Global Warming <The debbil made me do it>>

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Bob and Ralph.
>
> Another evasion, I note.
>
> You don't know anything about the science behind this subject, do you,
> Jay?

Really, Dan, there's no reason to be rude. I just thought I'd lighten you
up a bit. To no avail, I see.

Well, anyway -- try this one on for size:

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=35203

It's from 2004, but the Iowa State study shows that any warming will be
strongest in the winter (good) and at night (good), and that increased
rainfall (good) will accompany any increase in temperatures.

Trust me -- any increase in winter temperature in Iowa is a very good thing,
indeed. And more rain with warmer temps will only make Iowa bloom even more
than it does now -- which is pretty hard to imagine.

I could go Google you some more studies, but it's really not that hard to
do. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Al has produced one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Aluckyguess]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dan > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>> "Dan" wrote:
>>> >> > In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
>>> >> > global warming
>>> >> > scenario.
>>>
>>> >> Really? Name two.
>>>
>>> > Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000 signatures
>>> > will dampen your anti-denier zeal?
>>>
>>> >http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm
>>>
>>> HAW-HAW-HAW!
>>>
>>> At last--The Oregon Petition!
>>>
>>> I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!
>>>
>>> The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
>>> 17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
>>> aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
>>> you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
>>> predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
>>> the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.
>>>
>>> You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
>>> from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to
>>> buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
>>> apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.
>>>
>>> Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
>>> took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D.
>>> in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in
>>> various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one
>>> was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise,
>>> and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would
>>> not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such
>>> petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
>>> Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of
>>> about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a
>>> small fraction of the climatological community"
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
>>>
>>> So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do with
>>> climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were climate
>>> researchers.
>>>
>>> That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is real,
>>> isn't it?
>>
>> You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
>> hysteria.
>>
>> I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.
>>
>
> You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
LOL you probably believe that. I think there is a cooling trend. I was
wondering if anybody wanted to give me a grant for a few Mill so I can prove
it. You know I will.
>>
>

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:50:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Roger > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> > In article >,
>>>>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>>>>> >> -
>>>sjc.supernews.net:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> > In article
>>>>> >> > <9ced5bde-8241-4ecd-9cb5-3948545b7571
>>>>> @d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> >> > Dan > wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...
>>>>> @yahoo.com>
>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> > > Dan > wrote in
>>>>> >> >> > >news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
>>>>> >> 47g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
>>>>> >> >> > >om:
>>>>> >> >> > > > However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm
>>>>> >> >> > > > unilaterally. They also insisted that it was US
>technical
>>>>> >> >> > > > advances and weapon fielding that was destabilizing.
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > so let me get this analogy straight
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our
>>>enemies
>>>>> >> >> > (there always enemies - especially in an election year)
>>>>> >> >> > and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our
>>>>> >> >> > anihilation
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
>>>>> >> >> > from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
>>>>> >> >> > nobody could do that much decoupage
>>>>> >> >> > without calling on the powers of darkness
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> No.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> "Everybody must agree that there is only one course to insure
>>>our
>>>>> >> >> survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
>>>>> >> > were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
>>>>> >> > there was universal agreement on one course to insure our
>>>survival
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Actually, not everybody agreed. The same sort of idiot who
>couldnt
>>>>> see
>>>>> >> that seems to have proliferated, though.

It's a mating ritual where like attracts like.
sorta like Democrates make more Democrats and Republicans make more
republicans. I think it's a race to see which one can produce the
most voters the fastest.

>>>>> >
>>>>> > everybody who mattered agreed
>>>>> > mr smarty pants
>>>>>
>>>>> True. Point is the idiots are at the wheel at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> i wonder what would happen this summer if everyone goes to neijing
>>>> takes one deep breath
>>>> and then immediately turns around and gets back on the plane
>>>
>>>
>>>Neijing would have considerably less air.
>>
>> Cleaner too.
>>
>> Everyone, take some home. It'd probably be the cleanest air they've
>> seen in decades.
>>
>
>A bit PKB for someone from near enough detroit, eh?

PKB?

I'm a good 120 milesNNW (UPWIND) of Detroit where the summer smog is
created by the corn fields and swamps rather than industry. <:-)) Even
the thunderstorms create more Ozone than we let industry put out.

Our streams have been cleaned up to the point where we now have black
flies. Nothing like the number in the Tundra, but the little buggers
still bite. Of course we make up for those lack of numbers by letting
our mosquitoes spread the West Nile Virus and a couple other nasties.

OTOH way back in the early 60's I once followed the smog
(foul...fowl...nasty smelling cloud) from an un-named company for a
100 miles and I could still see it clear to the horizon ahead from
5000 feet. Of course climbing that high and flying that far in a piper
Colt used most of my afternoon and meant I should head for a gas
station soonest so I never did find out how far that cloud went.
However the thing I found remarkable was at 100 miles the thing wasn't
much more than 3 miles wide. That ain't much dispersion.

I haven't seen one of those clouds in years and the smell has improved
remarkably as well. That is with one exception (sdtill many years ago)
when something spilled and killed all the bacteria in some setteling
ponds. GAWD but that was POTENT! And here I'll bet most people didn't
realize **** can spoile<:-)) Of course you only need to be down wind
from a setteling pond at turnover time to become a believer.

AND accouding to official "State of Michigan" figures, our winters are
between 5 and 6 weeks shorter than they were 50 years ago.
>
>Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
>> with it.
>
>Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap

Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
fundamentalistic fanitic.

The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
or them.

>it.
>
>Dan
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"John T" > wrote in
:
>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org
>>> http://www.realclimate.org
>>
>> Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you any
>> more than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of
>> the fallacy of your belief in AGW.
>>
>
>
>it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced. I'm pretty much resigned to
>watching idiots like you sell my kids future down the Suwanee...
>
>At least I'll have the pleasure of telling you I told you so in the
>fulness of time..

At my age I'd like to be able to stick around long enough to do that.
OTOH with things accelerating as fast as they are I just might.

>Not much, but it will have to do.
>
>Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"aluckyguess" > wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:bd53a4da-10c7-445f-a2ac-bf7ce8b1dabc@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>>> "Dan" wrote:
>>>> >> > In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
>>>> >> > global warming
>>>> >> > scenario.
>>>>
>>>> >> Really? Name two.
>>>>
>>>> > Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000
>>>> > signatures will dampen your anti-denier zeal?
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> HAW-HAW-HAW!
>>>>
>>>> At last--The Oregon Petition!
>>>>
>>>> I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!
>>>>
>>>> The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
>>>> 17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
>>>> aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
>>>> you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
>>>> predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
>>>> the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.
>>>>
>>>> You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
>>>> from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to
>>>> buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
>>>> apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.
>>>>
>>>> Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
>>>> took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a
>>>> Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to
>>>> identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the
>>>> petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had
>>>> relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal
>>>> evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three
>>>> did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not
>>>> answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition
>>>> supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a
>>>> respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the
>>>> climatological community"
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
>>>>
>>>> So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do
>>>> with climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were
>>>> climate researchers.
>>>>
>>>> That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is
>>>> real, isn't it?
>>>
>>> You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
>>> hysteria.
>>>
>>> I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.
>>>
>>
>> You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
> LOL you probably believe that. I think there is a cooling trend. I was
> wondering if anybody wanted to give me a grant for a few Mill so I can
> prove it. You know I will.

What, you haven't already?


Shouldn't cost you much.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 10, 10:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >> "Dan" wrote:
>
> >> >> You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't
> >> >> made a single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would
> >> >> have to defend on
> >> >> the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an
> >> >> excuse to
> >> >> offer.
>
> >> > Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help
> >> > me reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question:
> >> > Will there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200
> >> > years), or will there not?
>
> >> > Which is it?
>
> >> Still nothing? Thought not.
>
> >> But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.
>
> >> The answer to your question is "I don't know."
>
> >> How's that?
>
> >> Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there
> >> definitely will not be?
>
> > I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
> > access, so you may have to wait for my replies).
>
> > I appreciate your candor.
>
> > This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
> > people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
> > is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
> > "likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
> > the the type language required to move millions to action.
>
> Hmm, you dont like science speak and you don;'t like hyperbole.
>
> Waht about just looking at the data for yourself.
>
> Bertie

I Did. See previous post.

But I left out this part: "For the next two decades, a warming of
about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission
scenarios. ---> Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and
aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming
of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. <---- {10.3, 10.7}"

In an essay supporting the consensus view, we find this gem, "The
scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted
for failing to act on what is not known."

To which the answer is -- Yes we can be faulted for "acting on what is
not known." Especially since "acting" will have measurably harmful as
well as a host of unintended impacts.

As far as sea level rise, consider "The widely quoted altimetric
global average values may well be correct, but the accuracies being
inferred in the literature are not testable by existing in situ
observations. Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely
difficult given the realities of space-time sampling and model
approximations. Systematic
errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change:
published values and error bars should be used very
cautiously." [http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/
Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf]

Also consider: "Changes in the Earth's radiation budget are driven by
changes in the balance between the thermal emission from the top of
the atmosphere and the net sunlight absorbed. The shortwave radiation
entering the climate system depends on the Sun's irradiance and the
Earth's reflectance. Often, studies replace the net sunlight by proxy
measures of solar irradiance, which is an oversimplification used in
efforts to probe the Sun's role in past climate change. With new
helioseismic data and new measures of the Earth's reflectance, we can
usefully separate and constrain the relative roles of the net
sunlight's two components, while probing the degree of their linkage.
First, this is possible because helioseismic data provide the most
precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more
profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since
irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth's
climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar
activity--the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example--would
then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in
the Sun's spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a
linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net
sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun's
varying output. Much progress has also been made in determining this
difficult to measure, and not-so-well-known quantity. We review our
understanding of these two closely linked, fundamental drivers of
climate." [http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/goode1349.pdf]

Threats to the planet are multiple and varied. Why haven't we
empowered an intergovernmental panel to combat tsunamis? Volcanoes?
Meteorites? Mudslides? Earthquakes?


Dan

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> Well, anyway -- try this one on for size:
>
> http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=35203
>
> It's from 2004, but the Iowa State study shows that any warming will be
> strongest in the winter (good) and at night (good), and that increased
> rainfall (good) will accompany any increase in temperatures.
>
> Trust me -- any increase in winter temperature in Iowa is a very good thing,
> indeed. And more rain with warmer temps will only make Iowa bloom even more
> than it does now -- which is pretty hard to imagine.
>
> I could go Google you some more studies, but it's really not that hard to
> do. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Al has produced one.
> --

Well, goodie for Iowa, eh?

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/04/scientists_say_global_warming.html

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

> I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
> access, so you may have to wait for my replies).
>
> I appreciate your candor.
>
> This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
> people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
> is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
> "likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
> the the type language required to move millions to action.

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty* from
them, our wait will be eternal.

That is because scientific theories are always evolving. Scientists realize
they don't know everything and never will.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes and
predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations do not, then
it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse-driven
warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No. Is the theory of evolution
"proven?" No. Are they both backed by evidence powerful enough to convince
the vast majority of scientists? Yes.

>
> Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them --
> are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
> global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
> logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and government-controls
> on all aspects of human behavior.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both sides,
wouldn't you say?


> IF governments could be trusted with such powers, it may be a good
> move, if the threat is as you say it is.
>
> But the older I get the less I trust government. And I've never had
> much trust in bureaucracy.

No reason you should.

But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It takes
some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as this one. The
easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to deny that the problem
exists.

> The founders believed that centralized powers only results in bad to
> worse. Factions (ie, differing opinions/ parties/ groups/ causes) all
> wrestling in the political arena keeps those same people from killing
> each other in the streets.
>
> Things get ugly when one side accuses the other of criminality,
> treason, lack of compassion, or care. Then we get beyond the wrestling
> and head towards the shooting. And if you think I'm being overly
> dramatic, please review US history prior to 1861.
>
> Thus I think the more reasonable approach is civil debate on the
> nature of the problem, the possible means to address the problem
> that's framed at the conclusion of the debate, and then consensus on
> the way forward.

I agree, of course. But much of the "debate" today is really a struggle
against a disinformation campaign being waged against legitimate science.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.
>>
>> Dan, you are behind the PC power curve. It is now global "climate
>> change" rather than global warming. The evidence that global warming
> is
>> starting to ebb is mounting and the fanatics need to stay ahead of the
>> data so that they can claim there were right no matter which way the
>> temperature trends.
>>
>
> Good grief.
>
>
> How does a so called 'mind' come to operate in this fashion? How is such
> damage done?

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 8:08 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty* from
> them, our wait will be eternal.

> But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes and
> predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations do not, then
> it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse-driven
> warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No. Is the theory of evolution
> "proven?" No. Are they both backed by evidence powerful enough to convince
> the vast majority of scientists? Yes.


Underlying any theory are unspoken assumptions. What annoys (yes --
annoys) skeptics is the unwillingness of the adherents to pull the
rocks up and evaluate the validity of the assumptions.

>
> > Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them --
> > are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
> > global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
> > logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and government-controls
> > on all aspects of human behavior.
>
> All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both sides,
> wouldn't you say?

Read history --recent and ancient -- to see that governments are more
than willing -- nay eager -- to mandate controls on *all* aspects of
human behavior. Ask me for proof and I'll be happy to start at either
end of the spectrum.

Historical aside -- One of the assumptions of the founders was
protection from this very thing (See Federalist Papers, particularly
#10)

>
> But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
> atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
inhabited this planet. One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
that the the only variable is human activity -- and when certain
amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
in any of the IPCC or related publications.

>
> People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It takes
> some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as this one. The
> easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to deny that the problem
> exists.

Edmund Burke suggested that alterations to society should be
approached as one would "address the wounds of a father" -- tenderly,
carefully, lovingly, and with the intent to do as little harm to the
existing organism as possible. Sometimes this means not rushing in and
thereby doing more harm than good.

In addition, we should stop "crying wolf" by raising alarms that no
one really believes to be true -- for example the 20' sea level rise
by 2100. That number was pushed by Gore in his "movie," and no one
stands by it. His images of storms, floods, and mudslides had
positively nothing -- I repeat nothing -- to do with "Global warming"
-- they were scenes of things that have happened for millennia on this
planet -- storms, floods, and mudslides.

> I agree, of course. But much of the "debate" today is really a struggle
> against a disinformation campaign being waged against legitimate science.

And that's the problem -- legitimate science by definition is a
process of hypothesis, evidence, test, rebuttal, and alteration of
hypothesis in a continuing (and hopefully evolutionary) cycle.
Therefore "consensus" falls outside best science practice.

Another aside -- The IPCC didn't help its case by limiting trend
graphs to a 10 year period. One of the most telling critiques is that
the rise shown in each falls well within acceptable variability.



Dan

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
> It's a deadly combination.
>
> He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.


Dan

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>
> Did you even read the article?

Of course. Better yet, I understood it.
>
> It says "At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2
> starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic
> temperature during glacial terminations."
>
> What part of "after" don't you understand?

No part. What part of "greenhouse effect" don't you understand?

>
> It is then fun to watch them try to refute the data that clearly
> contradicts their opinion about CO2 causing global warming rather than
> resulting from it.

There is no attempt at refutation of the data. They *know* CO2 is released
when ice ages end.

>
> "The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
> years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is
> that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000
> year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused
> by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."
>
> So the causality magically reverses after 800 years, eh? That is truly
> funny.

Nothing magic about it. In this *natural* scenario, CO2 is first a
reinforcer, not a cause. Orbital forcing is strong enough to get the ball
rolling for initiation and termination of ice ages, but it is the greenhouse
effect that maintains earth as a liquid water planet. Increasing greenhouse
gases,whether produced by man or nature, increase the temperature.

Are you denying that increased CO2 produces a warmer climate? Do you know
how the greenhouse effect works? Do you understand the importance of CO2
among the greenhouse gases?

> The rest of the article is full of "could" and "might" and other waffle
> words simply because these "scientists" simply don't want to accept the
> fact that the data contradicts their favorite hypothesis.
>
> And you call this science?

Your spin? No.

You are ignoring the fact that the dramatic CO2 rise of the last 200 years
is *ahead* of the temperature rise. Furthermore, we know that the CO2 rise
is anthropogenic; there is an isotopic smoking gun that tells us so.

BTW, I thought you believed there was no such thing as "a hundred thousand
years ago" on earth. Am I wrong about that?

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 9:40 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> You are ignoring the fact that the dramatic CO2 rise of the last 200 years
> is *ahead* of the temperature rise. Furthermore, we know that the CO2 rise
> is anthropogenic; there is an isotopic smoking gun that tells us so.

Wait -- this is new. Who's made this claim?


Dan

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" wrote:

> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
> consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
> pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
> like
> the rest of us.


Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books, and that their professional
organizations and NOAA, the NRC, the USGS and NASA are covering it up. In
short, you have to believe in a conspiracy that dwarfs anything the 9/11
nuts have dreamed up.

Hell, man, even Newt Gingrich admits it's game over. Time to move on.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
>>> with it.
>>
>>Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap
>
> Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
> fundamentalistic fanitic.
>
> The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
> resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
> or them.

I disagree with almost all of the above. I don't think believers and
fanatics are all that much different when it comes to the crunch. This
isn't just anotion, BTW, I have some experience with this. The fanatic
cannot exist without succour from the mainstream, for one thing. The
beliver may distance themselves from the fanatic, but there's usually
sympathy to one degree or another that enables the fanatic comfort in
his position. This overlay applies to just about every human leaning I
can think of. But science should be and usually is, out of this realm.
Scientists don't "believe" they look at the evidence and make a best
guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13td079oh0skja3
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.
>>>
>>> Dan, you are behind the PC power curve. It is now global "climate
>>> change" rather than global warming. The evidence that global
warming
>> is
>>> starting to ebb is mounting and the fanatics need to stay ahead of
the
>>> data so that they can claim there were right no matter which way the
>>> temperature trends.
>>>
>>
>> Good grief.
>>
>>
>> How does a so called 'mind' come to operate in this fashion? How is
such
>> damage done?
>
> The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk
radio.
> It's a deadly combination.
>
> He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.
>

It could make one despair if one didn;'t find it entertaining on some
level.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 10:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
> with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..
>
> Bertie

"Fanaticism" is usually defined as an unreasonable attachment to a
specific idea, cause, or belief.

All great advances in science broke the mold by attacking the status
quo -- see Galileo, Newton, Tesla, Faraday, Curie, Pasteur, et al.

Each was pilloried in his/her day, and some past.


Dan

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

:
>
>> The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
>> It's a deadly combination.
>>
>> He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.
>
> OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
> annoying in its own right.
>
> You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
> engage you in "discussion."

Doesn't look like it's stopping you.
>
> I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
> share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
> warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
> your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.

I don't dismiss honest differences of opinion out of hand.

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 10:34 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
> > annoying in its own right.
>
> > You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
> > engage you in "discussion."
>
> Doesn't look like it's stopping you.

You never miss an opportunity to be obnoxious, do you? I suppose no
one can deny your consistency.

> I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.
>
> Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
> forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
> Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
realize how ridiculous your last statement is.

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.

Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?


Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dan > wrote in news:8d2a3003-7e26-4b20-b8fb-
:

> On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk
radio.
>> It's a deadly combination.
>>
>> He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.
>
> OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
> annoying in its own right.
>
> You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
> engage you in "discussion."
>
> I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
> share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
> warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
> your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.


No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there. Not even Chris Hutchins, richard Dawkins
or Jay Stephens say that it is impossible. What they do say is that the
evidence does not point to it in any way shape or form and that the
people trying to "prove" it's likely are beginnning with a premise and
trying to make the evidence fit that.
Similarly the evidence is pointing towards ecological messes of all
sorts from human activity. Looking at some in microcosm is an aid in
grasping the bigger picture. ( not that I think that anything I say is
going to make a blind bit of difference to anyoone who just doesn't want
to know) Anyhoo, for instance, the nile Perch was intrduced to Lake
Victoria years ago. The Nile Perch is a very big fish and very
nutritious. It can feed a lot of people. It was farmed in the lake for
the benefit of the local populace, but of course, some inevitably
escaped. The reproduced and thrived in the lake. The lake was previsouly
populated by small ciclids. Little 4-8 inch fish of various species that
have lived for millions of years in the lake and fill an ecological
niche that is as elegant as any to be found on the planet. The locals
have been fishing them for tens of thousands of years, too. They are
good eating and easy to prepare, only needing to be split in two and
died on a log in the sun.
Of course, the Nile Perch is thriving because it is eating all of these
little guys and the populations have been decimated. The locals, unable
to get a decent meal with a wading net, now have to fish the Perch,
whose numbers are also dpeleted because there aren't enough Ciclids to
keep them going. The Perch is a big greasy fish and needs to be cooked
over a fire, so there is now a new demand for firewood. Of course, being
tropical, the firewood is almost all slow growth hard wood so the
forests in the region of the lake ( which is bigger than most US states)
is dwindling partly because of this mess...
Just one more story. Of couse global warming will probably help these
people out in some way I haven't been able to imagine.

I'll leave hat invention up to Jay, eh?




Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
> evidence for it is not there.

Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
Sloganeers and crusaders have to.

> or Jay Stephens say that it is impossible. What they do say is that the
> evidence does not point to it in any way shape or form and that the
> people trying to "prove" it's likely are beginnning with a premise and
> trying to make the evidence fit that.

I submit there's a corollary -- dismissing a premise because it
doesn't fit your cosmology/theology/philosophy.

