otehr agendas were in power. So we can see it is
corrupt (or at least gravy train) scientists leaching on to political
viewpoints to get funding. Now Science is independent of politics.
Your internet connection should work whether Labour or the Tories are
in power.
Hardy
Scotty
<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 9:17�am, The Phantom Piper <ThePhantomPi...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 6:24�am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
snipped
>> The Phantom Piper
>
>You'll find that small levels of radiation do you no harnm either and
>may even protect you. Some 'scientific" studies in Chernoble have
>shown that the people in the area have greater immunity to cancer.
>Yes it's times like this that I am glad I don't work in any of these
>dodgy climate so-called science. They just don't know enough, the
>problem is too hard for the majority. Greenhouse gas at face value
>makes a lot of sense. That's how Venus has ended up - over-heated.
>However, when you put mankind into the equation that's where the sums
>get distorted. Whether mankind is to blame at all. It is better to err
>on the side of safety and reduce greenhouse gases to a minimum - for
>sure. This means only one thing - introduce nuclear power. Why are the
>greenies not jumping up and down demanding nuclear energy then??
That IS a bit surprising as it is CO2 free, not intermittent and both
"Alternative" and "Renewable", I believe that 96% of spent fuel rods are
re-used. James Lovelock (Pole hole Digger) of Gaia theory fame, who coined
the word 'environmentalist' is heavily pro Nuclear and anti CO2. Ah well,
he couldn't be right all the time.
>Because they have an agenda, they are not interested in the warming
>planet, they are intersted in introducing a system whereby African and
>3rd world countries get aid from the west in the name of global
>warming.
The biggest stumbling block at Copenhagen was who would control the
pot o' gold. The donors wanted to but the recipients insisted that they
should. There were other less crucial issues, of course.
Last week an old friend (Belgium) phoned, solstice and all that and
announced that he had just bought a wind turbine factory in China, he has
other quite extensive interests in China. They are producing 10, 20 and 30
kW turbines but, he is not allowed to export them, they all have to go to
the Chinese Government, five a day. OK, small factory.
Have you seen the news? China has just put into service, the fastest train
in the world, average speed 350 kms per hour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8406910.stm
http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/1803261/china_unveils_fastest_bullet_train_service/
We're still hoping that our technology and innovation will rescue the
economy while the Government tries to rescue two car companies.
>The more the west stuff up the better for them. They are
>anarchists who will jump at any oppurtunity. Now there you have the
>real facts. What about the Scientists? Well a lot of the wishy-washy
>social sciencetists type people are now in government themselves and
>they give out the money to "scientific" groups supporting their
>philisophy. Ask for millions for fision research and forget it - ask
>for millions for researching wind power and you have a better chance.
>This of course is the complete opposite from what happened 30 years
>ago when people with otehr agendas were in power. So we can see it is
>corrupt (or at least gravy train) scientists leaching on to political
>viewpoints to get funding. Now Science is independent of politics.
No, post-normal science, remember?
Andrew
> Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in news:2009122623484416807-
> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>
>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>>
>>>
>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other Bollocks"
>>> by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0) and although
>>> only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the point that a
>>> lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented
>>> as "facts".
>>
>> Feldman and Marks are not specialists in the field. Their views should
>> be viewed exactly in those terms
>
> Isn't that the case with most 'scientists' working on global warming and
> putting their name to papers?
No,
>
>>>
>>> Interestingly, it says that C02 concentration is less than 0.038% of
>>> the atmosphere, which is something we very rarely hear about, and
> that
>>> water vapour has a much greater effect in controlling the planet's
>>> temperature - if I have picked that up correctly. Everyone knows that
>>> in winter clear skies at night usually mean frost.
>>
>> Err... as a science teacher I've been teaching kids that carbon
> dioxide
>> makes up about 0.03% of the atmosphere every year for the last 25
>> years. Didn't you learn that at school?
>
> Err.. isn't that what he said? 0.03% ~= 0.038%?
My point is that it's scarcely "something we rarely hear about" - it's
something that has been inthe Secondary School science syllabus since
1969
>
>>>
>>> Does this beg the question that even if C02 rises by a multiple of
>>> perhaps 4, is it going to make that much difference; taking into
>>> consideration its low starting point?
>>
>> Well yes. Bearing in mind that even the present concentration makes a
>> difference. As Feldman and Marks point out, without the normal
>> greenhouse effect the Earth would be unihabitably cold. If 0.03% makes
>> such a difference, multiplying it certainly will.
>
> The question, by how much and why? By and large, the biggest greenhouse
> gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, as Angus pointed out, so why
> should the change of a relatively minor constituent like CO2 have such a
> large effect on climate - if it does at all?
Because water is a double-edge sword in the atmosphere. When it
condenses to form clouds it reflects solar radiation from the planet
and has a cooling effect. The same cannot be said of carbon dioxide.
> The % annual change in
> water vapour year on year is probably way more than changes in CO2 in
> the last 100 years to such an extent that it would swamp any changes
> in CO2.
You're making the assumption that both are equally effective as green
house gases. They're not.
>
>
>>> For conservationists to conveniently exclude the activities of man as
>>> part of nature to suit their concept of native and non-native species
>>> shows the depths to which "science" has plunged in its agenda
>>> supporting role.
>>
>> No one's excluding anything. Certainly there may well be natural cycl
>> es that affect the Earth's temperatures. But they will happen anyway
>> and there's nothing we can do about them. If there is a component to
>> climate change for which we are responsible, though, it makes sense to
>> take the steps we can.
>
> And therein lies the question. If global warming is a natural phenomena,
> should we be squandering money on an endless procession of junkets like
> Copenhagen and funding scaremongering scientists research and pointless
> expensive carbon emission controls? Or would we be better spending it
> on flood defences?
You're missing the point. This isn't an "either/or" question - it's a
"both/and" issue. There are both natural AND man-made components to
global warming. So yes, we should be spending money on flood defences,
AND we should be reducing our carbon emissions.
Incidentally, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway
- they are a finite resource.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
>> And therein lies the question. If global warming is a natural phenomena,
>> should we be squandering money on an endless procession of junkets like
>> Copenhagen and funding scaremongering scientists research and pointless
>> expensive carbon emission controls? Or would we be better spending it
>> on flood defences?
>
> You're missing the point. This isn't an "either/or" question - it's a
> "both/and" issue. There are both natural AND man-made components to
> global warming. So yes, we should be spending money on flood defences,
> AND we should be reducing our carbon emissions.
I agree with the fundamental premise of your point, but there's
something about lumping a Basic Science like climate study in-
to the same bin as Applied discipline like flood prevention which
strikes a discordant note with me. Maybe if more people under-
stood that Basic Research is about observation and theorisation
and not actual problem solving, it'd be different.
(I also wish that more people understood that if the data can be
statistically manipulated to support multiple contentions, then
the data are _not_ "conclusive"...sheesh.)