> Similarly the evidence is pointing towards ecological messes of all
> sorts from human activity. Looking at some in microcosm is an aid in
> grasping the bigger picture. ( not that I think that anything I say is
> going to make a blind bit of difference to anyoone who just doesn't want
> to know) Anyhoo, for instance, the nile Perch was intrduced to Lake
> Victoria years ago. The Nile Perch is a very big fish and very
> nutritious. It can feed a lot of people. It was farmed in the lake for
> the benefit of the local populace, but of course, some inevitably
> escaped. The reproduced and thrived in the lake. The lake was previsouly
> populated by small ciclids. Little 4-8 inch fish of various species that
> have lived for millions of years in the lake and fill an ecological
> niche that is as elegant as any to be found on the planet. The locals
> have been fishing them for tens of thousands of years, too. They are
> good eating and easy to prepare, only needing to be split in two and
> died on a log in the sun.
> Of course, the Nile Perch is thriving because it is eating all of these
> little guys and the populations have been decimated. The locals, unable
> to get a decent meal with a wading net, now have to fish the Perch,
> whose numbers are also dpeleted because there aren't enough Ciclids to
> keep them going. The Perch is a big greasy fish and needs to be cooked
> over a fire, so there is now a new demand for firewood. Of course, being
> tropical, the firewood is almost all slow growth hard wood so the
> forests in the region of the lake ( which is bigger than most US states)
> is dwindling partly because of this mess...
> Just one more story. Of couse global warming will probably help these
> people out in some way I haven't been able to imagine.
>
> I'll leave hat invention up to Jay, eh?
>
> Bertie

We've seen species introduced worldwide with concomitant ecological
imbalances -- witness Starlings, English Sparrows, and Lake trout (you
must kill them in Yellowstone -- or be fined).

The underlying premise when these things are discussed is that only
humans can create imbalances, or that humans are "outside" or the
realm of what's "natural."

We're seeing the results of such "restoration to the balance of
nature" here in Pennsylvania, as the second growth forests mature and
result in near sterility on the forest floor. In a truly "natural"
ecosystem, there is constant destruction and recovery.

As we cannot afford unmanaged wildfires in our heavily populated
state, the game commission grants logging rights on State gamelands.
The result? Within 3 years there is a more diverse and healthy
population of fauna and flora.

Is this ecologically unsound?

I know it's been a few hundred posts back, but I am far from arguing
for unmitigated plowing of the ecosystem. What I have been arguing is
that the incessant over-the-top predictions of calamity are not proven
or assumed by -->their own experts <--, and that much of the hysteria
is driven by politicians and other hucksters who see opportunity ripe
for a power grab.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 10, 10:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:bfb1179b-5270-447c-b02c-0f3dbb245e66@
> m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> >> "Dan" wrote:
>>
>> >> >> You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you
>> >> >> haven't made a single substantive criticism of AGW science that
>> >> >> you would have to defend on
>> >> >> the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have
>> >> >> an excuse to
>> >> >> offer.
>>
>> >> > Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please
>> >> > help me reach your loft perch by answering this very simple
>> >> > question: Will there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100
>> >> > (or 200 years), or will there not?
>>
>> >> > Which is it?
>>
>> >> Still nothing? Thought not.
>>
>> >> But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.
>>
>> >> The answer to your question is "I don't know."
>>
>> >> How's that?
>>
>> >> Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there
>> >> definitely will not be?
>>
>> > I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my
>> > usenet access, so you may have to wait for my replies).
>>
>> > I appreciate your candor.
>>
>> > This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
>> > people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling
>> > -- is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms
>> > such as "likely" -- which while understood in the scientific
>> > community, is not the the type language required to move millions
>> > to action.
>>
>> Hmm, you dont like science speak and you don;'t like hyperbole.
>>
>> Waht about just looking at the data for yourself.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I Did. See previous post.


That's not data, that's an opinion.
>
> But I left out this part: "For the next two decades, a warming of
> about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission
> scenarios. ---> Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and
> aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming
> of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. <---- {10.3, 10.7}"

Even if it's that little , that is a lot of energy.
>
> In an essay supporting the consensus view, we find this gem, "The
> scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
> science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted
> for failing to act on what is not known."
>

I think I said something similar several posts ago, And the scientific
community would agree.

> To which the answer is -- Yes we can be faulted for "acting on what is
> not known." Especially since "acting" will have measurably harmful as
> well as a host of unintended impacts.


You are acting, that is the problem. So am I I do it for a living and I
do it fo rfun.
Continued use of fossil fuels is action.

>
> As far as sea level rise, consider "The widely quoted altimetric
> global average values may well be correct, but the accuracies being
> inferred in the literature are not testable by existing in situ
> observations. Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely
> difficult given the realities of space-time sampling and model
> approximations. Systematic
> errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change:
> published values and error bars should be used very
> cautiously." [http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/
> Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf]

I think I also said it maters not if sea levels rise or not. We've been
doing this for tooo long and there is no good reason for it except that
it appears to be cheaper to the short sighted.
>
> Also consider: "Changes in the Earth's radiation budget are driven by
> changes in the balance between the thermal emission from the top of
> the atmosphere and the net sunlight absorbed. The shortwave radiation
> entering the climate system depends on the Sun's irradiance and the
> Earth's reflectance. Often, studies replace the net sunlight by proxy
> measures of solar irradiance, which is an oversimplification used in
> efforts to probe the Sun's role in past climate change. With new
> helioseismic data and new measures of the Earth's reflectance, we can
> usefully separate and constrain the relative roles of the net
> sunlight's two components, while probing the degree of their linkage.
> First, this is possible because helioseismic data provide the most
> precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more
> profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since
> irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth's
> climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar
> activity--the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for
> example--would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more
> subtle changes in the Sun's spectrum of radiative output. This leads
> naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second
> component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial
> amplification of the Sun's varying output. Much progress has also been
> made in determining this difficult to measure, and not-so-well-known
> quantity. We review our understanding of these two closely linked,
> fundamental drivers of climate."
> [http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/goode1349.pdf]

I've heard this argument before. It's chery picked and doesnt fly.


>
> Threats to the planet are multiple and varied. Why haven't we
> empowered an intergovernmental panel to combat tsunamis? Volcanoes?
> Meteorites? Mudslides? Earthquakes?
>

Because we can;t do anything about them. We can do something about this.


But we won't.

There is no sin, no evil. Only stupidity.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:50:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Roger > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>>>>>> -
sjc.supernews.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > In article >,
>>>>>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>>>>>> >> -
>>>>sjc.supernews.net:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> > In article
>>>>>> >> > <9ced5bde-8241-4ecd-9cb5-3948545b7571
>>>>>> @d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> >> > Dan > wrote:
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...
>>>>>> @yahoo.com>
>>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> > > Dan > wrote in
>>>>>> >> >> > >news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
>>>>>> >> 47g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
>>>>>> >> >> > >om:
>>>>>> >> >> > > > However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm
>>>>>> >> >> > > > unilaterally. They also insisted that it was US
>>technical
>>>>>> >> >> > > > advances and weapon fielding that was destabilizing.
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> > so let me get this analogy straight
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> > generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our
>>>>enemies
>>>>>> >> >> > (there always enemies - especially in an election year)
>>>>>> >> >> > and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our
>>>>>> >> >> > anihilation
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> > arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
>>>>>> >> >> > from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
>>>>>> >> >> > nobody could do that much decoupage
>>>>>> >> >> > without calling on the powers of darkness
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> No.
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> "Everybody must agree that there is only one course to
insure
>>>>our
>>>>>> >> >> survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
>>>>>> >> > were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
>>>>>> >> > there was universal agreement on one course to insure our
>>>>survival
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Actually, not everybody agreed. The same sort of idiot who
>>couldnt
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> >> that seems to have proliferated, though.
>
> It's a mating ritual where like attracts like.
> sorta like Democrates make more Democrats and Republicans make more
> republicans. I think it's a race to see which one can produce the
> most voters the fastest.
>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > everybody who mattered agreed
>>>>>> > mr smarty pants
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True. Point is the idiots are at the wheel at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> i wonder what would happen this summer if everyone goes to neijing
>>>>> takes one deep breath
>>>>> and then immediately turns around and gets back on the plane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Neijing would have considerably less air.
>>>
>>> Cleaner too.
>>>
>>> Everyone, take some home. It'd probably be the cleanest air
they've
>>> seen in decades.
>>>
>>
>>A bit PKB for someone from near enough detroit, eh?
>
> PKB?
>
> I'm a good 120 milesNNW (UPWIND) of Detroit where the summer smog is
> created by the corn fields and swamps rather than industry. <:-)) Even
> the thunderstorms create more Ozone than we let industry put out.

Yeah, but thinndestorms know what to do with it.

>
> Our streams have been cleaned up to the point where we now have black
> flies. Nothing like the number in the Tundra, but the little buggers
> still bite. Of course we make up for those lack of numbers by letting
> our mosquitoes spread the West Nile Virus and a couple other nasties.
>
> OTOH way back in the early 60's I once followed the smog
> (foul...fowl...nasty smelling cloud) from an un-named company for a
> 100 miles and I could still see it clear to the horizon ahead from
> 5000 feet. Of course climbing that high and flying that far in a piper
> Colt used most of my afternoon and meant I should head for a gas
> station soonest so I never did find out how far that cloud went.
> However the thing I found remarkable was at 100 miles the thing wasn't
> much more than 3 miles wide. That ain't much dispersion.
>
> I haven't seen one of those clouds in years and the smell has improved
> remarkably as well. That is with one exception (sdtill many years ago)
> when something spilled and killed all the bacteria in some setteling
> ponds. GAWD but that was POTENT! And here I'll bet most people didn't
> realize **** can spoile<:-)) Of course you only need to be down wind
> from a setteling pond at turnover time to become a believer.
>
> AND accouding to official "State of Michigan" figures, our win


Yeah, but you had to create all that wealth to do the cleanup somehow.
And that came from making dirt.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:femBj.17334$TT4.376@attbi_s22:

>>> Bob and Ralph.
>>
>> Another evasion, I note.
>>
>> You don't know anything about the science behind this subject, do
>> you, Jay?
>
> Really, Dan, there's no reason to be rude. I just thought I'd lighten
> you up a bit. To no avail, I see.
>
> Well, anyway -- try this one on for size:
>
> http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=35203
>
> It's from 2004, but the Iowa State study shows that any warming will
> be strongest in the winter (good) and at night (good), and that
> increased rainfall (good) will accompany any increase in temperatures.
>
> Trust me -- any increase in winter temperature in Iowa is a very good
> thing, indeed. And more rain with warmer temps will only make Iowa
> bloom even more than it does now -- which is pretty hard to imagine.
>
> I could go Google you some more studies, but it's really not that hard
> to do. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Al has produced one.


You're a moron, Jay.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"John T" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org
>>>
>>> Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you
any
>>> more than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of
>>> the fallacy of your belief in AGW.
>>>
>>
>>
>>it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced. I'm pretty much resigned
to
>>watching idiots like you sell my kids future down the Suwanee...
>>
>>At least I'll have the pleasure of telling you I told you so in the
>>fulness of time..
>
> At my age I'd like to be able to stick around long enough to do that.
> OTOH with things accelerating as fast as they are I just might.

Well, exactly.

I don't think I'll make it to 2100 myself, but I'll do my best.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 11, 8:08 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty*
>> from them, our wait will be eternal.
>
>> But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes
>> and predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations
>> do not, then it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic
>> greenhouse-driven warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No.
>> Is the theory of evolution "proven?" No. Are they both backed by
>> evidence powerful enough to convince the vast majority of scientists?
>> Yes.
>
>
> Underlying any theory are unspoken assumptions. What annoys (yes --
> annoys) skeptics is the unwillingness of the adherents to pull the
> rocks up and evaluate the validity of the assumptions.
>
>>
>> > Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them
>> > -- are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
>> > global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
>> > logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and
>> > government-controls on all aspects of human behavior.
>>
>> All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both
>> sides, wouldn't you say?
>
> Read history --recent and ancient -- to see that governments are more
> than willing -- nay eager -- to mandate controls on *all* aspects of
> human behavior. Ask me for proof and I'll be happy to start at either
> end of the spectrum.
>
> Historical aside -- One of the assumptions of the founders was
> protection from this very thing (See Federalist Papers, particularly
> #10)
>
>>
>> But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the
>> only atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what
>> happens?
>
> We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
> inhabited this planet. One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
> that the the only variable is human activity -- and when certain
> amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
> activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
> thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
> in any of the IPCC or related publications.
>
>>
>> People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It
>> takes some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as
>> this one. The easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to
>> deny that the problem exists.
>
> Edmund Burke suggested that alterations to society should be
> approached as one would "address the wounds of a father" -- tenderly,
> carefully, lovingly, and with the intent to do as little harm to the
> existing organism as possible. Sometimes this means not rushing in and
> thereby doing more harm than good.

So my shooting every SUV driver on sight thing is not a runner?

>
> In addition, we should stop "crying wolf" by raising alarms that no
> one really believes to be true --

Good grief.


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dan > wrote in news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
>> evidence for it is not there.
>
> Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.

Took the wods tight out of my mouth.


Good luck now.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:dd38ea4d-205f-47a3-96b5-
:

> On Mar 11, 10:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may
disagree
>> with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "Fanaticism" is usually defined as an unreasonable attachment to a
> specific idea, cause, or belief.

I know.

>
> All great advances in science broke the mold by attacking the status
> quo -- see Galileo, Newton, Tesla, Faraday, Curie, Pasteur, et al.

Yep.
And what advance is imminent in this, exactly?
>
> Each was pilloried in his/her day, and some past.

Yep, that's right.

Wonder which side of this debate they would fall on?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 11, 10:34 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> > OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
>> > annoying in its own right.
>>
>> > You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
>> > engage you in "discussion."
>>
>> Doesn't look like it's stopping you.
>
> You never miss an opportunity to be obnoxious, do you? I suppose no
> one can deny your consistency.
>
>> I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.
>>
>> Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's
>> life forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think
>> straight. Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.
>
> You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
> realize how ridiculous your last statement is.
>
> There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
> cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

That's right. but creationists do a lot more than specualte. That's the
problem.
>
> Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
> are.
>

I doubt that very much.

Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>
>>
>> But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
>> atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?
>
> We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
> inhabited this planet.

Yep, and sometimes the "experiment" has produced mass extinctions. We're
fortunate to be living in an epoch of mild climate that should last for a
long time. Why would we want to mess with it?

What's happening now is different. This is a massive artificial addition of
CO2, unprecedented for its suddenness. There's been nothing like it for at
least 800,000 years, probably much longer.

> One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
> that the the only variable is human activity

Absolutely not. Where'd you get that idea?

In fact, that is one of the red herrings used by the disinformation
lobbyists. They like to say that every wiggle downward in temperature proves
that CO2 rise isn't causing warming because the CO2 increase is steady and
warming isn't. Scientists know that a lot of things influence climate
annually, but the overall *trend* is up and no cause but a 35% rise in the
CO2 level accounts for it.

> -- and when certain
> amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
> activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
> thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
> in any of the IPCC or related publications.

Nope. All those things are considered. The IPCC concentrates on the AGHG
forcing component because that is the variable humans can change. Do you
really believe the scientists who contributed to the IPCC don't know about
those things?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>> I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.
>>
>> Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
>> forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
>> Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.
>
> You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
> realize how ridiculous your last statement is.
>
> There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
> cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

Utter nonsense. The only thing we haven't got a handle on is how the first
proto-life appeared on the planet (Creationists are the ones who claim to
know). Everything since is pretty well figured out. It's a fact that all
the species that exist today evolved, not poofed.

> Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
> are.

> Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?

Nope. There are plenty, but here's one:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html


CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a
different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because
plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they
have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from
ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C
ratio - about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these
materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average
13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 11:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> So my shooting every SUV driver on sight thing is not a runner?
>

Unless they shoot back.

And be careful with those blue Suburbans with blacked out windows.


Dan

[Talk-n-Dog[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
> @h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
>>> evidence for it is not there.
>> Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
>
> Took the wods tight out of my mouth.

Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 12:22 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> > There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
> > cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.
>
> Utter nonsense. The only thing we haven't got a handle on is how the first
> proto-life appeared on the planet (Creationists are the ones who claim to
> know). Everything since is pretty well figured out. It's a fact that all
> the species that exist today evolved, not poofed.

Facts are observable and substantiated by evidence. You have neither
for your off the reservation claim. All you're doing is revealing your
presuppositions, not "stating fact."


>
> > Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
> > are.
> > Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?
>
> Nope. There are plenty, but here's one:
>
> http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
>
> CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a
> different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because
> plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they
> have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from
> ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C
> ratio - about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these
> materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average
> 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
>
> It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
> atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.
>
> Guess what that comparison reveals?

And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Hardly compelling.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Talk-n-Dog > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
>> @h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
>>>> evidence for it is not there.
>>> Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
>>
>> Took the wods tight out of my mouth.
>
> Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed
>

That finge is shote than the est.


Bertie

[Talk-n-Dog[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Talk-n-Dog > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in
>>> news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
>>> @h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
>>>>> evidence for it is not there.
>>>> Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
>>> Took the wods tight out of my mouth.
>> Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed
>>
>
> That finge is shote than the est.
>
>
> Bertie
OUCH

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>>
>> It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
>> atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.
>>
>> Guess what that comparison reveals?
>
> And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
> activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Yes, they are.

But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes and
radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it is
now, wouldn't it?

> Hardly compelling.

Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
them.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Talk-n-Dog > wrote in news:oczBj.17534
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Talk-n-Dog > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in
>>>> news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
>>>> @h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
>>>>>> evidence for it is not there.
>>>>> Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
>>>> Took the wods tight out of my mouth.
>>> Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed
>>>
>>
>> That finge is shote than the est.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> OUCH
>

Yeah. The rest is in sawdust in a jointing machine...

bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 1:33 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
>
> >> It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
> >> atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.
>
> >> Guess what that comparison reveals?
>
> > And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
> > activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes and
> radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it is
> now, wouldn't it?

Yes they are because you said so or because there is evidence
supporting this?

And -- to use the scientific term -- possibly.

> > Hardly compelling.
>
> Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
> them.

Once again with the labels.


Dan

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

> Is this ecologically unsound?
>
> I know it's been a few hundred posts back, but I am far from arguing
> for unmitigated plowing of the ecosystem. What I have been arguing is
> that the incessant over-the-top predictions of calamity are not proven
> or assumed by -->their own experts <--, and that much of the hysteria
> is driven by politicians and other hucksters who see opportunity ripe
> for a power grab.

Jeez; I got no quarrel with that.

Anyone who makes up his mind on this subject solely by listening to Al Gore
or James Inhofe is just being lazy--or partisan to the point of debility.

My beef is against the campaign of disinformation that is trying to make it
all go away by shooting the messenger: science. Consider one of the charges
one hears repeated over and over, "The scientists can't be believed; they're
all lying to get paid." What becomes of our culture if this idea becomes
conventional wisdom?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>> >> It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
>> >> atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.
>>
>> >> Guess what that comparison reveals?
>>
>> > And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
>> > activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?
>>
>> Yes, they are.
>>
>> But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes
>> and
>> radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it
>> is
>> now, wouldn't it?
>
> Yes they are because you said so or because there is evidence
> supporting this?

Because there is evidence. I just told you what it is. The isotope ratios
of the modern atmosphere are different from samples going back hundreds of
thousands of years. Volcanoes and cosmic rays have been around the whole
time; the only thing new is people burning a ****-load of fossil fuel.


>
> And -- to use the scientific term -- possibly.

This is about as close to a slam dunk as you'll ever get.


>> > Hardly compelling.
>>
>> Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
>> them.
>
> Once again with the labels.

Well dammit, Dan, what do you want me to say? This is freshman chemistry
and geology stuff. Hell, even *I* can understand it. It's readily
available for you to check. It's not like it's a shocking new discovery.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 2:03 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> Anyone who makes up his mind on this subject solely by listening to Al Gore
> or James Inhofe is just being lazy--or partisan to the point of debility.
>
> My beef is against the campaign of disinformation that is trying to make it
> all go away by shooting the messenger: science. Consider one of the charges
> one hears repeated over and over, "The scientists can't be believed; they're
> all lying to get paid." What becomes of our culture if this idea becomes
> conventional wisdom?

In all fairness -- plenty of "scientists" have been paid to lie or
support some position. This is no revelation.

Case in point -- Jarvik. Anyone who saw those ads and knew anything
about him knew they were intentionally misleading.

We are bombarded by "scientists" proclaiming all sorts of nonsense.

The anti-nuke crowd in the '80s was the genesis of this phenomenon --
groups of "scientists" speaking on things they weren't necessarily
qualified to pontificate upon. Yet they did, ad naseum.

[Background: The "issue" in the 80s was US deployment of new
technology arms, not whether nuclear weapons were harmful if used. The
"scientists" demanded that the US unilaterally disarm, assuming that
the Soviets would follow suit. This only reinforced the perception of
"scientist's" naivety, further reducing their potential for swaying
the internal debate]

Whenever we hear about GW, the proponents always quote their pod or
batch or covey of scientists, when further study find the majority are
specialists in something far removed from macro- and paleo-
climatology.

And you wonder why our "culture" is wary of "scientific
pronouncements"?

And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Dan

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 2:20 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
> >> >> It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
> >> >> atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.
>
> >> >> Guess what that comparison reveals?
>
> >> > And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
> >> > activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?
>
> >> Yes, they are.
>
> >> But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes
> >> and
> >> radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it
> >> is
> >> now, wouldn't it?
>
> > Yes they are because you said so or because there is evidence
> > supporting this?
>
> Because there is evidence. I just told you what it is. The isotope ratios
> of the modern atmosphere are different from samples going back hundreds of
> thousands of years. Volcanoes and cosmic rays have been around the whole
> time; the only thing new is people burning a ****-load of fossil fuel.
>
>
>
> > And -- to use the scientific term -- possibly.
>
> This is about as close to a slam dunk as you'll ever get.
>
> >> > Hardly compelling.
>
> >> Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
> >> them.
>
> > Once again with the labels.
>
> Well dammit, Dan, what do you want me to say? This is freshman chemistry
> and geology stuff. Hell, even *I* can understand it. It's readily
> available for you to check. It's not like it's a shocking new discovery.