Yes, we should be reducing emissions, not simply because it's
the responsible thing to do, but also because we might find a
use for the sequestered product of smoke scrubbers and the
like...resource conservation and reutilisation all have parts to
play in the energy ballet.
> Incidentally, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway
> - they are a finite resource.
<looking around> Shhhh! What's the matter with you? No
one's supposed to know that!
Anyway, we're making _new_ fossil fuels...who's to say that
in 325 million years, some creatures aren't going to be mining
our former landfills to extract the wealth of petrochemicals
locked within the plastics therein? Does it really matter that
it isn't us doing the mining?
Deirdre
________________
I doubt therefore I might be.
HardySpicer
Yes the scientific world has many rooms and just because the climate
reserach is a bit dodgy doesn't mean that the whole pack of cards is
wrong. It is still the best way by far to discover things and (in
engineering terms) find solutions to real problems. It's unfortunate
that the climate people are driven by agendas outwith science (or at
least their supporters are). I remember the same arguments in the late
70s about nuclear power. the power stations were not for power but for
weapons - therefore no nukes etc! They were also a bit dangerous in
those days. I reckon by now we can say a nuclear power station is
99.99% safe.
So lets stop as far as possible burning fossil fuels and have more
nuclear and alternative (even though the alternative is not much at
present).
Hardy
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Magnus" <also....@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEEA08ED3FF7...@69.16.176.253...
So you havn't read "Global Warming - and other Bollocks" by Professors
Feldman and Marks I take it.
They prove without a shadow of a doubt that it's winter everywhere.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"The Phantom Piper" <ThePhan...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e7031f6d-cfa4-4ca6...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 6:24 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
> It is Mid-Winter all over the planet after all.
I also like the added stupidity concerning CO2 levels
vis Michele Bachmann's pet theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ
"As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed
as harmful! But there isn�t even one study that
can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a
harmful gas.
Oh it gets far worse than that.
"A 'little Co2 warming is a good thing' don't you know?".
So far they havn't explained how it's going to stop at 'a little'.
"It's been +6C before don't you know?"
Yeah - during the Permian Extinction.
It's got to the point it's just not worth the effort.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
news:3ltej5hju9o6bqbkd...@4ax.com...
> Climate Scientists did apparently: "doubt their own theories and their own
> results". But then proceeded to manipulate the data,
Except that they didn't of course.
Coming from a rabid anti-science usefull-idiot who was only yesterday caught
out blatantly lying about the data you've sure got a lot of gall to be
posting such jaw-dropping hypocrisy.
Not that anyone will be surprised given your track record of late.
You have not one shred of credibility in this group Scotty.
The only person you are fooling is youself.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2009122723360816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> You're missing the point. This isn't an "either/or" question - it's a
> "both/and" issue. There are both natural AND man-made components to global
> warming. So yes, we should be spending money on flood defences, AND we
> should be reducing our carbon emissions.
>
> Incidentally, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway -
> they are a finite resource.
Er..You are attempting to use logic and reason on someone who believes the
MWP was a Global Event.
Just thought you should be warned.
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:3ltej5hju9o6bqbkd...@4ax.com...
>
>> Climate Scientists did apparently: "doubt their own theories and their own
>> results". But then proceeded to manipulate the data,
Dropping instrumental readings into what purported to be a Paleo record
because their tree rings didn't show a rise?
Trust worthy? I don't think so.
Or Trenberth, I think, saying," we can't explain the decline and it is a
travesty".
Trust worthy? I don't think so.
Tom Wigley (his boss), emailed Jones saying it would have been easier to
admit the data's shortcomings. "Why, why, why did you not simply say this
right at the start?"
Trust worthy? I don't think so.
And that's just off the top of my head. How many more examples do you want?
>Except that they didn't of course.
>
>Coming from a rabid anti-science usefull-idiot who was only yesterday caught
>out blatantly lying about the data you've sure got a lot of gall to be
>posting such jaw-dropping hypocrisy.
What data are you on about? Did you mean this? It comes from a reliable
source:
Global air temperature 2008 anomaly +0.33C ([only] 10th warmest on record)
Robert Peffers
Eve while my sister in Australia does the same from her window.
We mail these pictures to each other.
Nope, it is not snowing in Australia but I'm unable to get my vehicle down
my drive.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7ppo6h...@mid.individual.net...
--
Auld Bob
HardySpicer
> "Magnus" <also.sec...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CEEA08ED3FF7...@69.16.176.253...
>
> > "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
> >news:Z6Odndy5_LvV86rW...@westnet.com.au:
>
> >> "soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9CEE6CE2A...@62.141.42.83...
> >>> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>
> >>>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacmil...@aol.com said:
>
> >>>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other
> >>>>> Bollocks" by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0)
> >>>>> and although only into the first few pages, it seems to be making
> >>>>> the point that a lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and
> >>>>> opinions presented as "facts".
>
> >> Surefire best-seller.
> >> Check the top twenty on Amazon. Last time I checked about half of them
> >> had titles along the lines of "Buy this book and stop feeling guilty
> >> about destroying your kids future"
> >> I bought three or four myself.
>
> >> It is Mid-Winter all over the planet after all.
>
> > I think you'll find it's midwinter primarily in the northern hemisphere,
> > unless of course it's snowing on Bondi Beach.
>
> It is a family tradition that I take pictures from my window on Christmas
> Eve while my sister in Australia does the same from her window.
> We mail these pictures to each other.
> Nope, it is not snowing in Australia but I'm unable to get my vehicle down
> my drive.
> --
>
> Auld Bob
What's your point Bob? Remember 1963? (061 was it?) just as bad snow-
wise. Also 13 years ago or so it was -20C in Glasgow - rememebr it
well. -30C further north. People have very short memories. If there is
one thing you can be sure about in the UK and that's that every time
it snows the people think it is a disaster and for some reason the
authorities get caught out. Ask the population who is the best singer
of all time and you get an asnwer "Robbie Williams" or some such.
Memories go back very short times. For your info, Ozz is bloody hot at
present and so is NZ - but it always is at this time of year too.
I think Ozz has been getting warmer than normal but who knows the
reason. Certainly not the climate scientists.
Hardy
Fred J. McCall
:On 2009-12-27 10:42:12 +0000, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> said:
:>
:> The % annual change in
:> water vapour year on year is probably way more than changes in CO2 in
:> the last 100 years to such an extent that it would swamp any changes
:> in CO2.
:
:You're making the assumption that both are equally effective as green
:house gases. They're not.
:
No, they aren't. WATER is a much more 'effective' greenhouse gas than
CO2 (as are a large number of other things floating about in the
atmosphere).
:>
:> And therein lies the question. If global warming is a natural phenomena,
:> should we be squandering money on an endless procession of junkets like
:> Copenhagen and funding scaremongering scientists research and pointless
:> expensive carbon emission controls? Or would we be better spending it
:> on flood defences?
:
:You're missing the point. This isn't an "either/or" question - it's a
:"both/and" issue. There are both natural AND man-made components to
:global warming.
:
Still waiting for definitive proof on that one.