Hang on -- I'm not doubting the presence of matter altered by
combustion.

But it does not follow that these CO2 molecules are independently
responsible for the observed rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Dan

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>
> And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
> Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
> the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think
tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for
instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know*
they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters
of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far,
no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW.

This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of
the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the
same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get
creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily
or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are
successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox,
et al. continue to give them time.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 4:31 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
>
> > And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
> > Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
> > the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."
>
> Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think
> tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for
> instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know*
> they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters
> of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far,
> no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW.
>
> This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of
> the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the
> same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get
> creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily
> or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are
> successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox,
> et al. continue to give them time.

I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply
counting them would be exhausting.

However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of
eminences does not make one a liar (see wikipedia entry under
"Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling
evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly
observed phenomenon). There has been and continues to be evidence that
compels the aforementioned groups to *qualify* their statements.

And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
therefore that disaster is upon us.


Dan

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Roger > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>>Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap
>>
>> Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
>> fundamentalistic fanitic.
>>
>> The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
>> resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
>> or them.
>
>I disagree with almost all of the above. I don't think believers and
>fanatics are all that much different when it comes to the crunch. This
>isn't just anotion, BTW, I have some experience with this. The fanatic
>cannot exist without succour from the mainstream, for one thing. The
>beliver may distance themselves from the fanatic, but there's usually
>sympathy to one degree or another that enables the fanatic comfort in
>his position.

I never thought of it in that light, but it makes sense.
The extremist, radical, or fanatic is just an extreme view or position
of the mainstream. They are usually a small percent and couldn't
exist without either the support, sympathy, or being condoned (even by
being ignored) by the mainstream.

> This overlay applies to just about every human leaning I
>can think of. But science should be and usually is, out of this realm.
>Scientists don't "believe" they look at the evidence and make a best
>guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
>with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..

Dogma does tend to permeate the scientific community to a surprising
degree. IOW the "not invented here (not my idea), or we've done it
this way for years can be difficult to overcome. That's why most pick
non controversial subjects for their Masters and PHD thesis. The
scientific community can be quite resistant to change "at times" and
unfortunately if they want the grant money to keep coming in have to
be careful.

Being they, as a whole a reluctant to accept new ideas contrary to
mainstream thinking it makes the wide acceptance of global warming
even more of a high profile, something we shouldn't ignore subject.
>
>
>Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>
> And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
> stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
> human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
> therefore that disaster is upon us.

Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go.


But here's what we know:

CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.

CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen.

There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years
or more.

Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is
a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks,
may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the
time. Party on dudes!

A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and
flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones.

How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the
planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now.

How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see
what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting
run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:14:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Roger > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"John T" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org
>>>>> http://www.realclimate.org
>>>>
>>>> Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you
>any
>>>> more than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of
>>>> the fallacy of your belief in AGW.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced. I'm pretty much resigned
>to
>>>watching idiots like you sell my kids future down the Suwanee...
>>>
>>>At least I'll have the pleasure of telling you I told you so in the
>>>fulness of time..
>>
>> At my age I'd like to be able to stick around long enough to do that.
>> OTOH with things accelerating as fast as they are I just might.
>
>Well, exactly.
>
>I don't think I'll make it to 2100 myself, but I'll do my best.

Well, shucks, that'd only make me160 so a young guy like you should be
able to do it. OTOH I'll bet you won't have to wait nearly that long.
Look at the Ross Ice Shelf. Once it decided to go it didn't wait
around and apparently no one saw that coming. The glaciers in
Greenland that used to move in yards per year are now moving
kilometers per year. The permafrost line has moved several hundred
miles north all the way around the northern hemisphere and winters are
now short enough and the weather warm enough that insects like the
Pine Beetle are destroying whole forests that used to be safe. Average
temperatures North of the 45th parallel are up far more than the rest
of the world. Where the particulate pollution has been cleaned up it's
even more pronounced.
>
>
>Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Roger > wrote in
:
>
> Being they, as a whole a reluctant to accept new ideas contrary to
> mainstream thinking it makes the wide acceptance of global warming
> even more of a high profile, something we shouldn't ignore subject.
>>

I agree, of course. Even if it does turn out to be untrue, though, it
doesn't matter. Oil wil run out and relatively soon, so even if we move on
for that reason alone it's worth taking a different direction. if it ran
out tomorrow, we'd have to find another way, and we would. so why not just
push forward regardless? If the global warming/climate chang/sky is falling
scenario turns out to have been true, well, we've dodged a rather large
bullet. If it turns out to be untrue, well, we've dodged a smaller bullet.
Whatever else can be said about what comes out of th eailpipes of our
contraptions, it's not full of vitamins and nutrients.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 5:55 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
>
> > And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
> > stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
> > human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
> > therefore that disaster is upon us.
>
> Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go.
>
> But here's what we know:
>
> CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
>
> CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen.
>
> There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years
> or more.
>
> Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is
> a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks,
> may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the
> time. Party on dudes!
>
> A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and
> flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones.
>
> How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the
> planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now.
>
> How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see
> what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting
> run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it.

The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation
-- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on
this point as well.

So the first Big Question is -- is CO2 increase anthropogenic?

The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe.

Nevertheless, for argument's sake, IF we accept the hypothesis that
the earth is warming at a steady rate that will result in measurable
change to global and regional climates, there is no model that
adequately predicts the impact of these changes, long or short term.
They may in fact be benign or even salutary.

Thee time span for all these cataclysmic results is also in great
doubt -- 100 - 400 - 1,00 years?

Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt.

As an aside:

It's amazing how much more coherent and convincing your arguments
appear when you're not sniping.

I'm not signing up for the cause, just making an observation.


Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:14:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Roger > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"John T" > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org
>>>>>> http://www.realclimate.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you
>>any
>>>>> more than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you
of
>>>>> the fallacy of your belief in AGW.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced. I'm pretty much resigned
>>to
>>>>watching idiots like you sell my kids future down the Suwanee...
>>>>
>>>>At least I'll have the pleasure of telling you I told you so in the
>>>>fulness of time..
>>>
>>> At my age I'd like to be able to stick around long enough to do
that.
>>> OTOH with things accelerating as fast as they are I just might.
>>
>>Well, exactly.
>>
>>I don't think I'll make it to 2100 myself, but I'll do my best.
>
> Well, shucks, that'd only make me160 so a young guy like you should be
> able to do it. OTOH I'll bet you won't have to wait nearly that long.
> Look at the Ross Ice Shelf. Once it decided to go it didn't wait
> around and apparently no one saw that coming. The glaciers in
> Greenland that used to move in yards per year are now moving
> kilometers per year. The permafrost line has moved several hundred
> miles north all the way around the northern hemisphere and winters are
> now short enough and the weather warm enough that insects like the
> Pine Beetle are destroying whole forests that used to be safe. Average
> temperatures North of the 45th parallel are up far more than the rest
> of the world. Where the particulate pollution has been cleaned up it's
> even more pronounced.

Yeah. i thnk we're ****ed, really. Well, at least Jay will be able to
sunbath in January, so it will all be worth it.



Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

> The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation
> -- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on
> this point as well.

the jury is unlikely to be in until its too late to alter results

as usual a decision must be made on incomplete information
so instead of preceding in certainity we precede on estimated risks

one estimated risks is the water supply of the western united states
depends on mountain snow packs persisting into summer
(yes we really do have snow in the mountains into june and even july)

global warming will likely melt the snow early
invalidating the assumptions underlying water management
so that the western united states will likely need
a completely overhaul of the entire system and water allocation
which will be very expensive
perhaps bringing economic ruin to farmers and fishers
which will be very expensive

given the expected costs of doing nothing
what is the cost of doing something and preventing this?

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>
> Hang on -- I'm not doubting the presence of matter altered by
> combustion.
>
> But it does not follow that these CO2 molecules are independently
> responsible for the observed rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Eh?

I'm lost, Dan.

Gimme a vector.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

> The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation
> -- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on
> this point as well.

You can call it waffling if you like. I call it caution.

> So the first Big Question is -- is CO2 increase anthropogenic?
>
> The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe.

They sound pretty sure, to me:
=========================
The increase in CO2 mixing ratios continues to yield the largest sustained RF
of any forcing agent. The RF of CO2 is a function of the change in CO2 in the
atmosphere over the time period under consideration. Hence, a key question is
'How is the CO2 released from fossil fuel combustion, cement production and
land cover change distributed amongst the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial
biosphere?'. This partitioning has been investigated using a variety of
techniques. Among the most powerful of these are measurements of the carbon
isotopes in CO2 as well as high-precision measurements of atmospheric oxygen
(O2) content. The carbon contained in CO2 has two naturally occurring stable
isotopes denoted 12C and 13C. The first of these, 12C, is the most abundant
isotope at about 99%, followed by 13C at about 1%. Emissions of CO2 from coal,
gas and oil combustion and land clearing have 13C/12C isotopic ratios that are
less than those in atmospheric CO2, and each carries a signature related to
its source. Thus, as shown in Prentice et al. (2001), when CO2 from fossil
fuel combustion enters the atmosphere, the 13C/12C isotopic ratio in
atmospheric CO2 decreases at a predictable rate consistent with emissions of
CO2 from fossil origin. Note that changes in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric
CO2 are also caused by other sources and sinks, but the changing isotopic
signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other
components (Francey et al., 1995). These changes can easily be measured using
modern isotope ratio mass spectrometry, which has the capability of measuring
13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 to better than 1 part in 105 (Ferretti et al.,
2000). Data presented in Figure 2.3 for the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2
at Mauna Loa show a decreasing ratio, consistent with trends in both fossil
fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios (Andres et al., 2000;
Keeling et al., 2005).

-4AR WG1, 2
========================

>
> Nevertheless, for argument's sake, IF we accept the hypothesis that
> the earth is warming at a steady rate that will result in measurable
> change to global and regional climates, there is no model that
> adequately predicts the impact of these changes, long or short term.
> They may in fact be benign or even salutary.

I disagree that the hypothesis predicts a steady rate. There are too many
other things going on to say that.


> Thee time span for all these cataclysmic results is also in great
> doubt -- 100 - 400 - 1,00 years?

Here it comes:

It Depends.

What do you mean by "cataclysmic?" Which result? What level of GHGs at what
time?

> Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt.

One foot sea level rise in 400 years? Not too tough.

One meter in 100 years? Colossally expensive and disrupting.

And that's only one thing. What about the death of coral reefs, disruption of
the Gulf Stream, burning of the Amazon forests?

The scariest thing about this to me is the grumbling from some scientists that
the IPCC is way too conservative in what it puts in the reports because of
over-sensitivity to "alarmist" charges. These folks are saying the there's a
chance the **** is *really* going to hit the fan, and sooner than we think.
Are they right? I don't know. Hell, *they* don't know. They're just saying,
"You better think about this." (Not that any of the pol's at the Bali
Conference paid much attention; they were at a cocktail party or something.)

So, it depends.

> As an aside:
>
> It's amazing how much more coherent and convincing your arguments
> appear when you're not sniping.
>
> I'm not signing up for the cause, just making an observation.

I have a history with this subject. I'm used to being attacked by shrieking
political zealots and talk radio zombies in such discussions .

You don't fit those categories, but it takes a while to realize that
sometimes. Thanks for your patience.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article .com>,
Bill Ward > wrote:

> > CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
>
> Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more of it.

how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative humidity

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-11, Dan Luke > wrote:
>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
>> consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
>> pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
>> like the rest of us.
> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To see how wrong this is, all you have to do is see how scientists who dare
to disagree and to try to publish research that would disprove the theory
are excommunicated by the scientific community.

> Hell, man, even Newt Gingrich admits it's game over. Time to move on.

Nobody is right 100% of the time.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-03-11, Dan Luke > wrote:
>>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
>>> scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
>>> himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
>>> Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.
>> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
>
> To see how wrong this is, all you have to do is see how scientists who
> dare to disagree and to try to publish research that would disprove
> the theory are excommunicated by the scientific community.


No, they aren't.

>
>> Hell, man, even Newt Gingrich admits it's game over. Time to move
>> on.
>
> Nobody is right 100% of the time.


Who said they were?


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 7:34 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt.
>
> One foot sea level rise in 400 years? Not too tough.
>
> One meter in 100 years? Colossally expensive and disrupting.

The inconclusiveness is palpable. There is no broadly accpeted
consensus on this possible outcome. No one of any sense -- IPCC or
otherwise -- is predicting a sea level rise of that magnitude in that
short a time.

As far as "expensive" -- that gets me thinking about the Gulf Coast,
and how in the 80s there were few houses along that stretch because
there were Hurricanes from time to time. Then some genius figured out
there were no hurricanes during storm season, so out come the
brochures and in comes the money.

Ten + years later the entire northern panhandle is coated with way-too-
expensive houses. And then -- guess what? Oh no!. Yep. Hurricane.

Oprah et all on scene with cameras -- "Look at the devastation!"

Of course a sea level rise will be expensive -- we build stuff INCHES
above a "sea level" that we don't have the owner's manual for.

I don't see the IPCC-friendly literature supporting the rate of rise
postulated and secondarily, the impacts may be salutary.


> And that's only one thing. What about the death of coral reefs, disruption of
> the Gulf Stream, burning of the Amazon forests?

Coral reefs are dying? All of them? That seems like suspect news...

The amazon jungle being cut down is not a result of Global warming.
It's a result of agricultural and economic expansion in a once
(relatively) uninhabited area. We in North America survived that
catastrophe between 1650 and 1930 -- our forests were flattened across
the entire continent.

The difference is there's a worldwide communications grid making us
cognizant of the event in the Amazon.

But -- trees grow back. Pennsylvania has more "woods" today than
anytime since 1780. Much of the (nearly) sterile old growth forests
were replaced with more vibrant and diverse younger stage growth.

The Gulf Stream "disruption" assumes that the Atlantic is a steady
state system. Oceans are far from steady state! (As my Navy friends
remind me in pathetically regular intervals). Salinity, density,
temperature, current speed, turbidity and a host of other factors are
in constant change.

Greenland's increased contribution of fresh water MIGHT be due to
increased warming, however there is evidence that suggests that
melting of an unusually dense ice cap remnants of the last little ice
age trump pure increased global temperature melting.


> I have a history with this subject. I'm used to being attacked by shrieking
> political zealots and talk radio zombies in such discussions .

The recent push the shriek-fests on various "news media" has
contributed to the decline in civil discourse. But we expect as much
from them.

But within our colleges, universities, and academic societies we've
seen a subtle shift from questioning speculation to kowtowing to bully
tactics. If you don't believe me you haven't spent much time in the
aforementioned places.

All sides -- pro-IPCC conclusions and those who don't agree -- for
whatever reason -- need to research, ponder, and then proffer their
thoughts and ideas for vetting. This is a vulnerable position and most
people don't like being corrected, or even questioned. But one of the
"rules" in this process is that I agree not to treat you as less
intelligent, less able, less wise, or less caring because I didn't
reach the same conclusions as you.

But what's happened in *this* debate is that the tyranny of the
cautionary principle takes hold and thus we MUST all agree or else we
are imposing grave danger on all!

Maybe we are.

But we're abiding an even more pernicious danger if we toss out the
civil discourse that has forwarded all our progress in so many areas
to this time, and is the only hope for addressing these problem if
they are as real as some believe.

Dan

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Well, goodie for Iowa, eh?
>
> http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/04/scientists_say_global_warming.html

I like how the "researchers" try to make climates "like Arkansas" or
"Texas" -- places people tend to retire to -- sound like hell.

If this is the worst thing we've got to worry about, all is well.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
>> consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
>> pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
>> like the rest of us.
>
> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
>
> To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
> geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what happened
when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up against
well-financed, fervent opposition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[§ñühw¤£f[_2_]]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:36:27 -0700
mariposas rand mair fheal > wasted precious
bandwith with:

> > The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a
> > correlation-- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the
> > IPCC waffles on this point as well.
>
> the jury is unlikely to be in until its too late to alter results
>
> as usual a decision must be made on incomplete information
> so instead of preceding in certainity we precede on estimated
> risks
>
> one estimated risks is the water supply of the western united
> states depends on mountain snow packs persisting into summer
> (yes we really do have snow in the mountains into june and even
> july)
>
> global warming will likely melt the snow early
> invalidating the assumptions underlying water management
> so that the western united states will likely need
> a completely overhaul of the entire system and water allocation
> which will be very expensive
> perhaps bringing economic ruin to farmers and fishers
> which will be very expensive
>
> given the expected costs of doing nothing
> what is the cost of doing something and preventing this?
>

The "jury" has been in for quite a while. Only the flat earthers are
unable to understand the science of human-caused climate change.
Ice cores dont lie. And neither do photograpic databases.

FYI

--
www.alternet.org

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Dan > wrote:

> As far as "expensive" -- that gets me thinking about the Gulf Coast,

makes me think about water and electricity in the western usa

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Lloyd]

On Mar 11, 4:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 11, 4:31 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dan" wrote:
>
> > > And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
> > > Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
> > > the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."
>
> > Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think
> > tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for
> > instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know*
> > they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters
> > of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far,
> > no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW.
>
> > This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of
> > the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the
> > same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get
> > creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily
> > or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are
> > successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox,
> > et al. continue to give them time.
>
> I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply
> counting them would be exhausting.
>
> However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of
> eminences does not make one a liar

It does if you state something that is false. Like "the earth is 6000
years old." Is that a lie?

>(see wikipedia entry under
> "Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling
> evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly
> observed phenomenon).


Oh come on. Science? Scientific authorities? It was church dogma.

Do you really think science is just like it was back then? If so, I
assume you refuse to use any technology, any modern medicine, etc.

>There has been and continues to be evidence that
> compels the aforementioned groups to *qualify* their statements.
>
> And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
> stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
> human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
> therefore that disaster is upon us.
>
> Dan

[Lloyd]

On Mar 11, 6:13 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 11, 5:55 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dan" wrote:
>
> > > And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
> > > stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
> > > human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
> > > therefore that disaster is upon us.
>
> > Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go.
>
> > But here's what we know:
>
> > CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
>
> > CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen.
>
> > There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years
> > or more.
>
> > Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is
> > a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks,
> > may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the
> > time. Party on dudes!
>
> > A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and
> > flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones.
>
> > How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the
> > planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now.
>
> > How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see
> > what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting
> > run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it.
>
> The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation
> -- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on
> this point as well.
>

OK, so where is the CO2 coming from? Propose some other sources which
can be checked (and do a little searching -- you'll see they have
been).

> So the first Big Question is -- is CO2 increase anthropogenic?
>
> The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe.

Uh, no. That the CO2 increase is from humans is pretty definite. The
IPCC said there's a 95% chance the current warming is caused by
humans.

>
> Nevertheless, for argument's sake, IF we accept the hypothesis that
> the earth is warming at a steady rate that will result in measurable
> change to global and regional climates, there is no model that
> adequately predicts the impact of these changes, long or short term.
> They may in fact be benign or even salutary.
>

Well, no, but why take the chance and experiment with our only
planet? It's much better to err on the side of caution. If a forest
fire is burning a quarter-mile from your house, do you say, "there's
no model that predicts the fire will burn my house or if it does, if
that will be a bad thing"?

> Thee time span for all these cataclysmic results is also in great
> doubt -- 100 - 400 - 1,00 years?
>
> Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt.
>
> As an aside:
>
> It's amazing how much more coherent and convincing your arguments
> appear when you're not sniping.
>
> I'm not signing up for the cause, just making an observation.
>
> Dan

[Lloyd]

On Mar 12, 3:26 am, Bill Ward > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:55:54 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > "Dan" wrote:
>
> >> And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long stretch
> >> between observing and even accepting data that suggests some human
> >> induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding therefore that
> >> disaster is upon us.
>
> > Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models
> > go.
>
> > But here's what we know:
>
> > CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
>
> Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more of it.
>
> > CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen.
>
> Not proven. Water provides feedbacks that swamp CO2.
>

Water's not up over 35% since the warming began. Water can be quickly
removed from the atmosphere to maintain an equilibrium (google
"rain"). There is no such quick removal mechanism for CO2.

>
>
> > There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand
> > years or more.
>
> <100 ppmv of a trace gas absorbing at 15u.
>

A trace of ricin can be fatal. Surely you're not arguing quantity is
all that matters.

>
>
> > Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That
> > is a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane
> > feedbacks, may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more
> > GHGs all the time. Party on dudes!
>
> > A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought
> > and flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural
> > zones.
>
> > How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what
> > the planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now.
>
> > How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see
> > what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is
> > getting run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care
> > of it.
>
> Save it for Halloween.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:afRBj.72445$yE1.22150@attbi_s21:

>> Well, goodie for Iowa, eh?
>>
>> http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/04/scientists_say_global_warming.
>> html
>
> I like how the "researchers" try to make climates "like Arkansas" or
> "Texas" -- places people tend to retire to -- sound like hell.
>
> If this is the worst thing we've got to worry about, all is well.


It's like satire, only scary.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

>>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
>>> scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
>>> himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
>>> Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.
>>
>> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
>>
>> To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
>> geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books
>
> No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
> happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
> against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.


Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:
>
> >>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
> >>> scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
> >>> himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
> >>> Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.
> >>
> >> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
> >>
> >> To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
> >> geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books
> >
> > No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
> > happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
> > against well-financed, fervent opposition.
>
> And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
> hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:
>>
>> >>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
>> >>> scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
>> >>> himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
>> >>> Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.
>> >>
>> >> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
>> >>
>> >> To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
>> >> geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books
>> >
>> > No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
>> > happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
>> > against well-financed, fervent opposition.
>>
>> And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
>> hypocritical piece of ****.
>
> copernicus was wrong
> he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc
>
> kepler was the first one with a simple model
> using a single ellipse per planet
> and nothing else
>

Jay would have burned him at the stake as well. No extra charge.

bertie

[§ñühw¤£f[_2_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > clouded the waters of pure thought with:
> In article .com>,
> Bill Ward > wrote:
>
> > > CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
> >
> > Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more of it.
>
> how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative humidity
>
Why do you hate Jesus so much?

--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
(§ñühw¤£f) wrote:

> mariposas rand mair fheal > clouded the waters of pure
> thought with:
> > In article .com>,
> > Bill Ward > wrote:
> >
> > > > CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
> > >
> > > Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more of it.
> >
> > how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative humidity
> >
> Why do you hate Jesus so much?

i dont
yes he was a punk
but he turned his life around
getting a education a job as a legal aide
supporting his child and wife

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 12, 1:56 pm, Lloyd > wrote:
>
> > I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply
> > counting them would be exhausting.
>
> > However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of
> > eminences does not make one a liar
>
> It does if you state something that is false. Like "the earth is 6000
> years old." Is that a lie?
>
> >(see wikipedia entry under
> > "Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling
> > evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly
> > observed phenomenon).
>
> Oh come on. Science? Scientific authorities? It was church dogma.
>
> Do you really think science is just like it was back then? If so, I
> assume you refuse to use any technology, any modern medicine, etc.


You're being rhetorical, and poorly, that.

The "Church Dogma" was based on Aristotelian cosmology coupled with
poor interpretation of scripture bound to daily observation from the
surface by every person on the planet with eyes to see. The sun looks
like it is moving across the sky, Jerusalem is the center of the world
(thus the tern "orient" a map), and the earth is the center of the
heavens. Simple, and fit the philosophical underpinnings of the Church
and of the elite. There was order in the universe, and it was
hierarchical.

Any knowledge or learning happening at the time was the product of
those educated in the Universities founded, funded, and run by the
church. So yes -- they were the authorities of the day. Who would
gainsay them? Some illiterate peasant?

There's plenty of evidence that others in the Roman Catholic Church
agreed with Galileo -- the problem was saying it out loud. The
established order was nothing to be trifled with and this was quite a
blow.

As far as the age of the earth, nothing you say can be a lie -- since
a lie by definition is stating something that is known to be untrue.
(By the way -- this number is held only by those who clung to Usher's
faulty addition. There is plenty of room in the Genesis account to
accommodate countless millennia, to wit, "1:1 In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form,
and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.").

And as far as "Do you really think science is just like it was back
then? " I answer people are no different now then they were then --
deceitful, with hidden agendas, proud, unthinking, unfeeling,
ignorant, and so on.

The difference today is that we can counter preposterous claims and
appeal to the reasons of any that will listen. But this assumes
reasonable debate, not a shouting match.

Gore's movie showed all sorts of natural events that have absolutely
nothing to do with Global warming -- nothing -- and since that
propaganda came out people have latched on to all the doom and gloom
and shout "we must do something for the sake of the children!"

Let every mouth be stopped.

And yet if dare make the case that the jury is most definitely out on
the effects -- long and short term -- the trends, and the possible
consequences of modification of current activity (though even the IPCC
stated that there would be no change to current warming trends even if
all CO2 output were constrained to 2000 levels), you will endure
censure.

Yet the "high priests" who try to run public opinion will decry anyone
who dare challenge their suppositions, no matter how reasonable the
critique.

How is that so different?


Dan

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 12, 3:06 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
wrote:
> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> >news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:
>
> > >>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
> > >>> scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
> > >>> himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
> > >>> Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.
>
> > >> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
>
> > >> To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
> > >> geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books
>
> > > No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
> > > happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
> > > against well-financed, fervent opposition.
>
> > And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
> > hypocritical piece of ****.
>
> copernicus was wrong
> he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc
>
> kepler was the first one with a simple model
> using a single ellipse per planet
> and nothing else
>
> arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
> i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
> nobody could do that much decoupage
> without calling on the powers of darkness

Do you always write in Haikus?

Just wondering....

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Dan > wrote:

> On Mar 12, 3:06 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> > >news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:
> >
> > > >>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
> > > >>> scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
> > > >>> himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
> > > >>> Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.
> >
> > > >> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
> >
> > > >> To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
> > > >> geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books
> >
> > > > No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
> > > > happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
> > > > against well-financed, fervent opposition.
> >
> > > And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
> > > hypocritical piece of ****.
> >
> > copernicus was wrong
> > he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc
> >
> > kepler was the first one with a simple model
> > using a single ellipse per planet
> > and nothing else
> >
> > arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
> > i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
> > nobody could do that much decoupage
> > without calling on the powers of darkness
>
> Do you always write in Haikus?

tankas for the memories

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

Boy; I go away for a few hours and look how the work piles up!


>
> But what's happened in *this* debate is that the tyranny of the
> cautionary principle takes hold and thus we MUST all agree or else we
> are imposing grave danger on all!
>
> Maybe we are.
>
> But we're abiding an even more pernicious danger if we toss out the
> civil discourse that has forwarded all our progress in so many areas
> to this time, and is the only hope for addressing these problem if
> they are as real as some believe.

Of course. There's always more talking to do.

But it is absurd to believe that we can double the atmospheric volume of the
most important, persistent greenhouse gas and nothing much will happen. The
very idea defies the laws of physics.

So, sure; let's continue the civil dialog. But let's not pretend that
there's any doubt that there will be consequences for what we're doing, or
that it won't be our fault if those consequences are disatrous for future
generations.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" wrote:

>>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
>>> consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
>>> pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
>>> like the rest of us.
>> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
>
> To see how wrong this is, all you have to do is see how scientists who dare
> to disagree and to try to publish research that would disprove the theory
> are excommunicated by the scientific community.

So you really believe it. The Great Conspiracy is Silencing the Seekers After
Truth!

I don't think you understand just how crazy that is.

You're saying the National Academy of Sciences (to mention just one) is lying
in it's global climate position statement.

Do you realize you are riding the same bus with the wackos who claim that the
scientific community is conspiring to hide the truth about what causes AIDS?

....that you're floating on the same barge with the loons who claim that the
scientific community is conspiring to promote the evolution "religion"?

....that you're marching in the same parade with the nuts who claim all those
rocket scientists faked the moon landings?

You need to check the crowds you're running with.


>> Hell, man, even Newt Gingrich admits it's game over. Time to move on.
>
> Nobody is right 100% of the time.

Only when they agree with you, right?

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-13, Dan Luke > wrote:
>> To see how wrong this is, all you have to do is see how scientists who dare
>> to disagree and to try to publish research that would disprove the theory
>> are excommunicated by the scientific community.
> So you really believe it. The Great Conspiracy is Silencing the Seekers After
> Truth!

No conspiracy needed, just observation. A scientist who sees what happens to
others who try to publish disproving research is not going to be inclined to
try it himself. The rest of them just know that their grants depend on
supporting the concept.

> You need to check the crowds you're running with.

I don't believe in guilt by association.

>> Nobody is right 100% of the time.
> Only when they agree with you, right?

I'm not right 100% of the time, either. OTOH, when I see scientists
excommunicated (and I use that word quite deliberately) for daring to
publish in opposition to the idea that man is somehow wrecking the global
climate, my hackles go up.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" wrote:

> No conspiracy needed, just observation. A scientist who sees what happens to
> others who try to publish disproving research is not going to be inclined to
> try it himself. The rest of them just know that their grants depend on
> supporting the concept.

Right: they're all cowards lying for money. Very believable.

>> You need to check the crowds you're running with.
>
> I don't believe in guilt by association.
>
>>> Nobody is right 100% of the time.
>> Only when they agree with you, right?
>
> I'm not right 100% of the time, either. OTOH, when I see scientists
> excommunicated (and I use that word quite deliberately) for daring to
> publish in opposition to the idea that man is somehow wrecking the global
> climate, my hackles go up.

1) Who's been excommunicated, and by whom? Let's see some hard evidence.

2) Apparently, you don't know how reputations are made in the modern
scientific world. By going along with the crowd? No; by publishing something
new that changes established theory.

3) You are still dodging the central flaw of your conspiracy theory: that
tens of thousands of scientists and their professional associations are
perpetrating a hoax. That is simply nuts, for the same reason all such
conspiracy theories are nuts.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22...
>>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
>>> consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
>>> pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
>>> like the rest of us.
>>
>> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
>>
>> To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
>> geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books
>
> No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what happened
> when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up against
> well-financed, fervent opposition.

Not analogous.

Copernicus was opposed by the Church according to its dogma.

The consensus on AGW grows out of research conducted independently by
thousands of scientists using the modern scientific method.

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books to
perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-13, Dan Luke > wrote:
> 3) You are still dodging the central flaw of your conspiracy theory: that
> tens of thousands of scientists and their professional associations are
> perpetrating a hoax. That is simply nuts, for the same reason all such
> conspiracy theories are nuts.

No, I explained it. No overt conspiracy is needed, just observation of the
results of publishing science contrary to the AGW dogma.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" wrote:

>> 3) You are still dodging the central flaw of your conspiracy theory:
>> that
>> tens of thousands of scientists and their professional associations are
>> perpetrating a hoax. That is simply nuts, for the same reason all such
>> conspiracy theories are nuts.
>
> No, I explained it. No overt conspiracy is needed, just observation of the
> results of publishing science contrary to the AGW dogma.
> --


Sorry, John; it won't fly.

You still have to believe that the thousands of peer-reviewed research
papers that have been published are faked. That's just silly.

And, once again: who has been excommunicated? What did they publish?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

Whoops.

"Jay," not "John"

my apologies

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Maynard" wrote:
>
>>> 3) You are still dodging the central flaw of your conspiracy theory:
>>> that
>>> tens of thousands of scientists and their professional associations
>>> are perpetrating a hoax. That is simply nuts, for the same reason
>>> all such conspiracy theories are nuts.
>>
>> No, I explained it. No overt conspiracy is needed, just observation
>> of the results of publishing science contrary to the AGW dogma.
>> --
>
>
> Sorry, John; it won't fly.
>
> You still have to believe that the thousands of peer-reviewed research
> papers that have been published are faked. That's just silly.
>
> And, once again: who has been excommunicated? What did they publish?


If i ever want my image carved in granite on the side of a mountain, Mt
Rushmore style, I will definitely commision you to do it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22...
>>>> There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
>>>> scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
>>>> himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
>>>> Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.
>>>
>>> Perfectly rational? It's absurd.
>>>
>>> To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
>>> geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books
>>
>> No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
>> happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
>> against well-financed, fervent opposition.
>
> Not analogous.
>
> Copernicus was opposed by the Church according to its dogma.
>

Xactly. hijacking Copernicus for their own ends in this argument is akin to
saying that Jim Morrison is the father of christian music
>


Bertie
>

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article <20080313091132.611bafbb@vector>, §ñühw¤£f >
wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:20:22 -0700
> mariposas rand mair fheal <mair > wasted precious
> bandwith with:
>
> > In article <a8ydnfuw3uDJpEXanZ2dnUVZ >,
> > (§ñühw¤£f) wrote:
> >
> > > mariposas rand mair fheal <mair > clouded the
> > > waters of pure thought with:
> > > > In article
> > > > .com>,
> > > > Bill Ward > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more
> > > > > of it.
> > > >
> > > > how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative
> > > > humidity
> > > >
> > > Why do you hate Jesus so much?
> >
> > i dont
> > yes he was a punk
> > but he turned his life around
> > getting a education a job as a legal aide
> > supporting his child and wife
> >
> He faked his own death to get outta his failed marriage.

thats a shame
i missed the last season
i hear they ended by burning down the station
and the last scene with furillo walking through the debris

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[§ñühw¤£f[_2_]]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:20:22 -0700
mariposas rand mair fheal > wasted precious
bandwith with:

> In article >,
> (§ñühw¤£f) wrote:
>
> > mariposas rand mair fheal > clouded the
> > waters of pure thought with:
> > > In article
> > > .com>,
> > > Bill Ward > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
> > > >
> > > > Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more
> > > > of it.
> > >
> > > how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative
> > > humidity
> > >
> > Why do you hate Jesus so much?
>
> i dont
> yes he was a punk
> but he turned his life around
> getting a education a job as a legal aide
> supporting his child and wife
>
He faked his own death to get outta his failed marriage.
:(

--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/pentagon-blocks-report-on-saddam-al-qaeda-ties/

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

> If i ever want my image carved in granite on the side of a mountain, Mt
> Rushmore style, I will definitely commision you to do it.
>

Ya think i'm knocking any chips off?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13tiqn5rn2lif15
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>> If i ever want my image carved in granite on the side of a mountain, Mt
>> Rushmore style, I will definitely commision you to do it.
>>
>
> Ya think i'm knocking any chips off?
>
>
>

Nope. THe mountain will only be made of granite though./




Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
> virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
> books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>
> That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
> > virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
> > books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>
> > That is nuts.
>
> Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
> is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
> world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.
>
> So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
> I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
> to "save the planet" from global climate change.
>
> And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
> wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
> have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
> much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
> power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
> we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.
>
> And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
> you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
> first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
> and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
> That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
> efforts, IMHO.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cOhCj.74411$yE1.5053@attbi_s21...
>> Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
>> virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
>> books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>>
>> That is nuts.
>
> Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
> is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
> world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.

Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation are all
on the "shrill" side of the debate (Like Dan's "refutation" by a
:geo-scientist" that used a key number that was off by a factor of 2000.)

Also, Jay Maynard is right in that the overwhelming majority of
"geo-scientists" get paid by the very people that are pushing for quick and
irreversible decisions that give them unlimited power.

Think of them as the ancient highpriests tickling the ear of Pharaoh.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:22:00 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
>> virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
>> books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>>
>> That is nuts.
>
>Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
>is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
>world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Except if you are in the US where the administration has been rabidly
anti global warming and adamantly against changing the way we operate.
Here, until very recently being pro global warming was definitely not
the place to be if you wanted your research grants.

>
>So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
>I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
>to "save the planet" from global climate change.
>
>And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
>wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
>have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
>much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
>power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
>we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

Neither are all or nothing approaches nor would they require
dismantling society as we know it. In some areas wind and solar
(passive AND photovoltaic) are viable resources and in some areas
they are a lost cause. Coal fired plants can use carbon sequestering
along with stack gas washing to produce clean energy from coal and
contrary to claims there is a pilot plant in Florida that found the
recovery to be profitable rather than an extra expense.

My daughter heats a house three times the size of ours with passive
solar. Yes they have to supplement with natural gas but they use a
fraction of what we do in this small home. Plus they have far colder
temperatures and a lot more wind at 9000 feet in the Colorado Rocky
mountains.

If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel. With 120 million family homes
switching the incandescent lights to CFLs would eliminate the need for
roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric generation plants. That
would free up part of the electric grid so it could be used to power
electric cars which at current rates for most of the country
(excluding California) make the cost of operating one a fraction of a
gas powered car.

Just those two simple items would cover a major portion of the CO2
reductions that scientists say are needed. Add to that carbon
sequestering and we'd probably make it with plenty of room to spare.
We could increase our standard of living for less than we pay now.

>
>And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
>you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
>first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
>and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
>That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
>efforts, IMHO.

IF sea levels did rise by 10 feet it'd displace about half the earth's
population. Rainfall patterns would change drastically and weather
would be subject to far wider swings in temperature and precipitation
than we see now. Now that would really be expensive... for the
survivors.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Roger > writes:

>> So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
>>your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour added
>>to the atmosphere.
>Strange you should mention that<:-))
>
>Efficiency...Efficiency.
>
>Go Diesel!
>
>Also I only fly a fraction of what I used to, but I will readily admit
>that is not by choice. I'm serious about the diesel. If I get back
>into flying and the engine becomes available the Deb will become a
>diesel if the current IO-470N holds out long enough for the major..
>The new engines are far more fuel efficient than out current aircraft
>engines and the new diesels have far less particulates in the
>emissions. OTOH the US currently has some rather poor quality diesel
>fuel compared to the EU.

A good answer for improving efficiency. Other advantages are that
Diesel engines don't spew lead into the atmosphere like running on
100LL does. But, clearly I am a fan - I drive a turbo-diesel car.
However, the current price of Diesel aircraft engines is a pretty
big dis-incentive.

The Diesel fuel is not really an issue to us, since the FAA apparently
doesn't approve use of Diesel fuel in aircraft, so we have to burn Jet-A
instead. Not quite as good performance in the gallons/hour category, but
still lots better than avgas, and a lot easier to get at an airport.


>Current operational const of the Deb (Including insurance is about
>$130/hr. At 13 hours total (6.5 each way) that works out to $1,690
>round trip. By road it's about 1,300 miles each way for a total of
>2600 @ 73.9 cents a mile or $1921.40 or $231 cheaper not counting
>meals for two days plus lodging. Of course, going commercial, shopping
>for airfares, and scheduling ahead we could do it for less than $800
>for the two of us.

This is the total cost, but if you are making the decision, you are
really deciding on the marginal cost of the trip, you already have the
car and the airplane. By marginal cost, the car operates for a lot less
than the airplane.

If you are concerned about global warming, you are also needing to
consider the marginal cost of operating either vehicle. The car gets
46 mpg, and I presume the Debonair gets a lot lower mileage (and has
higher startup and shutdown fuel costs operating at each end of the
trip). Since they both burn gasoline, the CO2 emissions are pretty
much determined by the gallons of fuel burned.


>From a practical standpoint/approach we (as a society) aren't going to
>eliminate the energy usage, but we can conserve to the point of making
>a substantial difference. If our current fleet average (cars AND
>trucks) averaged 30 MPG we wouldn't even have to import crude for
>motor fuel.

And we might discover that turbo-diesels are fun to drive, as well.

If we are serious about CO2 emissions, we should be building nuclear
power plants, and equipment to recycle the spent fuel (which still has
most of its energy left).


>> Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.
>
>Agreed.


Alan

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
(Alan) wrote
>> So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
>> your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour
>> added to the atmosphere.
>>
>
>Really? I stink at chemistry, but I can't see how 6 pounds of gas oline
>can release 18.5 pouunds of CO2. Still, the point is valid even if the
>numbers arenot. OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
>with it.

Gasoline is about 84 percent carbon by weight. Thus, a gallon of
gasoline at 6 pounds has 6 * .84 = 5.04 pounds of carbon. Each carbon atom
weighs about 12 atomic mass units. It combines with 2 oxygen atoms at 16
atomic mass units each to form a CO2 molecule weighing 44 atomic mass
units. Thus 12 units of carbon by weight forms 44 units of CO2 by weight.
This has the weight increasing by a ratio of 44/12 or about 3.667 times as
much. Remembering that the weight of the carbon is .84 times the weight of
the gasoline, we get .84 * (44 / 12) = 3.08 pounds of CO2 for each pound of
gasoline, or 18.48 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline.

Diesel fuel is very slightly more carbon by weight, more like .85, but
diesel engines deliver almost twice the useful work for the same amount
of fuel, so one comes out way ahead using them.


>> Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.
>
>True. What's needed is a change in the fuel used. Various things have
>been tried but the biofuel thing is not going to work unless the
>tecnhology is developed to make a viable fuel out of things like corn
>stalks. IOW using the waste of crops already grown. There;s little point
>in cutting down forest to make them, is there? NASA ran a Musketeer on
>hydrogen in the 70s. could be practical for cars, but I can't see it
>working for airplanes unless fuel cell technology take s few farily
>large leaps. Airplanes are getting to be more efficient, of course.
>though there are some anteeks that can still put any modern to shame..

As you point out, current biofuels are limited in production, and
are expensive to produce.

I think we need inexpensive electric cars recharged by inexpensive
nuclear generated power -- if the cost of the car and the use is low
enough, people will not object to using one car with limited range
for the local trips which are the majority of their driving. Then
use the turbo-diesels for the long trips.


What does this have to do with airplanes? Well, we probably can't
build useful electric airplanes - so it seems that we really need to
stop burning airplane fuel for surface transport and uses.

Alan

[Denny]

Well, an interesting thread...
First, I am not against the theory that burning fossil fuels is
speeding up climate change... Entirely possible, and even likely...
Second, climate change <in the warm direction> has been going on
continuously between 15,000 and 20,000 years, now... This started when
a 1,500,000 year <roughly> period of glaciation came to an end... The
Laurentian Ice Sheet finished melting some 13,000 years ago <that was
across the Northeast of this continent - including my Michigan>...

So, that raises the question, why did the climate change when there
was no human activity to 'cause it'?
That is unknown, but the most likely answer is a miniscule change in
solar output... We know that there is an 11 year cycle, and a 22 year
cycle, and a 60 some year cycle, and so on... What we don't know is
that maybe there is a 1.5 million year cycle...
Or it could be that a carbon/soot containing asteroid strike put
enough black particles in suspension in the atmosphere that it
absorbed a fraction of a percent more of solar infrared, warming the
air and triggering the change...
Or it could be that a large body passed close to the earth and tugged
its orbit closer to the sun by a tiny fraction of one percent...
Or it could be that the earths core changed rotation just enough to
slightly increase the production of magma and ground heat...
Or the earth's tilt changed (it perturbates around the mean) or that
the earth's orbit around the sun changed <also suffers perturbations>
Whatever it was/is, it happened roughly 20,000 years ago... It has
been going on since then <with the usual perturbations> and nothing
that man does is going to change global warming in the forseeable
future...

But, I can tell you what I am going to do about global warming..