:
:Incidentally, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway
:- they are a finite resource.
:
Quite right, and that transition probably ought to be dictated by the
price of fossil fuels and the price of alternatives.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Ian Smith
wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
Well I had thought along those lines myself. Since FF now appears to be
leaving the "cheap and plenty" era, the upwards cost pressure should
concentrate many minds on alternatives and spawn many new innovations.
--
Calendar - http://www.1r5.net
Magnus
<grin> I take your point.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Well I had thought along those lines myself. Since FF now appears to be
:leaving the "cheap and plenty" era, the upwards cost pressure should
:concentrate many minds on alternatives and spawn many new innovations.
:
Provided we can keep Government from trying to pick winners and losers
via tax policies and subsidies, I believe you are quite correct. As
China wants more and more petroleum, demand is going to outstrip
supply and that is going to drive prices up quickly.
--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush
Peter Jason
"Ian Smith" <ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote in
message news:eb9_m.1364$%05...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Curious, but all the science boffins and their Aspergers
haven't considered limiting the number of children a woman
can have. This, and I mean this, is the fundamental
SCIENTIFIC cause of commodity shortages, the
"global-warming" neuroses, huge movements of populations
with the resulting warsand pestilences , and the ongoing
African and usurping-Israelis disasters.
Limiting births, even to two children per woman, would
ameliorate the ongoing world's problems.
Of course this is *so* obvious no one can see it.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4723 (20091228) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
HardySpicer
> "Ian Smith" <ianinho...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote in
> messagenews:eb9_m.1364$%05...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:26:12 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> > couldnae haud thur
> > wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
>
Also a vegetarian diet is important. Less cows farting - and sheep.
Believe it or not they take the farting very seriously here in NZ - at
least whatever end the gases come out.
Hardy
Scotty
>>Coming from a rabid anti-science usefull-idiot who was only yesterday caught
>>out blatantly lying about the data you've sure got a lot of gall to be
>>posting such jaw-dropping hypocrisy.
>
>What data are you on about? Did you mean this? It comes from a reliable
>source:
>
>Global air temperature 2008 anomaly +0.33C ([only] 10th warmest on record)
See this link, it even shows the turning point/decline:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
HardySpicer
You cannot deduce anything from that graph though. Yes it has a dip
downwards but insuffiecient data to saywhether that will continue. It
could be a blip.
Certainly looks like it has risen by about 1C over the last century if
the measurements are right. It could be a plateau as well. The
temperature change is so small however that I doubt that they could
even be sure that the measurements are right. I can see why they would
think it is still rising. The layman would certainly think tha,t but
we cannot jump to conclusions. This reminds me of somebody I know who
when doing their masters degree in agriculture was checking whether
feeding a certain kind of feed versus ordinary feed made the cows
yield more milk. Well, to begin with the new feed did nothing but
after a few weeks it caught up and over took the old feed. Then they
were going neck and neck when...he ran out of new feed! Since the
trend was up and up he assumed that the new feed would be better in
the long term than ordinary feed., However, that is a false assumption
since the data was not there to prove it.
So, we have to wait and see maybe another 20 odd years. the arguments
will still go on since if we do reduce Co2 and the temp goes down then
proposers of the Co2 argument will claim it is due to their prompt
action!! if it goes on up then the warmists can claim victory in as
much as claiming that the temp is indeed going up. They may even make
a claim that it is dues to humans - but, that still may not be the
case.
Hardy
Ian Smith
wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
> Ian Smith <ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote:
>
> :
> :Well I had thought along those lines myself. Since FF now appears to be
> :leaving the "cheap and plenty" era, the upwards cost pressure should
> :concentrate many minds on alternatives and spawn many new innovations.
> :
>
> Provided we can keep Government from trying to pick winners and losers
> via tax policies and subsidies, I believe you are quite correct. As
> China wants more and more petroleum, demand is going to outstrip supply
> and that is going to drive prices up quickly.
Yes, but unfortunately it is very difficult to keep government in check.
The power-grabbers within just cannot leave things alone.
Ian Smith
Population control would be a prudent measure until we can sort out a far
more sustainable future, for sure. By that I mean we are able to generate
enough power to run everything _and_ synthesise any raw materials required
without having to dig them out of the ground. We're talking a century or 2
from now. So, fewer babies until then would be really smart.
However, the libertarian in me is in a quandary as to how one controls the
population without impinging on personal freedom. Perhaps strong negative
tax implications for having more than "x" number of children?
Fred J. McCall
:
:Population control would be a prudent measure until we can sort out a far
:more sustainable future, for sure. By that I mean we are able to generate
:enough power to run everything _and_ synthesise any raw materials required
:without having to dig them out of the ground. We're talking a century or 2
:from now. So, fewer babies until then would be really smart.
:
If you look at the current trends, world population will flatten and
start declining all by itself by then. It looks like it'll peak
around 30-40 years from now and then flatten out.
:
:However, the libertarian in me is in a quandary as to how one controls the
:population without impinging on personal freedom. Perhaps strong negative
:tax implications for having more than "x" number of children?
:
Social engineering via tax policy? Hardly the libertarian ideal...
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Ian Smith
wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
> Ian Smith <ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote:
>
> :
> :Population control would be a prudent measure until we can sort out a
> far :more sustainable future, for sure. By that I mean we are able to
> generate :enough power to run everything _and_ synthesise any raw
> materials required :without having to dig them out of the ground. We're
> talking a century or 2 :from now. So, fewer babies until then would be
> really smart. :
>
> If you look at the current trends, world population will flatten and
> start declining all by itself by then. It looks like it'll peak around
> 30-40 years from now and then flatten out.
I hope you're right. I also hope that mass starvation and wars are not
involved in the process.
> :However, the libertarian in me is in a quandary as to how one controls
> the :population without impinging on personal freedom. Perhaps strong
> negative :tax implications for having more than "x" number of children?
> :
>
> Social engineering via tax policy? Hardly the libertarian ideal...
I know. Ok, not a very good suggestion; but maybe less damaging to freedom
than other possible measures.
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:02:49 -0700, Fred J. McCall couldnae haud thur
:wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
:
:> Ian Smith <ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Population control would be a prudent measure until we can sort out a
:> far :more sustainable future, for sure. By that I mean we are able to
:> generate :enough power to run everything _and_ synthesise any raw
:> materials required :without having to dig them out of the ground. We're
:> talking a century or 2 :from now. So, fewer babies until then would be
:> really smart. :
:>
:> If you look at the current trends, world population will flatten and
:> start declining all by itself by then. It looks like it'll peak around
:> 30-40 years from now and then flatten out.
:
:I hope you're right. I also hope that mass starvation and wars are not
:involved in the process.
:
It's based on declining birth rates.
:> :However, the libertarian in me is in a quandary as to how one controls
:> the :population without impinging on personal freedom. Perhaps strong
:> negative :tax implications for having more than "x" number of children?
:> :
:>
:> Social engineering via tax policy? Hardly the libertarian ideal...
:
:I know. Ok, not a very good suggestion; but maybe less damaging to freedom
:than other possible measures.
:
The only way you get that kind of change is by changing societal
attitudes. Tax laws don't do that.
Scotty
You are quite right, it is far too soon to gloat which is why I said to
Adam, "lets talk again in another ten years". The significance of the dip,
to me, is that the temp is turning/plateaing/declining is happening in the
face of continually rising CO2. You have to see both together. And don't
forget that we have now moved down the temp curve by ten years in spite of
runaway increases in CO2 which the alarmists insist are causing warming.
I have said many times that the planet is warming and has been warming
since the end of the mini ice age, nothing new there, except that "we" were
not there to produce the CO2 that initiated or caused the end of the MIA.
It also started warming before the Industrial Revolution and the rate of
rise of temperature doesn't show any inflection during or after the
industrial revolution and has in fact declined for abt. the last ten years!
>So, we have to wait and see maybe another 20 odd years. the arguments
>will still go on since if we do reduce Co2 and the temp goes down then
>proposers of the Co2 argument will claim it is due to their prompt
>action!! if it goes on up then the warmists can claim victory in as
>much as claiming that the temp is indeed going up. They may even make
>a claim that it is dues to humans - but, that still may not be the
>case.
>Hardy
Yep, there is always the chance that the alarmists will claim victory and
say, "it was us for raising the awareness that prevented runaway warming".
Ah well, you've just got to take your knocks. Remember, my thesis is that
the warming we have seen over the last 3-400 years is a naturally occurring
cycle that started without us and was not CAUSED or exacerbated by CO2.
HardySpicer
Well my sister is a bit of an ecologist and a trainied Geologist. even
she is doubtful about the current theories of warming.
Hardy
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:P6GdnRgkVoeNbaXW...@bt.com...
>
> "Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:7ppo6h...@mid.individual.net...
>> soupdragon wrote:
>>> amacm...@aol.com wrote in
>>> news:th4fj55cdhu8p4g64...@4ax.com:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:43:32 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh dear! Another potentially interesting thread reduced to a personal
>>> slanging match. Zzzzzzzzzz!
>>
>> Ideas are not responsible for their followers.
>>
> Assuming, of course, there was reason in the arena to begin with.
Quite.
I gave up trying to debate politely or reason with these lunatics months
ago. Complete waste of time.
I really tried with Scotty, mountains of the latest scientific papers
referenced, all the latest figures from GISS, CRU and the rest - and what do
I get in return - blatant lies.
IMO there is nothing more insulting than a lie.
But then that's just me.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>news:3ltej5hju9o6bqbkd...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Climate Scientists did apparently: "doubt their own theories and their
>>> own
>>> results". But then proceeded to manipulate the data,
>
> Dropping instrumental readings into what purported to be a Paleo record
> because their tree rings didn't show a rise?
ER.. the tree rings DID show a rise.
That was the point. The instrumental readings showed a decline in
convergence. The tree rings showed a greater rise in temps than was actually
recorded.
This had already been discussed in at least two papers that he had already
published in the peer reviewed literature.
Trey to get something right.
> Or Trenberth, I think, saying," we can't explain the decline and it is a
> travesty".
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted
(among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves
that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If
one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is
discussing, his meaning becomes clear.
If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing
fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An
imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy
(Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much
net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also
discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of
our climate system.
Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to
increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small 40 years ago
but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m2 over the 2000 to 2005 period,
as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite data indicates the energy
imbalance has continued to increase from 2006 to 2008. The net result is
that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still
happening.
Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't surface
temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural variability".
But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual physical processes
involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere.
Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did
the 2008 La Nina rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the
above? Trenberth wants answers!
So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget,
tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A
global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x
1020 joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going
into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:
a.. Land: 2 x 1020 joules per year
b.. Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 1020 joules per year
c.. Ice sheets: 1.4 x 1020 joules per year
d.. Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 1020 joules per year
e.. Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 1020 joules per year
f.. Sun: 16 x 1020 joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from
2004 to 2008)
These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 1020 joules per year.
This falls well short of the total 145 x 1020 joules per year (although the
error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration that observation
systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global
warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites
find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more
accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the
energy budget.
So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only goes to
900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered
below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von
Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down
to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been
accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m2. This higher trend for ocean heat
would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite
measurements of net energy imbalance. However, von Schuckmann's results were
published after Trenberth's paper so I look forward to seeing how this plays
out in future papers.
So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't."
After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he
meant was this:
"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating
heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track
of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively
explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years.
That's a travesty!"
Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as
secretive and deceptive. However, * when one takes the trouble to acquaint
oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent*
Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating
his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's
opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet.
They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and
much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email..."
Next?
>
> Tom Wigley (his boss), emailed Jones saying it would have been easier to
> admit the data's shortcomings.
ER - no he didn't. That's just another rightardfact you've swallowed hook
line and sinker - how surprising.
"Why, why, why did you not simply say this right at the start?"
Like in the peer-reviewed papers he published earlier you mean?
> And that's just off the top of my head. How many more examples do you
> want?
Oh I KNOW it's all off the 'Top of your head' Scotty.
That much is obvious.
Give me one single example that stands up to more than a few seconds of
scrutiny.
I get bored debunking the same old shallow lies.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Except that it hasn't of course. The MWP and MIA where local events as I've
shown you and you choose to ignore.
except that "we" were
> not there to produce the CO2 that initiated or caused the end of the MIA.
Natural regional event - get over it. The debate has long since moved on
from that tired old denier canard that 'the world was warmer in the MWP'.
It wasn't. I'm not going to reference all the studies that show this AGAIN
as you will just ignore the science and continue blithely parroting this
weeks new line of bunk.
I'm still wating for you to explain how the basic laws of physics no longer
apply to Co2. Go back to square one and show me how you have come to the
conclusion that Co2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.
How can there NOT be an overall energy imbalance? All the rest is politics
not science.
> It also started warming before the Industrial Revolution and the rate of
> rise of temperature doesn't show any inflection during or after the
> industrial revolution and has in fact declined for abt. the last ten
> years!
>
> Yep, there is always the chance that the alarmists will claim victory and
> say, "it was us for raising the awareness that prevented runaway warming".
> Ah well, you've just got to take your knocks. Remember, my thesis is that
> the warming we have seen over the last 3-400 years is a naturally
> occurring
> cycle that started without us and was not CAUSED or exacerbated by CO2.
Your 'thesis'!!
Bwhahahahahahahaaa.
Stop it - you're killing me. And as for 'claiming victory' - jeez - you
think I *want* to see the end of my comfortable western existance?! I'm too
old for this survivalist shit.
And I havn't got the time nor the energy to go through every one of your
dozens of grossly innacurate lines of pure bunk.
But then that's how anti-science works. That's what you count on isn't it.
That you can come up with more junk quicker than the real scientists can
refute it.
Meanwhile, today - this very day - is the hottest in 800,000 years. You guys
are just sad.