WARNING - AIRPLANE PORN FOLLOWS -
Tree huggers and Al's posse, best avert their eyes..

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and <gasp> start two engines <count em> and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...

denny

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-14, Roger > wrote:
> If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
> power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
> use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
> average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
> independent of foreign oil for fuel.

That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large portion
of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you
that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light of
the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed to
transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of many
folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

> With 120 million family homes switching the incandescent lights to CFLs
> would eliminate the need for roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric
> generation plants. That would free up part of the electric grid so it
> could be used to power electric cars which at current rates for most of
> the country (excluding California) make the cost of operating one a
> fraction of a gas powered car.

It would also generate a booming market in hazmat remediation, as common
household accidents that would result in lamp breakage turn into major
environmental disasters...not to mention simply disposing of them when they
finally do burn out.

As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
miles on a charge, while hauling four people and a substantial amount of
stuff, and recharge in 10 minutes so I can go 400 more. My current vehicle
will do that quite easily, and I bought it because I need that capability.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:

>>> Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
>>> virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
>>> books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>>>
>>> That is nuts.
>>
>> Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
>> is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
>> world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.
>
> Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
> number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.

Well, look who's back.

What surveys?

> Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation are all
> on the "shrill" side of the debate

Yep. Your side.

> (Like Dan's "refutation" by a :geo-scientist" that used a key number that
> was off by a factor of 2000.)

Reference?

Are you talking about the ol' Perfesser?

Do post that one again, please!

> Also, Jay Maynard is right in that the overwhelming majority of
> "geo-scientists" get paid by the very people that are pushing for quick and
> irreversible decisions that give them unlimited power.

Baloney. You're making an accusation of mass professional corruption. You
can't back it up.

> Think of them as the ancient highpriests tickling the ear of Pharaoh.

Right. Science is religion. Where have we heard that one before?

http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:cOhCj.74411$yE1.5053@attbi_s21:

>> Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
>> that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
>> cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>>
>> That is nuts.
>
> Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
> there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
> all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
> money.

Bull****. the opposite is true you fjukking retard.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Denny > wrote in news:f37acdc7-54eb-461f-b3cd-
:

> Well, an interesting thread...
> First, I am not against the theory that burning fossil fuels is
> speeding up climate change... Entirely possible, and even likely...
> Second, climate change <in the warm direction> has been going on
> continuously between 15,000 and 20,000 years, now... This started when
> a 1,500,000 year <roughly> period of glaciation came to an end... The
> Laurentian Ice Sheet finished melting some 13,000 years ago <that was
> across the Northeast of this continent - including my Michigan>...
>
> So, that raises the question, why did the climate change when there
> was no human activity to 'cause it'?


Getting hit by an act of nature is one thing. Sticking a gun in your mouth
is another.

> But, I can tell you what I am going to do about global warming..
>
> WARNING - AIRPLANE PORN FOLLOWS -
> Tree huggers and Al's posse, best avert their eyes..
>
> After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
> and <gasp> start two engines <count em> and go out and wildly blow
> enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
> that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
> And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
> money to by fuel...


Me too, but finding another way would be a lot of fun as well. Seen the
rubber band powered airplane?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> > Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
>> > that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
>> > cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>>
>> > That is nuts.
>>
>> Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
>> there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
>> all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
>> money.
>>
>> So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real
>> or not, I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be
>> done by humans to "save the planet" from global climate change.
>>
>> And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or
>> "build more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do
>> that (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy
>> production needs. No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're
>> not going to escape our need for big-box power plants that run on
>> fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless we're willing to
>> largely dismantle modern society.
>>
>> And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit
>> that you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the
>> theory in the first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels
>> are going to rise -- and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but
>> how will humans adapt to it? That is a more logical place to direct
>> our intellectual and financial efforts, IMHO.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
> feasible in the US.
>

The US already has nuclear power.


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-03-14, Roger > wrote:
>> If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
>> power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
>> use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
>> average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
>> independent of foreign oil for fuel.
>
> That's not conservation, that's deprivation.
>
> Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large
> portion
> of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you
> that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light
> of
> the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed
> to
> transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
> short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of
> many
> folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

And all of it done so that politicians and bureaucrats can run roughshod
over the people.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2008-03-14, Roger > wrote:
>>> If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
>>> power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
>>> use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
>>> average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
>>> independent of foreign oil for fuel.
>>
>> That's not conservation, that's deprivation.
>>
>> Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large
>> portion
>> of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell
>> you that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially
>> in light of
>> the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be
>> needed to
>> transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the
>> economy in short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission
>> profiles of many
>> folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.
>
> And all of it done so that politicians and bureaucrats can run
> roughshod over the people.
>
>
>

Yeh, they stay up nights planning ways to do that.

Got your shack in Montana yet?

Bertie

[§ñühw¤£f[_2_]]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:39:17 -0700
mariposas rand mair fheal > wasted precious
bandwith with:

> In article <20080313091132.611bafbb@vector>, §ñühw¤£f
> > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:20:22 -0700
> > mariposas rand mair fheal <mair > wasted precious
> > bandwith with:
> >
> > > In article <a8ydnfuw3uDJpEXanZ2dnUVZ >,
> > > (§ñühw¤£f) wrote:
> > >
> > > > mariposas rand mair fheal <mair > clouded the
> > > > waters of pure thought with:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > .com>,
> > > > > Bill Ward > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot
> > > > > > more of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative
> > > > > humidity
> > > > >
> > > > Why do you hate Jesus so much?
> > >
> > > i dont
> > > yes he was a punk
> > > but he turned his life around
> > > getting a education a job as a legal aide
> > > supporting his child and wife
> > >
> > He faked his own death to get outta his failed marriage.
>
> thats a shame
> i missed the last season
> i hear they ended by burning down the station
> and the last scene with furillo walking through the debris
>
It was the one where Jesus opened a health club.

--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/13/bush-im-just-a-simple-president/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:cOhCj.74411$yE1.5053@attbi_s21...
>>> Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
>>> that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
>>> cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>>>
>>> That is nuts.
>>
>> Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
>> there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
>> all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
>> money.
>
> Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
> number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.
>
> Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation
> are all on the "shrill" side of the debate

Good for you. Admitting your a shrieker is the first step.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:53:47 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:53:47 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
>
>

the flonk and nose added.


Bertie

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:59:34 +0000 (UTC), in alt.usenet.kooks, Bertie
the Bunyip > bloviated:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:53:47 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
>>
>>
>
>the flonk and nose added.
>
>
>Bertie

Why did you leave that fine froup alt.aratzio off your list.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 14, 10:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> > Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
> >> > that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
> >> > cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.
>
> >> > That is nuts.
>
> >> Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
> >> there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
> >> all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
> >> money.
>
> >> So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real
> >> or not, I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be
> >> done by humans to "save the planet" from global climate change.
>
> >> And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or
> >> "build more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do
> >> that (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy
> >> production needs. No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're
> >> not going to escape our need for big-box power plants that run on
> >> fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless we're willing to
> >> largely dismantle modern society.
>
> >> And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit
> >> that you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the
> >> theory in the first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels
> >> are going to rise -- and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but
> >> how will humans adapt to it? That is a more logical place to direct
> >> our intellectual and financial efforts, IMHO.
> >> --
> >> Jay Honeck
> >> Iowa City, IA
> >> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> >> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> > Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
> > feasible in the US.
>
> The US already has nuclear power.
>
> Bertie

Just not enough of it.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>>
>> The US already has nuclear power.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Just not enough of it.

Indeed.

Times and technology have changed; time to ramp up nuclear infrastructure.

Still have to get past the NIMBY problem with the waste, though. And other
problems...

"There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to
a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to
manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a
single piece, which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only
make four per year of the steel forgings, which contain radioactivity in a
nuclear reactor. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still
will not be able to to meet current global ddemand promptly. Utilities across
the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other
manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component
themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods. "

-Wikipedia

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 14, 6:58 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
>
> >> The US already has nuclear power.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Just not enough of it.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Times and technology have changed; time to ramp up nuclear infrastructure.
>
> Still have to get past the NIMBY problem with the waste, though. And other
> problems...
>
> "There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to
> a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to
> manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a
> single piece, which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only
> make four per year of the steel forgings, which contain radioactivity in a
> nuclear reactor. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still
> will not be able to to meet current global ddemand promptly. Utilities across
> the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other
> manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component
> themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods. "
>
> -Wikipedia

I'm more than confident that we can quickly ramp up to meet this need
domestically if there is adequate demand.

With all due respect to whatever writer posted that wikipedia entry --
We haven't forgotten how to make steel in Pittsburgh.

Dan Mc

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
> and <gasp> start two engines <count em> and go out and wildly blow
> enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
> that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
> And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
> money to by fuel...

Amen, brother! Hallelujah!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:45:58 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-03-14, Roger > wrote:
>> If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
>> power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
>> use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
>> average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
>> independent of foreign oil for fuel.
>
>That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Not true.
>
>Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large portion
>of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you

Most mid size cars could be quite capable of getting 30 plus with fuel
efficient engines. There is no need to remove the large trucks. We
are talking "fleet average," not the mileage of every truck.

You use common sense. Those that can do so, could use the hybrids.
Those that really need the larger vans and SUVs could still use them
and the trucks could still remain. IOW we use what we need , not what
we think we'd like. Sure, I'd like a Hummer (I'm referring to the
4-wheel kind), or a new SUV for hauling all the stuff around I usually
have with me, but for the vast majority of trips I don't need anything
larger than my wife's Hybrid. Nor does every family with kids in
sports need a super long van. It's time these people learn about car
pooling.

>that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light of

Why. They have found that the small car against the large may not
fare well, but the large SUVs against another large SUV fares even
worse. Today's cars, even the small ones are far safer than those of
say 30 or 40 years ago when I was driving a 5600# Pontiac Bonneville
convertible. Back then cars were BIG.

A few years back I took a full size GMC SUV broadside at cruise speed.
Yes it totaled my Transam. BUT other than being punchier than two
6-packs on an empty stomach I didn't even get bruised. The driver of
the SUV ended up in the hospital. With education and attitude there
is no need for the hybrids to be unsafe.

>the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed to

You don't have to get rid of the commercial trucks. The fleet average
can nicely be taken care of by the cars.

>transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
>short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of many
>folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

You don't need to go to the little econoboxes.

>
>> With 120 million family homes switching the incandescent lights to CFLs
>> would eliminate the need for roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric
>> generation plants. That would free up part of the electric grid so it
>> could be used to power electric cars which at current rates for most of
>> the country (excluding California) make the cost of operating one a
>> fraction of a gas powered car.
>
>It would also generate a booming market in hazmat remediation, as common

Pure BS.
There is so little mercury in a CFL you sweep 'em up, put in a plastic
bag and properly dispose. Air out the room if paranoid.

>household accidents that would result in lamp breakage turn into major
>environmental disasters...not to mention simply disposing of them when they
>finally do burn out.
>
>As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
>"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400

No one said use the electric car for long trips hauling heavy loads.
The average trip made by cars is short and typically round trip to
work, or in to see the kids play what ever sport. Car pooling could
take care of a lot this.

OTOH we have both a Hybrid that I mentioned gets 46-47 MPG
average.(winter/summer) and an SUV that gets 18 MPG. Normally the
Hybrid gets used and it'll haul 4 adults comfortably unless you try to
put two really tall ones in the back seat. 2, 6 footers with normal
leg length would fit comfortably. At any rate, we still have the SUV
but our mileage happens to be well above 30 MPG for any given period.

However for those that need the extra room and load capacity they
could still have it. I reiterate, FLEET AVERAGE does not mean every
car and tuck has to get that mileage. It's expected that all of them
averaged together would get that. Big difference.

>miles on a charge, while hauling four people and a substantial amount of
>stuff, and recharge in 10 minutes so I can go 400 more. My current vehicle
>will do that quite easily, and I bought it because I need that capability.

This is the typical "all or nothing" argument against better mileage
or conservation. When it comes to the cars on the road, most of us
don't need a big pickup truck, monster SUV or 5,000# luxury car.
Getting rid of all but the ones needed would not ruin the economy.
Yes,I have an SUV but I only drive it when needed. Going to smaller
cars for the ones who can would not have any great impact on safety
and changing to CFLs to be followed by LEDs would not create a great
boom in hazmat teams. Of course the LEDs are far preferable over
CFLs, but they are currently very expensive. Give 'em a couple years
and they just might be on par with today's CFL, but far more efficient
and almost indefinite life with very little heat given off and no
starter required.

The greatest impact on safety would be getting the public to quit
accepting a yearly highway death toll of between 40 and 50,000 as
acceptable. Maybe the biggest at present would be to build a jamming
device to prevent cell phones being used while the car is in motion
and education. Although when it comes to education it's more one of
changing attitudes. We have big problems with people making up their
own rules of the road. Speaking of which, do they still teach those
in driver's ed?.

Today there seems to be an element in society that fights any change
to improve things. They argue endlessly against global warming and
mankind's contribution, yet mainstream science has all but accepted it
even in face of our government's efforts to deny its existence.

When it comes to conservation there are endless excuses as to why we
can't or shouldn't do it, but we can save money and safely have a
cleaner more healthy environment. The catch is we have to be willing
to take responsibility and work to achieve these ends.

Nothing comes without some kind of cost including "business as usual"
which probably has the highest long term cost of any option.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:37:13 -0700 (PDT), Denny >
wrote:

<snip>

>After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
>and <gasp> start two engines <count em> and go out and wildly blow
>enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
>that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
>And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
>money to by fuel...

One of the things I like about Denny; you always know where he stands.
Another is he doesn't come up with a buch of lame assed excuses.

>
>denny
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 14, 10:05 pm, Roger > wrote:

>>With education and attitude there
>>is no need for the hybrids to be unsafe.

It's not me I'm worried about when I drive. It's the multiple mental
deficients who drive drunk, pass on turns or before the crest if a
hill, drive too fast for conditions (usually on bald tires), blow
through stop signs and lights, ad nauseum.

They've certainly been (minimally) "educated," but they are rolling
hazards until they finally plow into a tree or take out an innocent
coming around the back side of the same turn.

If I could afford it, I would drive an M1-Abrams -- the speed is good,
the comfort is very good, the brakes are awesome, and the main gun is
stabilized.

I wouldn't drive a HMMWV if you gave it to me (now if I still had a
driver -- maybe)


Dan Mc

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-15, Roger > wrote:
> Most mid size cars could be quite capable of getting 30 plus with fuel
> efficient engines. There is no need to remove the large trucks. We
> are talking "fleet average," not the mileage of every truck.

There are a nontrivial number of trucks, and 4-6 MPG is the rule rather than
the exception. It takes a lot of econoboxes to counterbalance that.

> You use common sense. Those that can do so, could use the hybrids.
> Those that really need the larger vans and SUVs could still use them
> and the trucks could still remain. IOW we use what we need , not what
> we think we'd like.

That's not the way the American system works. The only person entitled to
make a decision as to what vehicle they need to purchase is the buyer. Not
you, not me, not the government, and certainly not some enviro-wacko who
knows nothing about the buyer's needs.

> Sure, I'd like a Hummer (I'm referring to the 4-wheel kind),

I wouldn't. I've had an H3 as a rental, and never got comfortable driving
it: you can hardly see out of the passenger side windows from the driver's
seat.

> or a new SUV for hauling all the stuff around I usually have with me,

I drive a small SUV because I can only have one vehicle, and need the
capabilities it provides a nontrivial portion of the time. Yes, a Prius
would handle my most common mission, but if it's just more than me and a
minimal amount of stuff (and I do mean minimal: when I've had a Prius as a
rental, the storage area was barely big enough for two carryon-sized
suitcases and a briefcase), then I'm hosed.

> but for the vast majority of trips I don't need anything larger than my
> wife's Hybrid. Nor does every family with kids in sports need a super
> long van. It's time these people learn about car pooling.

Soemone has to have the van to do the carpool in. Why should one person get
stuck with that?

>>that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light of
> Why. They have found that the small car against the large may not
> fare well, but the large SUVs against another large SUV fares even
> worse. Today's cars, even the small ones are far safer than those of
> say 30 or 40 years ago when I was driving a 5600# Pontiac Bonneville
> convertible. Back then cars were BIG.

Physics. Yes, cars of the same size are safer today than they were 40 years
ago. A smaller car will stll always come out worse in a collision with a
bigger vehicle than a larger one.

> A few years back I took a full size GMC SUV broadside at cruise speed.
> Yes it totaled my Transam. BUT other than being punchier than two
> 6-packs on an empty stomach I didn't even get bruised. The driver of
> the SUV ended up in the hospital. With education and attitude there
> is no need for the hybrids to be unsafe.

Let me guess: you were wearing the seat belt, and the SUV driver wasn't?
That's not an indictment of the SUV, but of the idiot who wasn't wearing his
seat belt. (I'm a former paramedic. There are a few things I get rabid
about, and seat belts top the list.)

A hybrid SUV might be more fuel efficient than its conventional counterpart.
Then again, it might not be. I looked at the hybrid version of my SUV when I
was first considering buying it, but ruled it out for one simple reason: 95%
of my driving is at highway speed, where a hybrid provides no benefit. The
extra purchase cost, plus the battery replacement at 100K miles (and yes, I
do keep vehicles past that point), far outweighed any possible fuel savings
given my driving needs.

>>the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed to
> You don't have to get rid of the commercial trucks. The fleet average
> can nicely be taken care of by the cars.

Sure, if you sentence everyone to drive an econobox.

> You don't need to go to the little econoboxes.

Either you do that or else you add $6-8K to the price of every car and
significantly cut its cargo capacity by turning it into a hybrid.

>>It would also generate a booming market in hazmat remediation, as common
> Pure BS.
> There is so little mercury in a CFL you sweep 'em up, put in a plastic
> bag and properly dispose. Air out the room if paranoid.

If that's the case, why is government raising the alarm? See, for example,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198 .

>>As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
>>"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
> No one said use the electric car for long trips hauling heavy loads.

If that's the only car I have, I have no choice. I make those trips, so I
have to have a vehicle that will do the job.

Or are you suggesting that I be forced to buy two cars, one for the few
local trips I make and one for the missions the first won't handle?

> The average trip made by cars is short and typically round trip to
> work, or in to see the kids play what ever sport. Car pooling could
> take care of a lot this.

The average person's average trip, in a city, maybe. Ask someone living in a
small rural town what their average trip is.

This kind of fallacious generalization is why government regulation of what
people buy is simply wrong.

> However for those that need the extra room and load capacity they
> could still have it. I reiterate, FLEET AVERAGE does not mean every
> car and tuck has to get that mileage. It's expected that all of them
> averaged together would get that. Big difference.

That does nothing for those of us who aren't average. Driving up the fleet
average will require that the vehicles that will handle my mission be
unavailable, or else emasculated to the point they're unsafe.

> This is the typical "all or nothing" argument against better mileage
> or conservation. When it comes to the cars on the road, most of us
> don't need a big pickup truck, monster SUV or 5,000# luxury car.

I don't either. My small SUV does the job.

However, I REFUSE to try to tell someone else what they need or don't need.
I cannot make that judgment for them. They can only do that for themselves.
The alternative is central planning, comrade.

> Of course the LEDs are far preferable over CFLs, but they are currently
> very expensive. Give 'em a couple years and they just might be on par with
> today's CFL, but far more efficient and almost indefinite life with very
> little heat given off and no starter required.

And if they do that, I'll happily switch. (Assuming they don't flicker
annoyingly when fed 60 Hz AC.)

That's the real key to doing the environmentally correct thing: Make it
economically justifiable, too. I don't mean artificially raising the cost
through taxation or anything like that. (The same arguments that justify
doing that in other circumstances can be used to justify raising the cost of
fuel for your Debonair to $10 a gallon. How much does it burn an hour?) I
mean make it save real money.

> The greatest impact on safety would be getting the public to quit
> accepting a yearly highway death toll of between 40 and 50,000 as
> acceptable.

No argument from me on this one.

> Maybe the biggest at present would be to build a jamming device to prevent
> cell phones being used while the car is in motion and education.

Got a 2-meter rig in your car, OM? I do, and have had ever since I owned a
car. (Well, sometimes it was just 440, but you get the idea.) Just because
some people can't talk and drive doesn't mean everyone can't.

> Today there seems to be an element in society that fights any change
> to improve things.

When the suggested improvement is a drastic change in the way we live, and
where we live, and how we live, you bet your ass you're going to get
resistance, at least here in our free society. You see, the government isn't
supposed to treat us like the Chinese government treats its people, but
that's exactly what the enviro-wackos are calling for.

> Nothing comes without some kind of cost including "business as usual"
> which probably has the highest long term cost of any option.

That has yet to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a lot of Americans.

If you're so keen on saving the planet, why haven't you junked your Debonair
and bought something smaller?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Maynard schrieb:
> A hybrid SUV might be more fuel efficient than its conventional counterpart.

a hybrid is (besides the capability to produce a little bit of energy
while slowing down) only another way to transport energy. You still
(mainly) burn coal to heat water to produce electricity, then store it
in batteries. I doubt that the overall ecological calculation is in
favor of a (Honda) hybrid.

#m

[LWG]

Modern discourse is based upon the feminization of American society. We
don't argue the logic of global warming, we decide based upon how the
subject makes us feel. So we drive to the mall in our Expeditions to
protest Big Oil and the lack of wind turbines. Oh, wind turbines -- they
will interfere with our view when we go sailing. The turbines might kill
birds, and that makes us feel sad. Nuclear power is out because we don't
understand it and that little symbol makes us feel scared. No matter that
Ontario Hydro should really be called Ontario Nuclear, and the French -- the
French! -- derive the bulk of their electricty from nuclear power.