HardySpicer
It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the majority
of hype. They take everything at face value and have no discrimination
at all.
They are victims of a cult. Don't get me wrang though. I am in favour
of reducing polutants - by increasing Nuclear power facilities. This
is the one and only way at present. I don't care if the temp is going
up or down, reducing pollutants is always a good thing. We're just a
little behind technology wise at present to live life normally if we
use renuwable energy. You can see on this pro-renewable site (which is
biased as hell)
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/spain-sets-wind-power-generation-record/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The figures came as the World Wildlife Fund praised Spain’s rapid move
into renewable energies. Spain has also earned praises from WWF for
its overall effort in developing renewable energy during the past 12
years. By the next year Spain aims to meet 30% of its annual
electricity demand from renewable sources.
-----------------------------------------
30% is not bad but a little optimistic. who knows, they may make it -
but there is a little trouble is there not with the renmaining 70%!!!
LOL
Hardy
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
:news:P6GdnRgkVoeNbaXW...@bt.com...
:>
:> "Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
:> news:7ppo6h...@mid.individual.net...
:>> soupdragon wrote:
:>>>
:>>> Oh dear! Another potentially interesting thread reduced to a personal
:>>> slanging match. Zzzzzzzzzz!
:>>
:>> Ideas are not responsible for their followers.
:>>
:> Assuming, of course, there was reason in the arena to begin with.
:
:Quite.
:I gave up trying to debate politely or reason with these lunatics months
:ago. Complete waste of time.
:
Don't look now, but you and your ilk are the *problem*.
:
:IMO there is nothing more insulting than a lie.
:But then that's just me.
:
Yes, it is, and we would all be better served if you would stop lying
and disrupting discussions with your 'debating' tactics.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:atidnYOfvI1IOqfW...@westnet.com.au...
> "Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
> Meanwhile, today - this very day - is the hottest in 800,000 years. You
> guys are just sad.
It was "A thousand years" three posts ago.
Have you no short term memory whatsoever?
Robert Peffers
"conwaycaine" <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QN2dnfVpI8v28abW...@giganews.com...
--
Auld Bob
Scotty
<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the majority
>of hype. They take everything at face value and have no discrimination
>at all.
>They are victims of a cult. Don't get me wrong though. I am in favour
>of reducing polutants - by increasing Nuclear power facilities. This
I don't know if you've seen the reports, maybe it was Jason who commented
that with the anticipated water shortages we would have to start using
de-salination plants.
Well the UAE has decided to go there and they need the power to drive it,
so they have just placed an order for four nuclear plants for $80B.
The surprise was that they didn't get them from the US: they're getting
them from South Korea!
>is the one and only way at present. I don't care if the temp is going
>up or down, reducing pollutants is always a good thing. We're just a
>little behind technology wise at present to live life normally if we
>use renuwable energy. You can see on this pro-renewable site (which is
>biased as hell)
>
>http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/spain-sets-wind-power-generation-record/
Did you look at this link on the same page as above?
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/japan-wind-power-project-threatened/
They don't use the terminology but it should be, "network stability",
applies equally to the Spanish surge in generation, a very serious problem,
your baseload stations can't turn the wick down quickly enough and the
whole network oscillates.
Scott.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>> Except that it hasn't of course. The MWP and MIA where local events as
>> I've shown you and you choose to ignore.
>
> Really? http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html says the opposite
> was the case and backs it up with recorded examples. This is an AGW site
> but points out both were global phenomena although not all areas were
> equally effected.
Yep really.
I can only assume that that site is old, or the author hasn't been keeping
up to date with the latest research.
The latest study was completed earlier this year.
If you don't mind I'll just block and paste an earlier post I made on this
subject in reply to Scotty, who had just deliberately misquoted this peice
of research - I presume he thought I hadn't read it from cover to cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[me]
"....I just pointed you to the latest global scientific research from:
Michael E. Mann,
Zhihua Zhang
Scott Rutherford
Raymond S. Bradley'
Malcolm K. Hughes
Drew Shindell
Caspar Ammann,
Greg Faluvegi,
and Fenbiao Ni
Almost all of them heads of departments and teams of climatologists at:
Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute,
Pennsylvania State University,
Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol,
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts..
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York.
Climate Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder.
Who ALL agree that their vast combined study of the data (thousands of
man-hours) shows that the so-called Medieval Warming Period was a localised
event centred primarily on the North Atlantic (that's near Greenland
Scotty).
They didn't use 'a few sediments in Norway' , they used a global "..network
of diverse climate proxies such as tree ring samples, ice cores, coral and
sediments.." to reconstruct spatial patterns of ocean and land surface
temperature over the past 1500 years. They found that the patterns of
temperature change show dynamic connections to natural phenomena such as El
Ni�o.
Mann and his colleagues reproduced the relatively cool interval from the
1400s to the 1800s known as the "Little Ice Age" and the relatively mild
conditions of the 900s to 1300s sometimes termed the "Medieval Warm Period."
The researchers found that "...1,000 years ago, *.regions such as southern
Greenland may have been as warm as today. However, a very large area
covering much of the tropical Pacific was unusually cold at the same time *,
suggesting the cold La Ni�a phase of the El Ni�o phenomenon....
....This regional cooling offset relative warmth in other locations, helping
to
explain previous observations that * the globe and Northern hemisphere on
average were not as warm as they are today*..."
My astericks.
I expect there are dozens of websites out there who don't keep abreast of
all the latest research. It's almost a full-time job keeping up.
The paper is entitled 'Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little
Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly'
and is available here: [you'll have to block and paste the url]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;326/5957/1256?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Global+Signatures+and+Dynamical+Origins+of+the+Little+Ice+Age+and+Medieval+Climate+Anomaly&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Adam Whyte-Settlar
And I think you'll find I said 'thousands' of years. I certainly meant to.
The estimates range from about 120,000 to over a million.
My favourite is 800,000 years as that was the last time we had Co2 at the
levels they are at today.
Whatever. I'm not going to die in a trench defending that figure as no-one
knows for sure once you go back 120,000 years SFAICA.
But! It's much hotter (globaly) now than during the MWP in the North
Atlantic which is the point that most people have yet failed to understand.
I can appreciate why they are confused. Even I was taught about the MWP as a
kid at school and the presumption was that it was probably global. But the
technology wasn't available back then and it's since been disvovered that it
was a localised event with the main area (though not all) of the warming
being in the North Atlantic.
Interestingly, even during the so-called 'Mini Ice Age' - also a localised
event - the seas around Greenland stayed *much* warmer than other areas too.
Weird.
Probably something to do with the warm ocean currents of the time. A bit
like the Gulf Stream nowadays which keeps the seas off the west coast of
Britain - and especially Scotland - ice free in winter, even though Scotland
is on the same latitude as Moscow. Seems reasonable to me.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
: )
I'm writing this from Australia. So that *proves* I'm right.
You get those nasty Easterlies in Kelty. Throws all those years of global
climate study right out of wack.
"Australia records hottest six months on record"
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-records-hottest-six-months-on-record-20091209-kjd5.html
Yes - I do know it's only weather - but just thought you might be interested
in a heart-warming story as you freeze your balls off in Kelty.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:04:41 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
> <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the majority
>>of hype. They take everything at face value and have no discrimination
>>at all.
>>They are victims of a cult.
Oh the irony.
Coming from the king of the dupes. The sucker supreme for every
denialist-myth and op-ed piece of conspiracy-nut nonsense ever printed.
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
Aye! Where I am in Kelty we get the worst of the Easterlies as I'm out on
the east side of the village with the country park across the road. There is
no shelter from that side. My next door neighbours are two story and I'm a
one level cottage. When the cold North Sea wind starts driving in the snow
in it swirls round his drive and dumps the snow into my drive. He stays
clear and I have to dig my way out.
As it happens we have a family tradition. On Christmas eve I take either
photos or a short video and send to my sister in Queensland and she posts
the QL scene to me. I'm sitting with the heating going full blast, with a
quilted shirt and a thermal hat on while she sits out on the porch in her
swimwear.
--
Auld Bob
.
The Highlander
> "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
In Northern Canada once you leave Yellowknife and start heading into
the High Arctic, you'll find huge trucks using frozen rivers as
highways which have been bulldozed from the ice.
More recently, these roads have been extended to take advantage of the
sea, which freezes and stay frozen until the spring thaw.These trucks
carry diamond drilling equipment weighing hundred of thousands of
pounds and travel at high speed to make their next stop before
darkness sets in. The ice roads are checked regularly to ensure that
they are nor breaking up and it was the fact that they rarely do that
prompted the truckers to start using the Arctic ocean as a highway.
Just across the water, the Russians do the same thing with their
trucks to keep their Siberian settlements supplied. I don't know what
you'll make of the above, but it is a fact and I thought it might
interest you..
Cory Bhreckan
I used to believe in Global Warming but there's snow on the ground so I
can't anymore. Maybe if it gets hot again I can believe in Global
Warming again.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
>
>>
>> "soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CF173643...@62.141.42.83...
>>
>>>> Except that it hasn't of course. The MWP and MIA where local events
>>>> as I've shown you and you choose to ignore.
>>>
>>> Really? http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html says the
>>> opposite was the case and backs it up with recorded examples. This is
>>> an AGW site but points out both were global phenomena although not
>>> all areas were equally effected.
>>
>>
>> Yep really.
>
>
>> I can only assume that that site is old, or the author hasn't been
>> keeping up to date with the latest research.
>
>
>>
>> The latest study was completed earlier this year.
>>
>> If you don't mind I'll just block and paste an earlier post I made on
>> this subject in reply to Scotty,
>
>
> So essentially, your research agrees with the site I quoted -
No
MWP was
> a global phenomena, though not all areas -
No
such as those in the Pacific
> affected by El Nino - were equally effected.
No
Greenland was warm enough
> for Viking settlements.
Yes
Thank you.
My pleasure.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> Even then it's a bit dodgy. We all know that El Nina events are
> sun-synchronous and last 11 years. How long was the MWP? Several hundred
> years! It's unlikely that a several hundred year event was restricted to a
> fairly small part of the earth.
Then I suggest that you contact the following leading climatologists at the
following institutions and inform them that you know better than them:
(Please let us know how you get on)
Michael E. Mann,
Zhihua Zhang
Scott Rutherford
Raymond S. Bradley'
Malcolm K. Hughes
Drew Shindell
Caspar Ammann,
Greg Faluvegi,
and Fenbiao Ni
Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute,
conwaycaine
Is it ever a hot day in Scotland?
I remember one of our vaunted Scots complaining about the temperature
getting up to 70 degrees F.
He was about to have a heat stroke.
(Note to all Scots: you do not wish to move to Arizona)
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> Yes - I do know it's only weather - but just thought you might be
> interested
> in a heart-warming story as you freeze your balls off in Kelty.
>
> Aye! Where I am in Kelty we get the worst of the Easterlies as I'm out on
> the east side of the village with the country park across the road. There
> is no shelter from that side. My next door neighbours are two story and
> I'm a one level cottage. When the cold North Sea wind starts driving in
> the snow in it swirls round his drive and dumps the snow into my drive. He
> stays clear and I have to dig my way out.
Thank you for reminding me why I chose to be in Queensland in January.
> As it happens we have a family tradition. On Christmas eve I take either
> photos or a short video and send to my sister in Queensland and she posts
> the QL scene to me. I'm sitting with the heating going full blast, with a
> quilted shirt and a thermal hat on while she sits out on the porch in her
> swimwear.
Furry boots in Queensland is she?
conwaycaine
> As it happens we have a family tradition. On Christmas eve I take either
> photos or a short video and send to my sister in Queensland and she posts
> the QL scene to me. I'm sitting with the heating going full blast, with a
> quilted shirt and a thermal hat on while she sits out on the porch in her
> swimwear.
> --
You've no woolen "Long Johns" in Scotland?
They would keep you warm no matter what the wind was doing.
And the flap in back comes in quite handy as well.
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
I'm sure rightard Christians are somehow involved in all
this...................
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>
> "conwaycaine" <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:QN2dnfVpI8v28abW...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>> news:atidnYOfvI1IOqfW...@westnet.com.au...
>>> "Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> Meanwhile, today - this very day - is the hottest in 800,000 years. You
>>> guys are just sad.
>>
>> It was "A thousand years" three posts ago.
>> Have you no short term memory whatsoever?
>
>
> And I think you'll find I said 'thousands' of years. I certainly meant to.
>
I thought "a thousand years" but, fool that I am, I didn't preserve the
post.
La N
> On Dec 31, 12:33 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>> "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> the High Arctic, you'll find huge trucks using frozen rivers as
> highways which have been bulldozed from the ice.
>
> http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=ice+road+truckers+season+3&meta=&aq=0&oq=ice+road+truckers&fp=ca7bc37eb6518610
>
> More recently, these roads have been extended to take advantage of the
> sea, which freezes and stay frozen until the spring thaw.These trucks
> carry diamond drilling equipment weighing hundred of thousands of
> pounds and travel at high speed to make their next stop before
> darkness sets in. The ice roads are checked regularly to ensure that
> they are nor breaking up and it was the fact that they rarely do that
> prompted the truckers to start using the Arctic ocean as a highway.
> Just across the water, the Russians do the same thing with their
> trucks to keep their Siberian settlements supplied. I don't know what
> you'll make of the above, but it is a fact and I thought it might
> interest you..
A friend in Saskatchewan was recently offered work driving one of these
trucks. He would be paid $400/day with 20 days in and 20 days out (flown
back home) as a routine.
- nilita
La N
> Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>> "Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:cvpnj59mnvfdh02os...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:04:41 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
>>> <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the
>>>> majority of hype. They take everything at face value and have no
>>>> discrimination at all.
>>>> They are victims of a cult.
>>
>> Oh the irony.