Hard, cold reason has all but disappeared as a controlling factor in
American life. As I see it, there is no practical replacement for oil.
Even if we stop burning it, we will still need it (or its cousin, natural
gas) for plastics, pharmaceuticals and everything else the petrochemical
industry provides us. We won't be able to stop burning oil for at least 3
or 4 decades.

To me, the global warming argument is entirely immaterial. We need to
reduce our carbon emissions not because we are making the earth warmer
(which we're not) but as a matter of national security. We must develop our
own oil as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time
develop a replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must
reduce the insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have
sworn to kill us.

> And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build
> more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that
> (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy production needs.
> No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our
> need for big-box power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at
> least not unless we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"LWG" wrote:

> making the earth warmer (which we're not)

<sigh>

Sorry, I can't let that bald assertion pass.

Why do you believe that? Just because you want to, or do you have empirical
reasons?

> but as a matter of national security. We must develop our own oil as
> quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time develop a
> replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must reduce the
> insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have sworn to
> kill us.

Absolutely. Our national security and economy will both continue to degrade
until we do something real about this.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 15, 3:55 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "LWG" wrote:
> > making the earth warmer (which we're not)
>
> <sigh>
>
> Sorry, I can't let that bald assertion pass.
>
> Why do you believe that? Just because you want to, or do you have empirical
> reasons?
>
> > but as a matter of national security. We must develop our own oil as
> > quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time develop a
> > replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must reduce the
> > insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have sworn to
> > kill us.
>
> Absolutely. Our national security and economy will both continue to degrade
> until we do something real about this.

Among the readily available answers is coal liquefaction for required
IC applications, nuclear power for the electric grid, and greater
efficiencies encouraged by market forces.

There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years (depending on whose
data you apply and the expected consumption rate).

This coupled with Natural Gas reserves provides ample energy though
the next century, with existing technology and counting known
reserves.


Dan Mc

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

> There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
> provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years

But they have serious environmental downsides, both in extraction and burning.

Solar energy may be harvested in several ways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower . Wind power harvest is
experiencing rapid growth in the U. S., showing potential to be a serious
contributor to the national grid, increasinig ten-fold in ten years:

=================
In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid than
any other country; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8 gigawatts in
2007.[34] Texas has become the largest wind energy producing state, surpassing
California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to its existing
capacity of approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are expected to
each produce 1 gigawatt by late-2007.[35] Wind power generation in the U.S.
was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[36] The average output of
one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average electricity
consumption of about 250 American households. According to the American Wind
Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in 2008 to power
just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in U.S., up from
less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind
harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could provide enough
electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore wind farms could do
the same job.[37]

-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

=================

These technologies need not be expected to replace fossil fuel power suddenly.
They can make incremental contributions, being integrated into the power
infrastructure as they come on line. That is happening now.

Additionally, they can be used to power desalination plants and even plants to
manufacture fuel directly from CO2 or hydrogen from water, thus removing their
chief drawbacks as power grid suppliers, their variable output.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=solar&id=18582&a=

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2004/aug/Solar_hydrogen.html

Alternative energy technologies are still being sorted out, but expensive oil
is giving them momentum that wasn't there ten years ago. This stuff will
work if we commit to it.

We don't have to keep taking all the **** we have over oil, throwing our
economy down a rathole in the process. All it takes is some leadership and
guts to stop it.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 15, 8:37 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
> > There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
> > provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years
>
> But they have serious environmental downsides, both in extraction and burning.
>
> Solar energy may be harvested in several wayshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower. Wind power harvest is
> experiencing rapid growth in the U. S., showing potential to be a serious
> contributor to the national grid, increasinig ten-fold in ten years:
>
> =================
> In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid than
> any other country; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8 gigawatts in
> 2007.[34] Texas has become the largest wind energy producing state, surpassing
> California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to its existing
> capacity of approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are expected to
> each produce 1 gigawatt by late-2007.[35] Wind power generation in the U.S.
> was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[36] The average output of
> one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average electricity
> consumption of about 250 American households. According to the American Wind
> Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in 2008 to power
> just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in U.S., up from
> less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind
> harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could provide enough
> electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore wind farms could do
> the same job.[37]
>
> -Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
>
> =================
>
> These technologies need not be expected to replace fossil fuel power suddenly.
> They can make incremental contributions, being integrated into the power
> infrastructure as they come on line. That is happening now.
>
> Additionally, they can be used to power desalination plants and even plants to
> manufacture fuel directly from CO2 or hydrogen from water, thus removing their
> chief drawbacks as power grid suppliers, their variable output.
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&...
>
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2004/aug/Solar_hydrogen.html
>
> Alternative energy technologies are still being sorted out, but expensive oil
> is giving them momentum that wasn't there ten years ago. This stuff will
> work if we commit to it.
>
> We don't have to keep taking all the **** we have over oil, throwing our
> economy down a rathole in the process. All it takes is some leadership and
> guts to stop it.

I think the market is the best incentive ever devised.

As the price per barrel increases, the incentive to replace increases
proportionally.

Government mandates only stifle and stagnate this process.

Thus we achieve two ends with the only downside felt by the Saudis,
Hugo Chavez, and a few other nasties.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Dan Mc

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-16, Dan > wrote:
> I think the market is the best incentive ever devised.

This is a basic theorem of economics. It's been proven that no regulatory
regime can ever be as good at producing optimal results as the free market.
Governments can, at best, only approach the efficiency of the market. I know
one guy who's an anarchist because of this result.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:26:22 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-03-15, Roger > wrote:
>> Most mid size cars could be quite capable of getting 30 plus with fuel
>> efficient engines. There is no need to remove the large trucks. We
>> are talking "fleet average," not the mileage of every truck.
>
>There are a nontrivial number of trucks, and 4-6 MPG is the rule rather than
>the exception. It takes a lot of econoboxes to counterbalance that.

The fleet haulers are not currently or planned on future inclusion
into the overall transportation fleet.
>
>> You use common sense. Those that can do so, could use the hybrids.
>> Those that really need the larger vans and SUVs could still use them
>> and the trucks could still remain. IOW we use what we need , not what
>> we think we'd like.
>
>That's not the way the American system works. The only person entitled to

It sure is. People have to learn to make the proper decision.

>make a decision as to what vehicle they need to purchase is the buyer. Not
>you, not me, not the government, and certainly not some enviro-wacko who
>knows nothing about the buyer's needs.

And I said no differently.

<snip for brevity>
>
>Let me guess: you were wearing the seat belt, and the SUV driver wasn't?

Both were wearing seatbelts.

>That's not an indictment of the SUV, but of the idiot who wasn't wearing his

Wasn't meant to be. It was to show the smaller car is not always the
looser.

>seat belt. (I'm a former paramedic. There are a few things I get rabid
>about, and seat belts top the list.)
>

>A hybrid SUV might be more fuel efficient than its conventional counterpart.
>Then again, it might not be. I looked at the hybrid version of my SUV when I
>was first considering buying it, but ruled it out for one simple reason: 95%
>of my driving is at highway speed, where a hybrid provides no benefit. The
>extra purchase cost, plus the battery replacement at 100K miles (and yes, I
>do keep vehicles past that point), far outweighed any possible fuel savings
>given my driving needs.

As a personal opinion and a far amount of time reading specs I doubt
many if any of the hybrid SUVs really provide any economic, or CO2
advantage over their lifetimes.


>
>If that's the case, why is government raising the alarm? See, for example,
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198 .

That's not the government, two the government didn't raise an alarm
and three the woman who manages the EPA's Energy Star program says:
"She says that even though fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, using
them contributes less mercury to the environment than using regular
incandescent bulbs. That's because they use less electricity — and
coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions in
the air."

>
>>>As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
>>>"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
>> No one said use the electric car for long trips hauling heavy loads.
>
>If that's the only car I have, I have no choice. I make those trips, so I
>have to have a vehicle that will do the job.
>
>Or are you suggesting that I be forced to buy two cars, one for the few
>local trips I make and one for the missions the first won't handle?

I also allowed for that in the original note. "We drive what we need
to drive". IOW if you need an SUV you drive an SUV, if you need a
truck, you drive one, but those who don't absolutely need one should
take the responsibility and drive what they need, not what they would
like.
>
>> The average trip made by cars is short and typically round trip to
>> work, or in to see the kids play what ever sport. Car pooling could
>> take care of a lot this.
>
>The average person's average trip, in a city, maybe. Ask someone living in a
>small rural town what their average trip is.

Again you are ignoring what I said. People should take responsibility
and drive what they need. The electric car is nothing more than
another form of transportation and a short range one at that. Why
would I expect some one living in a rural town to drive one 30 to 40
miles to work. I used to drive 65 miles one way an for a guy who
hates to get up early that was torture. What did we do? We sold our
home in the country and moved about 60 miles closer to a rural
subdivision.
>
>This kind of fallacious generalization is why government regulation of what
>people buy is simply wrong.

I did not make that kind of generalization, you read it into what I
said.
>
>> However for those that need the extra room and load capacity they
>> could still have it. I reiterate, FLEET AVERAGE does not mean every
>> car and tuck has to get that mileage. It's expected that all of them
>> averaged together would get that. Big difference.
>
>That does nothing for those of us who aren't average. Driving up the fleet

Those of us who aren't average ...aren't average. IOW as I said
before we drive what we need to drive (not what every one else does.
If you have 6 kids you don't try to haul them around in a Corvette.

>average will require that the vehicles that will handle my mission be
>unavailable, or else emasculated to the point they're unsafe.

Even the econoboxes are safer than the cars of old.

>
>> This is the typical "all or nothing" argument against better mileage
>> or conservation. When it comes to the cars on the road, most of us
>> don't need a big pickup truck, monster SUV or 5,000# luxury car.
>
>I don't either. My small SUV does the job.
>
>However, I REFUSE to try to tell someone else what they need or don't need.
>I cannot make that judgment for them. They can only do that for themselves.
>The alternative is central planning, comrade.

No one in this thread has either.
>
>> Of course the LEDs are far preferable over CFLs, but they are currently
>> very expensive. Give 'em a couple years and they just might be on par with
>> today's CFL, but far more efficient and almost indefinite life with very
>> little heat given off and no starter required.
>
>And if they do that, I'll happily switch. (Assuming they don't flicker
>annoyingly when fed 60 Hz AC.)
>
>That's the real key to doing the environmentally correct thing: Make it
>economically justifiable, too. I don't mean artificially raising the cost
>through taxation or anything like that. (The same arguments that justify
>doing that in other circumstances can be used to justify raising the cost of
>fuel for your Debonair to $10 a gallon. How much does it burn an hour?) I
>mean make it save real money.
>
>> The greatest impact on safety would be getting the public to quit
>> accepting a yearly highway death toll of between 40 and 50,000 as
>> acceptable.
>
>No argument from me on this one.
>
>> Maybe the biggest at present would be to build a jamming device to prevent
>> cell phones being used while the car is in motion and education.
>
>Got a 2-meter rig in your car, OM? I do, and have had ever since I owned a

2-meter and 440

>car. (Well, sometimes it was just 440, but you get the idea.) Just because
>some people can't talk and drive doesn't mean everyone can't.

Neglecting the ability to talk and walk, er... drive<:-)) at the same
time there's a big difference between using a mike and holding a cell
phone up beside your face blocking the entire view from one side.

>
>> Today there seems to be an element in society that fights any change
>> to improve things.
>
>When the suggested improvement is a drastic change in the way we live, and
>where we live, and how we live, you bet your ass you're going to get
>resistance, at least here in our free society. You see, the government isn't
>supposed to treat us like the Chinese government treats its people, but
>that's exactly what the enviro-wackos are calling for.
>
>> Nothing comes without some kind of cost including "business as usual"
>> which probably has the highest long term cost of any option.
>
>That has yet to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a lot of Americans.
>
>If you're so keen on saving the planet, why haven't you junked your Debonair
>and bought something smaller?

I fly it far less and save energy in many other areas so in essence
I've cut my carbon foot print drastically. As I said before (in
another thread), if I get back to flying any where near what I used to
the Deb is going to get a different engine that uses far less fuel.
BUT even at its present 14 GPH, flying it to Denver uses less overall
energy than does driving my car (I'd not be driving the Prius that far
with the amount of stuff I haul with me<g>)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-03-16, Dan > wrote:
>> I think the market is the best incentive ever devised.
>
> This is a basic theorem of economics. It's been proven that no regulatory
> regime can ever be as good at producing optimal results as the free
> market.
> Governments can, at best, only approach the efficiency of the market. I
> know
> one guy who's an anarchist because of this result.

What's more, the market is infinitely more adaptive when conditions change -
bureaucracies are like the Titanic heading for an iceberg.

[Ash Wyllie]

Dan Luke opined

>"Dan" wrote:

>> There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
>> provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years

>But they have serious environmental downsides, both in extraction and
>burning.

>Solar energy may be harvested in several ways
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower . Wind power harvest is
>experiencing rapid growth in the U. S., showing potential to be a serious
>contributor to the national grid, increasinig ten-fold in ten years:

>=================
>In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid
>than any other country; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8
>gigawatts in
>2007.[34] Texas has become the largest wind energy producing state,
>surpassing California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to its
>existing capacity of approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are
>expected to each produce 1 gigawatt by late-2007.[35] Wind power generation
>in the U.S. was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[36] The
>average output of one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average
>electricity consumption of about 250 American households. According to the
>American Wind Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in
>2008 to power just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in
>U.S., up from less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have
>concluded wind harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could
>provide enough electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore
>wind farms could do the same job.[37]

>-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

Texas had a big problem a few weeks ago: the wind stoppped blowing. There was a
hell of a scramble to get the fossil fuel plants online.

The big problem with wind is that it is not constant, and unpredictably so. So
you must have conventional backup ready to go. So all you save is fuel costs at
a huge capital expense. A gigawatt of wind power will not replace a gigawatt of
coal, or nuclear power.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 16 Mar 2008 20:47:43 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

>Dan Luke opined
>
>>"Dan" wrote:
>
>>> There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
>>> provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years
>
>>But they have serious environmental downsides, both in extraction and
>>burning.
>
>>Solar energy may be harvested in several ways
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower . Wind power harvest is
>>experiencing rapid growth in the U. S., showing potential to be a serious
>>contributor to the national grid, increasinig ten-fold in ten years:
>
>>=================
>>In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid
>>than any other country; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8
>>gigawatts in
>>2007.[34] Texas has become the largest wind energy producing state,
>>surpassing California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to its
>>existing capacity of approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are
>>expected to each produce 1 gigawatt by late-2007.[35] Wind power generation
>>in the U.S. was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[36] The
>>average output of one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average
>>electricity consumption of about 250 American households. According to the
>>American Wind Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in
>>2008 to power just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in
>>U.S., up from less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have
>>concluded wind harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could
>>provide enough electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore
>>wind farms could do the same job.[37]
>
>>-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
>
>Texas had a big problem a few weeks ago: the wind stoppped blowing. There was a
>hell of a scramble to get the fossil fuel plants online.
>
>The big problem with wind is that it is not constant, and unpredictably so. So

Like here in lower Michigan. We have almost the ideal average wind
speed, but unless close to one of the lake shores it's usually way too
fast or calm. However for the individual home owner there are
variations of the Savionus (sp?) S-rotor that work well out in the
open. Here we're surrounded by trees on three sides and putting a
generator high enough to clear the trees would be impractical from an
economic viability. Out on the farm mixed in with active and passive
solar they'd probably give us an independent level from the mains of
around 75% with enough excess to actually make money. Not much, but
at least come out on the positive side of the ledger.

I'd like to experiment with passive solar water heating, supplemented
with "on demand" hot water heaters for the kitchen and shower.. I
cold add a green house to the south side of the shop and probably heat
enough water the cut the heating bills for the house and shop in half.
With a large enough reserve we *might* be able to heat enough water to
supplement the gas fired forced air heat, but I'm afraid for
electricity we'd come out way on the short side. As I've mentioned
before, I was given a figure by a consultant of $50,000 to get about
that 75% and a payback of over 20 years.
Electric rates are currently around 10 cents per KWH and gas is
relatively inexpensive as well. Nor do we receive any subsidies
compared to California where rates are near 40 cents at peak demand,
they receive about a 50% subsidy and have far more sunlight which
also happens to be more direct.
>you must have conventional backup ready to go. So all you save is fuel costs at
>a huge capital expense. A gigawatt of wind power will not replace a gigawatt of
>coal, or nuclear power.
>
> -ash
> Cthulhu in 2008!
> Vote the greater evil.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Ash Wyllie" wrote:
>
> Texas had a big problem a few weeks ago: the wind stoppped blowing. There
> was a
> hell of a scramble to get the fossil fuel plants online.

Oh, dear!

>
> The big problem with wind is that it is not constant, and unpredictably so.
> So
> you must have conventional backup ready to go. So all you save is fuel costs
> at
> a huge capital expense. A gigawatt of wind power will not replace a gigawatt
> of
> coal, or nuclear power.

There are various ways to "flywheel" wind power.

Also, wind becomes more reliable when the generating field becomes large
enough to span several states. The wind's blowing somewhere in the Midwest.

Finally, no one is proposing that wind and solar can be the sole sources of
electricity with present technology. The goal for now should be increasing
their supplementary role in power generation, while developing uses for them
in the direct production of fuels.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 17, 7:37 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Ash Wyllie" wrote:

>
> There are various ways to "flywheel" wind power.
>
> Also, wind becomes more reliable when the generating field becomes large
> enough to span several states. The wind's blowing somewhere in the Midwest.
>
> Finally, no one is proposing that wind and solar can be the sole sources of
> electricity with present technology. The goal for now should be increasing
> their supplementary role in power generation, while developing uses for them
> in the direct production of fuels.

And this thread ALMOST died....

Let it go, man...just let it go....


Dan Mc

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 17, 7:37 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Ash Wyllie" wrote:
>
>>
>> There are various ways to "flywheel" wind power.
>>
>> Also, wind becomes more reliable when the generating field becomes large
>> enough to span several states. The wind's blowing somewhere in the
>> Midwest.
>>
>> Finally, no one is proposing that wind and solar can be the sole sources
>> of
>> electricity with present technology. The goal for now should be
>> increasing
>> their supplementary role in power generation, while developing uses for
>> them
>> in the direct production of fuels.
>
> And this thread ALMOST died....
>
> Let it go, man...just let it go....



Heh.


"Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in."

-Michael Corleone

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 17, 7:37 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Ash Wyllie" wrote:
>
>>
>> There are various ways to "flywheel" wind power.
>>
>> Also, wind becomes more reliable when the generating field becomes large
>> enough to span several states. The wind's blowing somewhere in the Midwest.
>>
>> Finally, no one is proposing that wind and solar can be the sole sources of
>> electricity with present technology. The goal for now should be increasing
>> their supplementary role in power generation, while developing uses for them
>> in the direct production of fuels.
>
>And this thread ALMOST died....
>
>Let it go, man...just let it go....

Not yet. Not yet! Denny started something that must be running close
to a record. We owe it to him.

>
>
>Dan Mc
>
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 8:54 pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 17, 7:37 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >> "Ash Wyllie" wrote:
>
> >> There are various ways to "flywheel" wind power.
>
> >> Also, wind becomes more reliable when the generating field becomes large
> >> enough to span several states. The wind's blowing somewhere in the Midwest.
>
> >> Finally, no one is proposing that wind and solar can be the sole sources of
> >> electricity with present technology. The goal for now should be increasing
> >> their supplementary role in power generation, while developing uses for them
> >> in the direct production of fuels.
>
> >And this thread ALMOST died....
>
> >Let it go, man...just let it go....
>
> Not yet. Not yet! Denny started something that must be running close
> to a record. We owe it to him.
>
>
>
> >Dan Mc
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

OK, ok...

I can't let it die... it must continue, for the sake of the Cause.


NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe
during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was
the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter
precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large
parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome
runoff this spring.

U.S. Winter Temperature Highlights
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was
33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average
- yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest
winter since national records began in 1895.

February Temperature Highlights
February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest
globally on record. For the U.S., the temperature was near average,
0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average of 34.7°F (1.5°C), which
was 2.0°F (1.1°C) warmer than February 2007.

Globally, the February average temperature was 0.68°F/0.38°C above the
20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C.



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/feb08.html

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:


> OK, ok...

> I can't let it die... it must continue, for the sake of the Cause.

Dammit, Dan!



> NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

So?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf

"Weather fluctuations or 'noise' have a noticeable effect even on monthly-mean
global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather has
little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more.
The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few
years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino - La
Nina cycle),"

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 8:40 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
> > OK, ok...
> > I can't let it die... it must continue, for the sake of the Cause.
>
> Dammit, Dan!
>
> > NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
>
> So?
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf
>
> "Weather fluctuations or 'noise' have a noticeable effect even on monthly-mean
> global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather has
> little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more.
> The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few
> years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino - La
> Nina cycle),"

The NOAA article specifically mentioned Global as well as NA
temperatures....

(I can't help myself -- somebody hep me!)


Dan Mc

[Denny]

>
> (I can't help myself -- somebody hep me!)
>

OK < uses foot to slide the beer closer to prostrate Dan>

denny

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 9:53 am, Denny > wrote:
> > (I can't help myself -- somebody hep me!)
>
> OK < uses foot to slide the beer closer to prostrate Dan>
>
> denny

Unconsciousness -- there's the ticket!


Dan Mc

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>> > NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
>>
>> So?
>>
>> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf
>>
>> "Weather fluctuations or 'noise' have a noticeable effect even on
>> monthly-mean
>> global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather
>> has
>> little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or
>> more.
>> The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few
>> years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino - La
>> Nina cycle),"
>
> The NOAA article specifically mentioned Global as well as NA
> temperatures....

It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend. Weather
is fast; climate is slow.



> (I can't help myself -- somebody hep me!)