>> Coming from the king of the dupes. The sucker supreme for every
>> denialist-myth and op-ed piece of conspiracy-nut nonsense ever
>> printed.
>
> I used to believe in Global Warming but there's snow on the ground so
> I can't anymore. Maybe if it gets hot again I can believe in Global
> Warming again.
Cory, you're so wise. It's no wonder they named a religion after you.
- nil
Cory Bhreckan
Whaddayamean 'they'?
Robert Peffers
"The Highlander" <mic...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:de4924e2-8ba5-4999...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
We have a series on our TV about them.
Ice Road Truckers.
--
Auld Bob
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
:
Just what are you offering Auld Bob, Conway? You know, after your
remarks to The Phantom Pillock and now this I'm starting to get a
little concerned about you. You haven't 'changed teams' or some such,
have you? ;-)
--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell
Robert Peffers
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:31:55 +0000 (UTC), soupdragon <m...@privacy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
>>
>>>
>>> "soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CF173643...@62.141.42.83...
>>>
>>>>> Except that it hasn't of course. The MWP and MIA where local events
>>>>> as I've shown you and you choose to ignore.
>>>>
>>>> Really? http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html says the
>>>> opposite was the case and backs it up with recorded examples. This is
>>>> an AGW site but points out both were global phenomena although not
>>>> all areas were equally effected.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep really.
>>
>>
>>> keeping up to date with the latest research.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The latest study was completed earlier this year.
>>>
>>> If you don't mind I'll just block and paste an earlier post I made on
>>> this subject in reply to Scotty,
>>
>>
>>So essentially, your research agrees with the site I quoted - MWP was
>>a global phenomena, though not all areas - such as those in the Pacific
>>affected by El Nino - were equally effected. Greenland was warm enough
>>for Viking settlements. Thank you.
>
> Even then it's a bit dodgy. We all know that El Nina events are
> sun-synchronous and last 11 years. How long was the MWP? Several hundred
> years! It's unlikely that a several hundred year event was restricted to a
> fairly small part of the earth.
years and that there is a longer cycle associated with it that cannot be
shown as weather changes as we have no weather recordings. What we do have
is historic records and these, (roughly), follow a cyclic pattern. My
Grandfather often spoke of, "The year o the short corn", and \this was a
drought that saw the harvests ruined as the corn could not be harvested as
it was indeed short. Then he, a curler, could reel off the years of
Bonspiel, (we just had one today in Scotland). These historic events show a
rough pattern too.
--
Another strange one is that the exceptionally hot Summers coincided with the
exceptional Winters.
--
Auld Bob
Auld Bob
Ian Smith
ony mair an' gied us this:
Well I damn near melted in Hawaii most of the time. The locals complained
if it briefly slipped below 70F (some early mornings in January). I
rejoiced. :-)
--
Perpetual World Calendar - http://www.1r5.net
Robert Peffers
I cannot stand it being too bloody hot.
I have worked on top of aircraft carrier masts in the dead of Winter in a
North Sea blizzard and managed fine.
I pass out with heatstroke and suffer prickly heat at anything over 70�F.
--
Auld Bob
Scotty
Especially for Conway. I couldn't find your hometown but here is the
temperatures for Albermarle:
http://www.co2science.org/data/ushcn/nc/nc.php
Unfortunately it only starts in 1912, lots of them go back to 1812.
Then click on the "calculate trend" box and wait a few seconds for the
graph to appear. Better break out the woolies...
There, that should settle the matter!!!
Anyone interested can goto:
http://www.co2science.org/data/ushcn/ushcn.php
And select the State of interest then there is a box for selecting a
weather station near you.
Robert Peffers
there is a USA version too,
The auld red flannel drawers that Maggie Wore.
It is sang to the tune of, "Maggie May".
I know it has a USA version as the red flag used on shooting ranges is
called, "Maggie's" Drawers".
You will find many versions if you ask Google for them and some are not fit
for refined company.
--
Auld Bob
La N
In Canada when it is bitter cold we wimmin hunker down with our long flanel
red plaid nightgowns and big pink fluffy mules. And many don't bother
shaving their legs ... :)))
- nilita
Fred J. McCall
:
:"conwaycaine" <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
:news:POydnRAe9rELSqHW...@giganews.com...
:>
:> (Note to all Scots: you do not wish to move to Arizona)
:>
:
:R-i-g-h-t - I do not want to move to Arizona.
:
Was it something I said?
--
"Yet here I sit, years of evildoing under my belt, and still a
happy camper."
-- Alan Shore, "Boston Legal"
Fred J. McCall
:
:In Canada when it is bitter cold we wimmin hunker down with our long flanel
:red plaid nightgowns and big pink fluffy mules. And many don't bother
:shaving their legs ... :)))
:
I can believe you hunker down with a fluffy pink mule. I am curious
why it is notable that you don't bother to shave its legs, though....
--
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is
simply to arrange the meeting."
-- General Norman Schwarzkopf
La N
> La N wrote:
>> Cory Bhreckan wrote:
>>> Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>>>> "Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:cvpnj59mnvfdh02os...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:04:41 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
>>>>> <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the
>>>>>> majority of hype. They take everything at face value and have no
>>>>>> discrimination at all.
>>>>>> They are victims of a cult.
>>>> Oh the irony.
>>>> Coming from the king of the dupes. The sucker supreme for every
>>>> denialist-myth and op-ed piece of conspiracy-nut nonsense ever
>>>> printed.
>>> I used to believe in Global Warming but there's snow on the ground
>>> so I can't anymore. Maybe if it gets hot again I can believe in
>>> Global Warming again.
>>
>> Cory, you're so wise. It's no wonder they named a religion after
>> you. - nil
>>
>>
>
> Whaddayamean 'they'?
Cory? <gulp> ... I hope the day never comes when you go all Waco or
Jonestown on us ....
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Uh...I think I'm going to stick with my floor length velvet dressing
gown and fleece lined carpet slippers...the last time anyone (okay
then, my daughter) brought fluffy slippers into the house, the dog
fell hopelessly in love...he's still heartbroken that it never returned
his affections. :-)
Deirdre
________________
ERROR #D3F2: Replace user and press any key to continue.
Robert Peffers
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xh8%m.59735$PH1.8478@edtnps82...
--
Auld Bob
La N
That's what furriners always say ... :) :) :)
- nil
Cory Bhreckan
Don't forget Heaven's Gate.
Fred J. McCall
:Cory Bhreckan wrote:
:> La N wrote:
:>>
:>> Cory, you're so wise. It's no wonder they named a religion after
:>> you. - nil
:>>
:>
:> Whaddayamean 'they'?
:>
:
:Cory? <gulp> ... I hope the day never comes when you go all Waco or
:Jonestown on us ....
:
Just as long as he doesn't become like this guy I went to high school
with (only 30-ish guys in the graduating class and we get one like
this...).
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m00.html#millerk
http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/
--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush
The Phantom Piper
>
> Cory? <gulp> ... I hope the day never comes when
> you go all Waco or Jonestown on us ....
He can't afford the Purple Prayer Shawls,
the cheap bastard.
Besides, to go "all Waco" you need to have
friends in the Federal Government who will
come by and set your house alight for you.
Waiting For The Saucer People,
The Phantom Piper
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
> Yup. Japan, Africa and ice cores from Antarica all confirm
> both MWP and Little Ice Age. East Africa and California were much drier
> during the MWP. Temperatures derived from stalagtites in a New Zealand
> cave show clear MWP with temperatures 0.75deg warmer than today. That
> looks pretty global to me.
So how does that agree with the cite I posted?
They say in the abstract:
"The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that
of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels
globally"
They couldn't put it much more plainly than that.
How can you *possibly* interpret that as being global warming accross the
who planet!?
John Cook comments:
"...The Medieval Warm Period found warm conditions over a large part of the
North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North
America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the
1961-1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures are even as warm as today.
However, certain regions, such as central Eurasia, northwestern North
America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler. So the Medieval
Warm Period was not a global phenomen. Warmer conditions were concentrated
in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice
Age. For this reason, the paper's authors refer to the Medieval Warm Period
as the more technical sounding 'Medieval Climate Anomaly'..."
Here is the map of temperatures that goes with the study.
It makes it clearer.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
So. Obviously no planet wide global warming there.
Note the huge anomoly centred around Greenland. Pretty easy to see why the
vikings were able to colonise it.
If you still think that is a global event then you must be living on another
planet.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> If you work with radio you know that the Sun spot thingy is only roughly
> 11 years and that there is a longer cycle associated with it that cannot
> be shown as weather changes as we have no weather recordings.
Temperatures did closely correlate to solar activity for a long time and it
did seem they were on to something.
However, the correlation ended abrubtly around 1975.
At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level.
Here's the graph.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif
Oh dear. Another denier-myth bites the dust.
And in case anyone wants to shoot the messenger I hope you've got plenty of
ammo as I've found another sixteen peer-reviewed scientific papers that
conclude the same:
What brain-dead refers to as 'cant' I believe. <snigger>
Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean
surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is
14% of the observed global warming"
Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from
solar forcing a global warming is 7 � 1% for the 20th century and is
negligible for warming since 1980."
Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to
the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is
?1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of ?0.7 to
?1.9%."
Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing
has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have
continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time
constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of
the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of
greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen
after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the
mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is
amplified."
Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978
are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming
over the past 30 years."
Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than
could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total
irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any
significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode
must have another source."
Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon
concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the
dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced
temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but
radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models
and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter
part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still
found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by
increases in greenhouse gases."
Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global
warming since 1970".
Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun-climate relationships can
account for much of the warming since 1970".
Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are
having a large impact on the current warming trend."
Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of
the 0.2�C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past
decade"
Adam Whyte-Settlar
I'm not saying your wrong - but if I did it must have been a typo.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:04:41 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
>>> <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the majority
>>>>of hype. They take everything at face value and have no discrimination
>>>>at all.
>>>>They are victims of a cult.
>>
>> Oh the irony.
>> Coming from the king of the dupes. The sucker supreme for every
>> denialist-myth and op-ed piece of conspiracy-nut nonsense ever printed.
>
> this...................
Well they do deny evolution is happening too.
Could be a connection.
S�im� mac Liam
wrote:
I did.
>I'm not saying your wrong - but if I did it must have been a typo.
>
You did say what he said you said, but I'd not have said anything
about it, as it don't make a shit. It certainly didn't appear a typo
as you preceeded 'thousand' with the article, 'a' and I'd not go
slapping people around for calling me on it.
Saint S�im� mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
S�im� mac Liam
wrote:
>
And if you think the proxy reconstructions show the degree of accuracy
reflected in your posted chart, then you are living in another
dimension. I refer you to:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
with particular attention the the box inset at the beginning of
chapter 9, Statistical Background, found here:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=83
though, the whole document is a good read for understanding proxy
temperature reonstructions and the possibilities regarding their
accuracy. BTW, all the real evidence from the MWP comes from proxy
reconstructions, most from the northern hemisphere. Happy New Year.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"S�im� mac Liam" <gwy...@comcastnospam.net> wrote in message
news:3h1rj5tndbkpp9nb4...@4ax.com...
Me neither. Fair enough - Obviously a mistake on my part as you should
surely be able to tell from all the posts I've made of the science proving
that the so-called MWP was a localised event not a global event.
But I reckon I'll stick with my 800,000 years from now on.
That's what almost all the paleoclimatologists are saying and who are we to
dispute them?
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:ocSdnbuA6ufM7qDW...@westnet.com.au...
There is nothing new in historic reports getting things wrong. The Bible, if
we accept it as a history book, made lots of errors. The various reports of
the Lord blighting the World at various times are cases in point. T
If large chunks of terra firma had not been discovered by the people doing
the recording they claimed the whole World copped it but that was the World
as they knew it. In fact the thinking is that the whole World flood that
Noah built his ark for is thought be little more than the Tigris and
Euphrates basin.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
--
Auld Bob
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>> So the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomen.
> And if you think the proxy reconstructions show the degree of accuracy
> reflected in your posted chart, then you are living in another
> dimension. I refer you to:
> http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
Yes. Thank you. I've already seen it. I remember reading it when it was
first published over four years ago.
I don't know about you but personaly I try to keep up with the latest
research.
Paleoclimatologyy is improving at an exponential rate (thanks to all those
billions of dollars in grants that the spongers are getting) and four years
is a long time in this field.
The latest research carried out just a few motnhs ago by an international
team from six seperate Universities have since rendered that particular
study somewhat obsolete.
Get over it. The MWP was a localised event. Almost every single
climatologist in the world now agrees on this point. If you want to disprove
AGW then you need to find another route.
I suggest you try "It's the sun!". Seems to be the very last theory that has
yet to be comprehensively debunked.
>Happy New Year.
Same to you Seimi - sincerely.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>> Here is the map of temperatures that goes with the study.
>> It makes it clearer.
>>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
> There is nothing new in historic reports getting things wrong. The Bible,
> if we accept it as a history book, made lots of errors. The various
> reports of the Lord blighting the World at various times are cases in
> point. If large chunks of terra firma had not been discovered by the
> people doing the recording they claimed the whole World copped it but that
> was the World as they knew it. In fact the thinking is that the whole
> World flood that Noah built his ark for is thought be little more than the
> Tigris and Euphrates basin.
Can't argue with that Bob.
By the way - while I've got your attention. Happy new year!
Cory Bhreckan
Oh yeah? Well WorldNetDaily sez you're wrong. Sorry that should be 'your
wrong'.
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
Cheers! And ditto.
--
Auld Bob
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:jvydne5Ptt9dbqDW...@westnet.com.au...
> team from six seperate Universities have since rendered that particular
> study somewhat obsolete.
Might we expect the names of these teams and their universities what
obsoleted the study?
Perhaps a web site?
No?
An accurate and unbiased email then?
Still no?
"Home Truths" then........................