Don't look at me.

This is all Denny's fault.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 10:16 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

It's a sickness...

Oh well, here we go (for the Cause)....

>
> It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend. Weather
> is fast; climate is slow.

Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
activities?

A few other factors come to mind that make me a bit wary of this
"crisis":

--> Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see referenced
report)

--> UN involvement (if you think it's pure, enjoy your life of bliss)

--> Many of the same leftist players who previously worked other
"crises" until they got tired (see wikipedia entries for LiveAid,
BandAid, and FarmAid)

--> Protocols burden US more than other countries (China, India,
somehow exempt)

--> Call for new taxes

--> Appeal for new bureaucracies

--> It's a Hollywood "Cause" (see wikipedia entry for "If they're for
it, it must be wrong")

--> Inconsistency between Crisis Leaders claims and lifestyles (see
wikipedia entry for "Al Gore, Big house, and Private Jet")

--> Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
subsequent documents)

--> Labeling all those that disagree as "deniers" (A favorite Marxist
tactic -- see wikipedia entry for "bourgeoisie")

--> Declining faith ins pronouncements of "Experts" (see wikipedia
entry for "Robert Jarvik")

--> "Crisis" embraced by mass media empty-headed blowhards (see
wikipedia entries for "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN")


These are just a few thoughts that came to mind. Of course, there is a
counter to every one, but don't be surprised that I don't heartily
embrace the latest "crisis."

Dan Mc


>
> This is all Denny's fault.

Agreed.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>>
>> It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend.
>> Weather
>> is fast; climate is slow.
>
> Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
> data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
> consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
> activities?
>

There's a strawman lurking in that sentence. Scientists are *not* claiming
that there is a consistent increase in Global temperatures; far from it. A
graph of the instrumental record shows consideral annual, let alone monthly,
variability.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

But what's the overall trend since 1900?


> A few other factors come to mind that make me a bit wary of this
> "crisis":
>
> --> Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see referenced
> report)
>

I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there wouldn't
be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment reports
that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the man
who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

> --> UN involvement (if you think it's pure, enjoy your life of bliss)

> --> Many of the same leftist players who previously worked other
> "crises" until they got tired (see wikipedia entries for LiveAid,
> BandAid, and FarmAid)

> --> Protocols burden US more than other countries (China, India,
> somehow exempt)
>
> --> Call for new taxes
>
> --> Appeal for new bureaucracies
>
> --> It's a Hollywood "Cause" (see wikipedia entry for "If they're for
> it, it must be wrong")
>
> --> Inconsistency between Crisis Leaders claims and lifestyles (see
> wikipedia entry for "Al Gore, Big house, and Private Jet")

I have agreed with you before that political axe grinders will spin any
issue for advantage. That is certainly the case both ways in this matter
but it is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.


> --> Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
> be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
> subsequent documents)
>

Of course adjustments are made. That is what happens in science as new
research refines understanding.
The IPCC said as much in its first report in 1990:

"Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by
0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years...; The size of this warming is
broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the
same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase
could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this
variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger
human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced
greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more."

A lot has been learned since then. Science never stands still.


> --> Labeling all those that disagree as "deniers" (A favorite Marxist
> tactic -- see wikipedia entry for "bourgeoisie")

>
> --> Declining faith ins pronouncements of "Experts" (see wikipedia
> entry for "Robert Jarvik")

>
> --> "Crisis" embraced by mass media empty-headed blowhards (see
> wikipedia entries for "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN")
>

You can't leave Fox News out of the mass media empty-headed blowhards
lineup. Besides, pop media is not the place to judge scientific questions.
Their business is selling ads, not giving useful information.

>
> These are just a few thoughts that came to mind. Of course, there is a
> counter to every one, but don't be surprised that I don't heartily
> embrace the latest "crisis."

I don't expect you to. But at least look past the hoopla to what the
science is really saying.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 12:08 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
> > data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
> > consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
> > activities?
>
> There's a strawman lurking in that sentence. Scientists are *not* claiming
> that there is a consistent increase in Global temperatures; far from it. A
> graph of the instrumental record shows consideral annual, let alone monthly,
> variability.


> But what's the overall trend since 1900?

If we're using 1900 as the benchmark, we have to conclude that Climate
change cannot possibly be the result of only man's activities -- the
level of industrialization, proliferation of the IC engine, and other
claimed generators of Co2 et al were minuscule in 1900, 1910, 1920,
1930 -- even 1940 -- compared to today's numbers. Shouldn't we see a
steep curve since, say, 1950 with the mass marketing and mass
industrialization?


> --> Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see
referenced
> > report)
>
> I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there wouldn't
> be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment reports
> that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the man
> who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
> Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

What would cause "cold snaps" (over several years, BTW) if the general
trend is towards warming due to "increased greenhouse emissions"?


> > --> UN involvement (if you think it's pure, enjoy your life of bliss)
> > --> Many of the same leftist players who previously worked other
> > "crises" until they got tired (see wikipedia entries for LiveAid,
> > BandAid, and FarmAid)
> > --> Protocols burden US more than other countries (China, India,
> > somehow exempt)
> > --> Call for new taxes
> > --> Appeal for new bureaucracies
> > --> It's a Hollywood "Cause" (see wikipedia entry for "If they're for
> > it, it must be wrong")
> > --> Inconsistency between Crisis Leaders claims and lifestyles (see
> > wikipedia entry for "Al Gore, Big house, and Private Jet")

> I have agreed with you before that political axe grinders will spin any
> issue for advantage. That is certainly the case both ways in this matter
> but it is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.

Well, in our system, empirical evidence needs to be sifted, weighed
and then proferred to reach consensus. Only after consensus provides
political will do laws change and bureaucracies move.


> > --> Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
> > be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
> > subsequent documents)
>
> Of course adjustments are made. That is what happens in science as new
> research refines understanding.

> A lot has been learned since then. Science never stands still.

Thus inconclusive, thus hardly a mandate.

> > --> Labeling all those that disagree as "deniers" (A favorite Marxist
> > tactic -- see wikipedia entry for "bourgeoisie")
> --> Declining faith ins pronouncements of "Experts" (see wikipedia
> > entry for "Robert Jarvik")
> > --> "Crisis" embraced by mass media empty-headed blowhards (see
> > wikipedia entries for "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN")
>
> You can't leave Fox News out of the mass media empty-headed blowhards
> lineup. Besides, pop media is not the place to judge scientific questions.
> Their business is selling ads, not giving useful information.

Oops! You're right -- Fox News .. Let's chuck in NPR as well (where we
can always tune in to learn about some asexual rabbit's habitat being
swept away by some nasty human...)

> I don't expect you to. But at least look past the hoopla to what the
> science is really saying.

"Consensus science" is an oxymoron.



Dan Mc.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 20, 10:16 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> It's a sickness...
>
> Oh well, here we go (for the Cause)....
>
>>
>> It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend.
>> Weather
>> is fast; climate is slow.
>
> Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
> data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
> consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
> activities?
>
> A few other factors come to mind that make me a bit wary of this
> "crisis":

Quite - just the latest in a series of crises that goes back to bronze
shortages in ancient Rome and Greece.

More recently, http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xjt5n (Amazon.com)

{many "dead on" examples snipped}

Yes, the same players, the same methods.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>
>> But what's the overall trend since 1900?
>
> If we're using 1900 as the benchmark, we have to conclude that Climate
> change cannot possibly be the result of only man's activities -- the
> level of industrialization, proliferation of the IC engine, and other
> claimed generators of Co2 et al were minuscule in 1900, 1910, 1920,
> 1930 -- even 1940 -- compared to today's numbers. Shouldn't we see a
> steep curve since, say, 1950 with the mass marketing and mass
> industrialization?

We do. Note the graph of atmospheric CO2 ppmv:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev_png

Compare it again to the instrumental temperature record:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com:80/images/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


> > --> Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see
> referenced
>> > report)
>>
>> I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there
>> wouldn't
>> be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment
>> reports
>> that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the
>> man
>> who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
>> Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.
>
> What would cause "cold snaps" (over several years, BTW) if the general
> trend is towards warming due to "increased greenhouse emissions"?

Again, what climate scientists are predicting is a global *average*
temperature increase, not nice, balmy weather everywhere. Furthermore, this
global temperature increase is very unevenly distributed:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map_jpg

Snowstorms and frigid Januarys are not going to cease because the global
average temperature is up 1 deg. C in the last hundred years.

[snip]

>> I have agreed with you before that political axe grinders will spin any
>> issue for advantage. That is certainly the case both ways in this matter
>> but it is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.
>
> Well, in our system, empirical evidence needs to be sifted, weighed
> and then proferred to reach consensus. Only after consensus provides
> political will do laws change and bureaucracies move.

The consensus is there; nations and bureaucracies are dragging their feet.
My confidence is small that the world's governments can achieve effective
agreements and policies to abate emissions. A lot of arm waving and pocket
lining is more likely, alas.


>> > --> Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
>> > be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
>> > subsequent documents)
>>
>> Of course adjustments are made. That is what happens in science as new
>> research refines understanding.
>
>> A lot has been learned since then. Science never stands still.
>
> Thus inconclusive, thus hardly a mandate.

I fear it could never be as conclusive as you demand. What, in detail,
would you regard as convincing?


>
[snip]
>
>> I don't expect you to. But at least look past the hoopla to what the
>> science is really saying.
>
> "Consensus science" is an oxymoron.

The consensus didn't make the science. It was the other way around.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 20, 12:08 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>
>> I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there
>> wouldn't
>> be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment
>> reports
>> that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the
>> man
>> who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
>> Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

No, not uniform, but the trend is supposed to be global.

That, too, falls apart.

See the Medieval Warm Period Project at
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp which refutes the scientific
consensus about the past (ie, beyond the cherry picked data for the last 150
years to 1000 years, that the warming was local)

> What would cause "cold snaps" (over several years, BTW) if the general
> trend is towards warming due to "increased greenhouse emissions"?
>
And are cold snaps natural, but temperature spikes man-made?

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> See the Medieval Warm Period Project athttp://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jspwhich refutes the scientific
> consensus about the past (ie, beyond the cherry picked data for the last 150
> years to 1000 years, that the warming was local)
>

Those guys need some serious web help... yikes!

Interesting position -- the historical record supports the notion that
a resurgent Europe was the direct result of a (at the very least
continental) warming after a cooling episode...


Dan Mc

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>>
>> See the Medieval Warm Period Project
>> athttp://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jspwhich refutes the scientific
>> consensus about the past (ie, beyond the cherry picked data for the last
>> 150
>> years to 1000 years, that the warming was local)
>>
>
> Those guys need some serious web help... yikes!
>
> Interesting position -- the historical record supports the notion that
> a resurgent Europe was the direct result of a (at the very least
> continental) warming after a cooling episode...
>

Yes, but look at the other data from sites around the globe; kinda trashes
the notion that the warming was local, rather than a global trend.

Remember that a tenant of the alarmists (that makes quite a bit of hay with
the MSM) is that the MWP didn't exist, or that it was local. This is the
empirical data and it's analysis, that Dan Luke speaks so fondly of.

In that CO2 site (if you can bear to sift through it < :~) >, is that CO2
reading throughout time, have been much higher at the same time it was MUCH
colder, and that CO2 levels FOLLOW, rather than LEAD, temperature increases.

Right now were at about 380ppm CO2, but at 140-160ppm, plants don't grow
(they suffocate). Just how low do the alarmists want to go, and how much do
they think they can tweak a gas that is 0.01% of the atmosphere?

Look, too, at motivations when the data gets deliberately garbled, and the
conclusions don't fit the "empirical data". As you mentioned, "consensus
science" is an oxymoron. Science, too, (a method, not a body of knowledge)
is deliberately skeptical.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 8:09 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> Yes, but look at the other data from sites around the globe; kinda trashes
> the notion that the warming was local, rather than a global trend.

That's worth some investigating... would definitely poke a big hole in
the current "CO2 is greenhouse gas thus leads to warming" thesis.

>
> In that CO2 site (if you can bear to sift through it < :~) >, is that CO2
> reading throughout time, have been much higher at the same time it was MUCH
> colder, and that CO2 levels FOLLOW, rather than LEAD, temperature increases.
>

I'm in agreement on that one. I've seen contrary data and Gore's
"hockey stick" was trashed a long time ago, but the alarmists cling to
it.


Dan Mc

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote

>> "hockey stick" was trashed a long time ago,

No, it wasn't.

> but the alarmists cling to
> it.

The denialists cling to that fiction.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 10:31 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote
>
> >> "hockey stick" was trashed a long time ago,
>
> No, it wasn't.
>
> > but the alarmists cling to
> > it.
>
> The denialists cling to that fiction.

Here's some easy reading to consider: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

Dan Mc

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

> Here's some easy reading to consider:
> http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
>


And here's some with a very familiar ring to it:

http://www.aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote"

>
> Here's some easy reading to consider:
> http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
>

And here's some more:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml


In response to Congressional inquiries sparked by McIntyre's and McKitrick's
criticisms of Mann, et al. '98 & '99, the NRC conducted an investigation into
the statistical methods that produced the "hockey stick" shape of the proxy
reconstruction. The NRC said:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th
century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least
the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an
array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface
temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy
indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the
world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last
2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth
is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites
experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any
other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."

Bottom line? The "hockey stick" controversy is a dead horse, but deniers are
still beating the hell out of it, trying to ride it one more mile.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 20, 10:31 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Dan" wrote
>>
>> >> "hockey stick" was trashed a long time ago,
>>
>> No, it wasn't.
>>
>> > but the alarmists cling to
>> > it.
>>
>> The denialists cling to that fiction.

Well, let's see:

The "Hokey Stick" denies the little Iace Age that ended in 1850, it denies
the Medieval Warm Period, and when other researchers stuffed random numbers
into it, it still produced a Hokey Stick.

That's pretty evident that the denial is in Luke, and it borders on
dementia.

>
> Here's some easy reading to consider:
> http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
>
Quite! Mann's "work" is right up there with Flat Earth and "Intelligent
Design"
type garbage.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:

>>> The denialists cling to that fiction.
>
> Well, let's see:
>
> The "Hokey Stick" denies the little Iace Age that ended in 1850, it denies
> the Medieval Warm Period, and when other researchers stuffed random numbers
> into it, it still produced a Hokey Stick.

Right: THE CONSPIRACY (TM). They're all in on it. Even the NRC.

"...stuffed random numbers ..." Haw! You're hilarious.


>
> That's pretty evident that the denial is in Luke, and it borders on
> dementia.

Coming from a guy who believed the Ol' Perfesser, that's amusing, too.


>> Here's some easy reading to consider:
>> http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
>>
> Quite! Mann's "work" is right up there with Flat Earth and "Intelligent
> Design"
> type garbage.

How ironic that you are unable to recognize AGW deniers using the same tactics
as your buddy Ben Stein. I wonder what your reaction will be to his film
about mainstream science suppressing Intelligent Design. Did you hear your
other AGW denier buddy Limbaugh slurping him on the radio?

Cognitive dissonance seems to be your fate in life, doesn't it?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 20, 10:31 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Dan" wrote
>>
>> >> "hockey stick" was trashed a long time ago,
>>
>> No, it wasn't.
>>
>> > but the alarmists cling to
>> > it.
>>
>> The denialists cling to that fiction.
>
> Here's some easy reading to consider:
> http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
>

It's bull****. The guy is lying through his teeth.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
>
>>>> The denialists cling to that fiction.
>>
>> Well, let's see:
>>
>> The "Hokey Stick" denies the little Iace Age that ended in 1850, it
>> denies the Medieval Warm Period, and when other researchers stuffed
>> random numbers into it, it still produced a Hokey Stick.
>
> Right: THE CONSPIRACY (TM). They're all in on it. Even the NRC.
>
> "...stuffed random numbers ..." Haw! You're hilarious.
>
>
>>
>> That's pretty evident that the denial is in Luke, and it borders on
>> dementia.
>
> Coming from a guy who believed the Ol' Perfesser, that's amusing, too.
>
>
>>> Here's some easy reading to consider:
>>> http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
>>>
>> Quite! Mann's "work" is right up there with Flat Earth and
>> "Intelligent Design"
>> type garbage.
>
> How ironic that you are unable to recognize AGW deniers using the same
> tactics as your buddy Ben Stein. I wonder what your reaction will be
> to his film about mainstream science suppressing Intelligent Design.
> Did you hear your other AGW denier buddy Limbaugh slurping him on the
> radio?
>
> Cognitive dissonance seems to be your fate in life, doesn't it?
>
>
>

This was just sent to me by a friend...



You may be aware of a piece of creationist propaganda called "Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed." I know at least some of you are familiar with
a wonderful blog called Pharyngula
(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)
written by PZ Myers, a professor of biology at the University of
Minnesota.

So with background out of the way, I got to hear this story... Last
night there was a screening of "Expelled" at the Mall of America.
Attendees had to register in advance for tickets. Myers appears in the
film and even gets an acknowledgment of gratitude. So he registered,
along with his family and a guest, the guy who told this story.

While waiting in line to sign in for the screening, a cop came up to
Myers and told him he was not going to be allowed to enter. A producer
had recognized him and told the cops to, well, expel him from the
premises. Apparently his intelligence and scientific knowledge were not
welcome. Maybe he'd contaminate the vibe or something.

So he went downstairs to the Apple store while his family and guest
went
ahead watched the flick, which by all accounts ranged from laughable to
pathetic.

The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by this
point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
was...Richard Dawkins!


Good stuff, eh?


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>>
>
> This was just sent to me by a friend...
>
>
>
> You may be aware of a piece of creationist propaganda called "Expelled:
> No Intelligence Allowed." I know at least some of you are familiar with
> a wonderful blog called Pharyngula
> (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)
> written by PZ Myers, a professor of biology at the University of
> Minnesota.
>
> So with background out of the way, I got to hear this story... Last
> night there was a screening of "Expelled" at the Mall of America.
> Attendees had to register in advance for tickets. Myers appears in the
> film and even gets an acknowledgment of gratitude. So he registered,
> along with his family and a guest, the guy who told this story.
>
> While waiting in line to sign in for the screening, a cop came up to
> Myers and told him he was not going to be allowed to enter. A producer
> had recognized him and told the cops to, well, expel him from the
> premises. Apparently his intelligence and scientific knowledge were not
> welcome. Maybe he'd contaminate the vibe or something.
>
> So he went downstairs to the Apple store while his family and guest
> went
> ahead watched the flick, which by all accounts ranged from laughable to
> pathetic.
>
> The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by this
> point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
> apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
> was...Richard Dawkins!
>
>
> Good stuff, eh?

Frackin' hilarious.

The ID scammers are masters at stepping on their own dicks.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> This was just sent to me by a friend...
>>
>>
>>
>> You may be aware of a piece of creationist propaganda called
"Expelled:
>> No Intelligence Allowed." I know at least some of you are familiar
with
>> a wonderful blog called Pharyngula
>> (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)
>> written by PZ Myers, a professor of biology at the University of
>> Minnesota.
>>
>> So with background out of the way, I got to hear this story... Last
>> night there was a screening of "Expelled" at the Mall of America.
>> Attendees had to register in advance for tickets. Myers appears in
the
>> film and even gets an acknowledgment of gratitude. So he registered,
>> along with his family and a guest, the guy who told this story.
>>
>> While waiting in line to sign in for the screening, a cop came up to
>> Myers and told him he was not going to be allowed to enter. A
producer
>> had recognized him and told the cops to, well, expel him from the
>> premises. Apparently his intelligence and scientific knowledge were
not
>> welcome. Maybe he'd contaminate the vibe or something.
>>
>> So he went downstairs to the Apple store while his family and guest
>> went
>> ahead watched the flick, which by all accounts ranged from laughable
to
>> pathetic.
>>
>> The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by
this
>> point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
>> apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
>> was...Richard Dawkins!
>>
>>
>> Good stuff, eh?
>
> Frackin' hilarious.
>
> The ID scammers are masters at stepping on their own dicks.
>

It's incredible. And yet they keep on..

Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This was just sent to me by a friend...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You may be aware of a piece of creationist propaganda called
> "Expelled:
>>> No Intelligence Allowed." I know at least some of you are familiar
> with
>>> a wonderful blog called Pharyngula
>>> (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)
>>> written by PZ Myers, a professor of biology at the University of
>>> Minnesota.
>>>
>>> So with background out of the way, I got to hear this story... Last
>>> night there was a screening of "Expelled" at the Mall of America.
>>> Attendees had to register in advance for tickets. Myers appears in
> the
>>> film and even gets an acknowledgment of gratitude. So he registered,
>>> along with his family and a guest, the guy who told this story.
>>>
>>> While waiting in line to sign in for the screening, a cop came up to
>>> Myers and told him he was not going to be allowed to enter. A
> producer
>>> had recognized him and told the cops to, well, expel him from the
>>> premises. Apparently his intelligence and scientific knowledge were
> not
>>> welcome. Maybe he'd contaminate the vibe or something.
>>>
>>> So he went downstairs to the Apple store while his family and guest
>>> went
>>> ahead watched the flick, which by all accounts ranged from laughable
> to
>>> pathetic.
>>>
>>> The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by
> this
>>> point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
>>> apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
>>> was...Richard Dawkins!
>>>
>>>
>>> Good stuff, eh?
>>
>> Frackin' hilarious.
>>
>> The ID scammers are masters at stepping on their own dicks.
>>
>
> It's incredible. And yet they keep on..
>


The addition of Ben Stein opens wonderful new vistas of rightard wacko
hilarity.

Life is good.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13u8i231s1cc812
@news.supernews.com:


>
> The addition of Ben Stein opens wonderful new vistas of rightard wacko
> hilarity.
>

I'm not sure if I have heard from him,. is he the flagellum guy?


>

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 21, 7:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13u8i231s1cc812
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>
>
> > The addition of Ben Stein opens wonderful new vistas of rightard wacko
> > hilarity.
>
> I'm not sure if I have heard from him,. is he the flagellum guy?
>
>
>
> Bertie

Ben Stein '' Beuller....?"

"Win Ben Steins Money"

And countless other small roles...

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13u8i231s1cc812
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>
>>
>> The addition of Ben Stein opens wonderful new vistas of rightard wacko
>> hilarity.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if I have heard from him,. is he the flagellum guy?

Heh. They're *all* the flagellum guy.

Stein is a minor entertainment/media twit who is conductng a pro-ID campaign.
His latest effort is "Expelled," a movie he paid for that pretends to expose
a scientific conspiracy to suppress Intelligent Design. He's a right wing
idiot (tautology?) with money to spend on a pet project:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 21, 7:58 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 6.130...
>
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13u8i231s1cc812
> > @news.supernews.com:
>
> >> The addition of Ben Stein opens wonderful new vistas of rightard wacko
> >> hilarity.
>
> > I'm not sure if I have heard from him,. is he the flagellum guy?
>
> Heh. They're *all* the flagellum guy.
>
> Stein is a minor entertainment/media twit who is conductng a pro-ID campaign.
> His latest effort is "Expelled," a movie he paid for that pretends to expose
> a scientific conspiracy to suppress Intelligent Design. He's a right wing
> idiot (tautology?) with money to spend on a pet project:
>
> http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Ben has many talents, and many dollars. If he so chooses to fund, why
is that such a threat?

Let the thoughts and arguments flow -- we don't need Grand Poobahs
declaring what we should or should not heed.

Even a liberal would concede to that?


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:ae6a3e92-3d8d-49cc-9d13-
:

> On Mar 21, 7:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13u8i231s1cc812
>> @news.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The addition of Ben Stein opens wonderful new vistas of rightard wacko
>> > hilarity.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I have heard from him,. is he the flagellum guy?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Ben Stein '' Beuller....?"
>
> "Win Ben Steins Money"
>
> And countless other small roles...
>
>
>
>

Ah, OK, well if a comedian says it's so...

And I've wasted all this time listening to Jat Gould.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13u8i231s1cc812
>> @news.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The addition of Ben Stein opens wonderful new vistas of rightard
>>> wacko hilarity.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if I have heard from him,. is he the flagellum guy?
>
> Heh. They're *all* the flagellum guy.
>
> Stein is a minor entertainment/media twit who is conductng a pro-ID
> campaign. His latest effort is "Expelled," a movie he paid for that
> pretends to expose a scientific conspiracy to suppress Intelligent
> Design. He's a right wing idiot (tautology?) with money to spend on a
> pet project:
>
> http://www.expelledthemovie.com/


Ah, right. I didn't know the movie was his.

So, what's next, a conspiracy to supress the tooth fairy?


South Park is starting to look nore real than reality itself.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 21, 7:58 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> 6.130...
>>
>> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13u8i231s1cc812
>> > @news.supernews.com:
>>
>> >> The addition of Ben Stein opens wonderful new vistas of rightard
>> >> wacko hilarity.
>>
>> > I'm not sure if I have heard from him,. is he the flagellum guy?
>>
>> Heh. They're *all* the flagellum guy.
>>
>> Stein is a minor entertainment/media twit who is conductng a pro-ID
>> campaign. His latest effort is "Expelled," a movie he paid for that
>> pretends to expose a scientific conspiracy to suppress Intelligent
>> Design. He's a right wing idiot (tautology?) with money to spend on
>> a pet project:
>>
>> http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
>
> Ben has many talents, and many dollars. If he so chooses to fund, why
> is that such a threat?


It's not a threat, fjukkwit, i's stupid and it's embracing stupidity.
>
> Let the thoughts and arguments flow -- we don't need Grand Poobahs
> declaring what we should or should not heed.
>

Absolutley. So why did he throw PZ meyers out of the movie?


> Even a liberal would concede to that?
>

I'm a republican, fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

>
> Ben has many talents, and many dollars. If he so chooses to fund, why
> is that such a threat?

It isn't, really.

But it is illustrative of the current right wing impulse towards
anti-intellectualism. Stein is a good example of how modern right wing
ideology will deny any science it perceives as a threat to the party line.

> Let the thoughts and arguments flow -- we don't need Grand Poobahs
> declaring what we should or should not heed.
>
> Even a liberal would concede to that?

Of course. But, once upon a time, conservatives claimed the scientific high
ground, chiding leftists for their post-modernist denials of empirical
knowledge. Now we see that when science gores right wing oxen,
"conservatives" cry conspiracy.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ben has many talents, and many dollars. If he so chooses to fund, why
> is that such a threat?
>
> Let the thoughts and arguments flow -- we don't need Grand Poobahs
> declaring what we should or should not heed.

If you've ever watched "Win Ben Stein's Money", you'd see what a walking
encyclopedia the guy is.

The questions on the show are not the droll crap on "Who Wants to be a
Millionaire", like "How many colors are there on an Oreo cookie?".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in news:%
:

>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:5bea1776-8b22-4a44-8b70-
...
>>
>> Ben has many talents, and many dollars. If he so chooses to fund, why
>> is that such a threat?
>>
>> Let the thoughts and arguments flow -- we don't need Grand Poobahs
>> declaring what we should or should not heed.
>
> If you've ever watched "Win Ben Stein's Money", you'd see what a
walking
> encyclopedia the guy is.
>
> The questions on the show are not the droll crap on "Who Wants to be a
> Millionaire", like "How many colors are there on an Oreo cookie?".
>
>
>
>

So obviously the people who watch 'who wants to be a millionaire' are
all evolutionary scientists.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 21, 8:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Ben has many talents, and many dollars. If he so chooses to fund, why
> > is that such a threat?
>
> It's not a threat, fjukkwit, i's stupid and it's embracing stupidity.


Hang on, since when is "embracing stupidity" a concern?

Surely you've watched television sometime in the last 40 years?

I think there are hidden flaws in arguments when the contrary position
gest so incredibly lathered up over what they perceive to be "stupid."

If it's that untenable then why give it a moment's thought?


> > Let the thoughts and arguments flow -- we don't need Grand Poobahs
> > declaring what we should or should not heed.
>
> Absolutley. So why did he throw PZ meyers out of the movie?

I don't know. I need to rent that one again...


> > Even a liberal would concede to that?
>
> I'm a republican, fjukkwit.
>
> Bertie

I was actually referring to anyone who espouses a liberal perspective.
If the shoe fits...


Dan Mc

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 21, 8:50 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> But it is illustrative of the current right wing impulse towards
> anti-intellectualism. Stein is a good example of how modern right wing
> ideology will deny any science it perceives as a threat to the party line.

There's a paragraph laden with broad brush accusations -- who exactly
is this "right wing?"

> Of course. But, once upon a time, conservatives claimed the scientific high
> ground, chiding leftists for their post-modernist denials of empirical
> knowledge. Now we see that when science gores right wing oxen,
> "conservatives" cry conspiracy.

"Science" has been no friend to conservatives or liberals for a very,
very long time. I'd like to know when this golden era passed wherein
conservatives and scientists lay down as peacefully as lions and
lambs...

If by "science" you mean the academy writ large, certainly you live in
a dream world if you think that ivory tower is free of bias.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:af49e254-a7c8-4008-8361-
:

> On Mar 21, 8:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > Ben has many talents, and many dollars. If he so chooses to fund,
why
>> > is that such a threat?
>>
>> It's not a threat, fjukkwit, i's stupid and it's embracing stupidity.
>
>
> Hang on, since when is "embracing stupidity" a concern?
>
> Surely you've watched television sometime in the last 40 years?

Yep.
>
> I think there are hidden flaws in arguments when the contrary position
> gest so incredibly lathered up over what they perceive to be "stupid."

Nope. contrary postions are fine. stupidity isn;'t.
>
> If it's that untenable then why give it a moment's thought?


Because they are bad neighbors.
>
>
>> > Let the thoughts and arguments flow -- we don't need Grand Poobahs
>> > declaring what we should or should not heed.
>>
>> Absolutley. So why did he throw PZ meyers out of the movie?
>
> I don't know. I need to rent that one again...
>
>
>> > Even a liberal would concede to that?
>>
>> I'm a republican, fjukkwit.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I was actually referring to anyone who espouses a liberal perspective.
> If the shoe fits...


What's liberal about the facts?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 21, 8:50 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>
>> But it is illustrative of the current right wing impulse towards
>> anti-intellectualism. Stein is a good example of how modern right
>> wing ideology will deny any science it perceives as a threat to the
>> party line.
>
> There's a paragraph laden with broad brush accusations -- who exactly
> is this "right wing?"
>


Obviously the opposite of the "liberals" and their "attitudes" you keep
ranting about.


Stupid is as stupid does.


Bertie
>
>
>

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 21, 8:50 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

>
> If by "science" you mean the academy writ large, certainly you live in
> a dream world if you think that ivory tower is free of bias.
>

Academia (since the 50's) tells us that Western Science is abusive, sexist,
racist, homophobic, etc.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 22, 12:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > I think there are hidden flaws in arguments when the contrary position
> > gest so incredibly lathered up over what they perceive to be "stupid."
>
> Nope. contrary postions are fine. stupidity isn;'t.

> > If it's that untenable then why give it a moment's thought?
>
> Because they are bad neighbors.

So what do you propose for those you deem "stupid?"

Annihilation? Exorcism? Re-education?


> What's liberal about the facts?
>
> Bertie

"Facts" now that's a handy term. So in the Global warming debate, I
assume those that agree with the IPCC are basing their conclusions on
"facts," while those that don't are simply stupid?

Sorry -- when the opposite position gets to determine when the counter
is a "contrary position" or simply "stupid" and baseless, that's not
an argument, that's a contradiction. And until there's an agreement to
return to logic, you have namecalling.

Review Monty Python for clarification.


Dan Mc

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mar 21, 8:50 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>>
>> If by "science" you mean the academy writ large, certainly you live in
>> a dream world if you think that ivory tower is free of bias.
>>
>
> Academia (since the 50's) tells us that Western Science is abusive, sexist,
> racist, homophobic, etc.

Just so.

And the right wing enjoyed watching the left fight what they knew must
ultimately be a losing battle.

But now the righties have stupidly maneuvered themselves into a couple of
ideological anti-science corners. All they really have left is to cry
conspiracy, and a couple of mendacious "documentaries," The Great Global
Warming Swindle and Stein's Expelled, are part of the general squealing.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" wrote:

> If by "science" you mean the academy writ large, certainly you live in
> a dream world if you think that ivory tower is free of bias.

No. By science I mean science; the modern, self correcting process of
empirical study that began with the birth of The Royal Society and has since
unlocked many of the great secrets of nature. Science goes where the evidence
takes it, and does not--cannot--consider who doesn't like what it finds.

As a conservative columnist put it

"Dragged forward by cold science, which doesn't care what we think or believe
or wish for, we are headed into some interesting times."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:e66c7be1-89c7-41ba-adbe-
:

> On Mar 22, 12:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > I think there are hidden flaws in arguments when the contrary
position
>> > gest so incredibly lathered up over what they perceive to be
"stupid."
>>
>> Nope. contrary postions are fine. stupidity isn;'t.
>
>> > If it's that untenable then why give it a moment's thought?
>>
>> Because they are bad neighbors.
>
> So what do you propose for those you deem "stupid?"
>
> Annihilation? Exorcism? Re-education?


If only.


>
>
>> What's liberal about the facts?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "Facts" now that's a handy term.


You changed the tune, sushine.


>So in the Global warming debate, I
> assume those that agree with the IPCC are basing their conclusions on
> "facts," while those that don't are simply stupid?


Hey, maybe you aren't so stupid.


>
> Sorry -- when the opposite position gets to determine when the counter
> is a "contrary position" or simply "stupid" and baseless, that's not
> an argument, that's a contradiction. And until there's an agreement to
> return to logic, you have namecalling.


Thats right, it never was an argument.
>
> Review Monty Python for clarification.

I watch it every day, right here.




Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

> The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by this
> point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
> apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
> was...Richard Dawkins!
>
>
> Good stuff, eh?
>

It gets even funnier:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>> The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by
this
>> point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
>> apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
>> was...Richard Dawkins!
>>
>>
>> Good stuff, eh?
>>
>
> It gets even funnier:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.p
hp
>
>
>

And in the bottomless pit that is idiocy, this will surely move their
cause along.

I loved the "How can you question Darwinism if you're so intelligent?"


Any idea what the magic evil question is? I'm going to take a guess and
say it;'s something like" How can you be so sure he was right? "

And if they answer, they have more patience than I. I'd shoot the*******
as a demonstration after the 50,00th time it was asked.







Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 28, 7:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0

You just HAD to do it, dinchya?

grrrrrrrr

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>>
>>> The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by
> this
>>> point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
>>> apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
>>> was...Richard Dawkins!
>>>
>>>
>>> Good stuff, eh?
>>>
>>
>> It gets even funnier:
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.p
> hp
>>
>>
>>
>
> And in the bottomless pit that is idiocy, this will surely move their
> cause along.
>
> I loved the "How can you question Darwinism if you're so intelligent?"
>
>
> Any idea what the magic evil question is? I'm going to take a guess and
> say it;'s something like" How can you be so sure he was right? "

Or some variation thereof.

It's the arguments from incredulity I can't stomach: The flagellum argument.
The vertebrate eye argument.

Feh.

> And if they answer, they have more patience than I. I'd shoot the*******
> as a demonstration after the 50,00th time it was asked.

Indeed.

What a waste of humanity's time these pricks are.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 28, 7:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
>
> You just HAD to do it, dinchya?

http://www.youtube.com/user/CravingGod (The Great Global Warming Swindle -
parts 1-8)

Let's see Dan Luke's frantic spin :~)

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mar 28, 7:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
>>
>> You just HAD to do it, dinchya?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/CravingGod (The Great Global Warming Swindle -
> parts 1-8)
>
> Let's see Dan Luke's frantic spin :~)

The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw!

You already know it's a load of crap produced by a serial liar, Barrow; don't
pretend you don't.

Your memory can't be that short.

--
Dan

"Fiction was invented the day Jonah arrived home and told his wife
that he was three days late because he had been swallowed by a
whale." -Gabriel Garcia Marquez

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:1d6a9cfd-45b1-482a-818d-
:

> On Mar 28, 7:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
>
> You just HAD to do it, dinchya?
>
> grrrrrrrr
>
>
Sue me.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:1d6a9cfd-45b1-482a-818d-
.
> ..
>> On Mar 28, 7:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
>>
>> You just HAD to do it, dinchya?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/CravingGod (The Great Global Warming
> Swindle - parts 1-8)
>
> Let's see Dan Luke's frantic spin :~)
>
>
>
>

Oh, I seen some frantic spin alright.

Just flew over the alps... Wo sind der Schnee?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>> news:1d6a9cfd-45b1-482a-818d-

>> ...
>>> On Mar 28, 7:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
>>>
>>> You just HAD to do it, dinchya?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/user/CravingGod (The Great Global Warming
>> Swindle - parts 1-8)
>>
>> Let's see Dan Luke's frantic spin :~)
>
> The Great Global Warming Swindle?
>
> Haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw!
>
> You already know it's a load of crap produced by a serial liar,
> Barrow; don't pretend you don't.

he doesn't have to , he's lid to himself long enough to cbe adept at
convincng himself it's true.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
>> @news.supernews.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>>>
>>>> The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by
>> this
>>>> point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
>>>> apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
>>>> was...Richard Dawkins!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good stuff, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It gets even funnier:
>>>
>>>
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.
>>> p
>> hp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And in the bottomless pit that is idiocy, this will surely move their
>> cause along.
>>
>> I loved the "How can you question Darwinism if you're so
>> intelligent?"
>>
>>
>> Any idea what the magic evil question is? I'm going to take a guess
>> and say it;'s something like" How can you be so sure he was right? "
>
> Or some variation thereof.
>
> It's the arguments from incredulity I can't stomach: The flagellum
> argument. The vertebrate eye argument.
>
> Feh.
>
>> And if they answer, they have more patience than I. I'd shoot
>> the******* as a demonstration after the 50,00th time it was asked.
>
> Indeed.
>
> What a waste of humanity's time these pricks are.


Honestly. I mean, the questions they ask are alidn, but when the
question is asked and shown to be based on a false premise or invalid in
some other way, it's no wgod rephrasing it 300 ways again and again and
again.
I think there are very few evolutionary, or envirnmental, scientists
that aren't open to these questions, but when they're asked to take
certain things on faith, or a desire to achieve a certain outcome, they
must just lose their patience. I would.


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 28, 7:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
>
> You just HAD to do it, dinchya?
>
> grrrrrrrr


Sorry.

Didn't mean to stir you up, Dan.

[buttman]

On Mar 7, 2:56*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything.

Thats because you don't know anything, fjukktjarjd

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1ccb1dce-98d5-4ecd-ae50-
:

> On Mar 7, 2:56*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything.
>
> Thats because you don't know anything, fjukktjarjd
>


Yeh, right.

Who exactly are you trying to convince of this, luser boi?


Bertie

[Alan[_6_]]

In article Jay Maynard > writes:
>
>Reply-To:
>Message-ID: >
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux)
>Lines: 39
>X-Complaints-To:
>X-Trace: 52616e646f6d4956446f3631ec51d5f46a375dd940181c7d52 e326f46d2c50754d126b7fa4722b7adf16feeb20c8fba57a27 13c207d7bcf2895ef6db9daaf104a045c78aa96f865c90ab39 4207fefee95552e1c3ba9910d050e16483458c16afe5b26255 2b31721e583e8e283178e36a
>X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward ALL headers so that we may process your complaint properly.
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:45:58 UTC
>Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:45:58 GMT
>Xref: shelby.stanford.edu rec.aviation.piloting:593154
>
>On 2008-03-14, Roger > wrote:
>> If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
>> power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
>> use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
>> average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
>> independent of foreign oil for fuel.
>
>That's not conservation, that's deprivation.
>
>Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large portion
>of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you
>that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light of
>the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed to
>transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
>short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of many
>folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

That is difficult to believe when simply replacing the gas engine in a
Jetta with diesel takes it from about 25 to about 40 mpg. That would take
a 19 mpg vehicle to over 30 mpg.

What to do about it? We must do something to stop consuming so much fuel
that we will go bankrupt buying it. More importantly, we must do something
to stop burning this valuable AIRPLANE FUEL on cars. We need it for the
airplanes.

And, isn't the SUV like driving a C-210 around when the Zodiac would do
the job?

>It would also generate a booming market in hazmat remediation, as common
>household accidents that would result in lamp breakage turn into major
>environmental disasters...not to mention simply disposing of them when they
>finally do burn out.

They also have other problems reported online -- often their failure mode is
nastier than simply burning out. Even so, if you punt on the common one ones
and get the ones with daylight color temperature, they really make much better
light. Too bad those are harder to find.

>As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
>"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
>miles on a charge, while hauling four people and a substantial amount of
>stuff, and recharge in 10 minutes so I can go 400 more. My current vehicle
>will do that quite easily, and I bought it because I need that capability.

Do all of your trips need that? How many days do you go less than 80 to 100
miles in the day? If you had a car that did that, and was fully fueled every
morning (without stopping at the pumps), wouldn't that be useful?

Alan

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:38:17 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Temperature and precip vary widely from year to year and local to
>> local so taken by itself this past year is only a blip in a sea of
>> change. Give it another 10 years and then *maybe* we can say it
>> probably, might, could have meant something. <:-))
>
>Agreed -- but I don't think too many people will be able to endure ten more
>brutal winters like this one.
>
>Temps are dipping down to -5 degrees again tonight -- and it's March...
>
>Bring on the global warming, please!

You know not what you ask.

If it does happen you will see major changes in rainfall patterns
coupled with wide swings in the local weather. Extrem cold, heat,
drought, flood, snow...from year to year.
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:30:17 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> But let me ask you something: Are you 100% sure your house is going to
>> burn down this year? If not, why are you wasting your money on insurance?
>> Why don't you just wait until you see flames, then buy a policy?
>
>Not a good analogy, since we can obviously affect what happens to our own
>homes. There is quite literally nothing that can be done by the average
>person to influence the world's climate -- one way or the other -- so all
>this blather and hand-wringing is nothing but noise and fury, signifying
>nothing.
>
>Well, except to the folks who stand to make a few billion dollars in
>windfall profits by "studying" the phenomenon.
>
>But all argument aside, I would politely ask for a list of things that we --
>you and I -- can do that will "help" the climate problem as you see it.

That's sorta like the incandescent light bulb changed to compact
fluoprescents. per bulb, or even home it amounts to pennies, but over
the use it could save enough to eliminate 5 or 6 power plants.
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-05, Alan > wrote:
> And, isn't the SUV like driving a C-210 around when the Zodiac would do
> the job?

Yes (though mine's a small SUV, so it's more like a 182). The problem is
that I can only have one vehicle. If I needed to fly a 182 for some missions
but not others, I'd be buying a 182.

>>As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
>>"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
>>miles on a charge, while hauling four people and a substantial amount of
>>stuff, and recharge in 10 minutes so I can go 400 more. My current vehicle
>>will do that quite easily, and I bought it because I need that capability.
> Do all of your trips need that? How many days do you go less than 80 to 100
> miles in the day? If you had a car that did that, and was fully fueled every
> morning (without stopping at the pumps), wouldn't that be useful?

Sure it'd be useful. The problem is that we don't have a three-car garage.

Now, it wouldn't be *that* useful: the majority of my trips need at least
125 miles range with reserve for traffic, hauling me and luggage, and it
doesn't take much for that number to go up to 175 or so.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)