Global Warming <The debbil made me do it>> [Archive]

gatt[_2_]

March 7th 08, 07:20 PM

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unless you haven't notice, there is no stasis in the Earth's climate,
> just as there is no statis in geology, the sun, the planets, or
> anything else.
>
> There never has been and there never will be.

Pulitzer winning author and civil war historian Bruce Catton noted that all
North American civilization and human history is what happened between ice
ages, and someday Detroit will be crushed by ice and ground into sand. It
shouldn't take politicians to tell us, however, that there are mercury in
the fish, PCBs in the river, concrete-etching acids in the rain, smog in the
air and rampant, unexplained asthma epidemics in children.

For twenty or thirty years or more people refused to believe that smoking
was dangerous, and some still refute that second hand smoke is toxic.

As a true conservative and conservationist I tend to think that reasonable
caution is in order. Maybe it's exaggerated, maybe it's not. But, we can
all look at the damage done by excess living and industrial waste and know
that we've seen all this before. In Oregon, there was a time when trout
fry introduced to the Willamette River died almost immediately from the
toxins, and the river still smells like a latrine. For over a century
this wasn't viewed as a problem and anybody who made a fuss about raw sewage
in the drinking water was a radical.

I prefer to put the politics aside and simply look at the fact that it's
possible, and if it's possible, it is our responsibility to guard our way of
life against the potential threat. I haven't read the Gore book, didn't
vote for the guy, and I don't buy into the extremist/alarmist propaganda,
but, having been accused of being an ecoterrorist for simply stating that if
a company clearcut over a certain streambed, it would kill off our native
Coho salmon, I know the truth is in the middle somewhere and so it must be
identified and considered. Politics and economics will NEVER lead us to
the truth of the matter, but, Easter Island offers us a parable of what can
and has happened to civilizations who didn't properly respect their
environment.

-c

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 7th 08, 07:44 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Dan > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Mar 7, 11:58 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >> "Denny" wrote:

> > Oh brother...
> >
> > Unless you haven't notice, there is no stasis in the Earth's climate,
>
>
> So?

do you mean stasis or hystersis
because there is hystersis in the climate

> > Humans adapt, period.

humans have a unique ability on this planet
to understand themselves and the system they are in

of course having the ability doesnt mean humans are obligated to use it

> > That's why the Inuit survived as well as the Masi. Hot or cold, dry or
> > wet, humans have adapted.

- a touch of the old caligua eh
- the roman empire lasted a long time
- not too many of the roman emperors did

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 07:56 PM

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:05dd3a97-b32b-4013-bdbb-0a6ab4e374d8
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 11:58 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> >> "Denny" wrote:
>
>> > Oh brother...
>> >
>> > Unless you haven't notice, there is no stasis in the Earth's
climate,
>>
>>
>> So?
>
> do you mean stasis or hystersis
> because there is hystersis in the climate

Really? That anything like the lapse rate?
>
>> > Humans adapt, period.
>
> humans have a unique ability on this planet
> to understand themselves and the system they are in
>

Well, some do.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 08:33 PM

On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
>
> --
> Dan

Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
evidence?

Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

5 feet in 25?

Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate Change"
crisis of the moment.

We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.

But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 7th 08, 08:39 PM

Dan > wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
:

> On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>
>> IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>
>
> Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
> evidence?
>

There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.

> Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
>
> 5 feet in 25?
>
> Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate Change"
> crisis of the moment.

Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.

>
> We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.
>
> But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

I know.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 08:45 PM

On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
> :
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> >> IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
>
> >> --
> >> Dan
>
> > Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
> > evidence?
>
> There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.
>
> > Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
>
> > 5 feet in 25?
>
> > Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate Change"
> > crisis of the moment.
>
> Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
> don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.
>
>
>
> > We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.
>
> > But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."
>
> I know.
>
> Bertie

You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?

Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?

Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).

"When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
not consensus."

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?dd6aa6cf-117c-4edf-9039-3004159a2185

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 08:56 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>
>> >> IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dan
>>
>> > Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
>> > evidence?
>>
>> There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.
>>
>> > Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
>>
>> > 5 feet in 25?
>>
>> > Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate
>> > Change" crisis of the moment.
>>
>> Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
>> don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.
>>
>>
>>
>> > We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
>> > colder.
>>
>> > But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."
>>
>> I know.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?

All the alarmist noise?
>
> Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?

That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea until
they break it.

>
> Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
> predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).

>
> "When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
> has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
> by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
> comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
> not consensus."
>

Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.

Jesus wept.

Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see evidence
and can see the logical result according to the best information available.

Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that people
get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty short sighted
and narrow view of the investment to boot.

So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence based on
my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no investment and
I'm not crying about the sky falling.

How about you?

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 08:57 PM

Sorry to cloud your thinking, but here are the facts you desired.

Unfortunately they don't square with your preposterous claims or 20'
sea level rise.

FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
term trends.

FACT: Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
at the extreme end of the IPCC range (read the report).

FACT: Both James Hansen of NASA--the father of greenhouse theory--and
Richard Lindzen of MIT--the most renowned climatologist in the world--
agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the
world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the
next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional
warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ±
0.04°C per decade."

FACT: No one has provided data that conclusively links human activity
to the temperature rise of 0.6 C over 100 years.

FACT: No one has proven a causal link between CO2 and global
temperatures. It may be a cause, but is more likely an effect.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 09:00 PM

Dan > wrote in news:4e7e8669-0788-4ab0-920b-
:

> Sorry to cloud your thinking, but here are the facts you desired.
>
> Unfortunately they don't square with your preposterous claims or 20'
> sea level rise.
>
> FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
> of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
> in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
> the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
> during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
> noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate
long-
> term trends.
>
> FACT: Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
> at the extreme end of the IPCC range (read the report).
>
> FACT: Both James Hansen of NASA--the father of greenhouse theory--and
> Richard Lindzen of MIT--the most renowned climatologist in the world--
> agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the
> world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the
> next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional
> warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ±
> 0.04°C per decade."
>
> FACT: No one has provided data that conclusively links human activity
> to the temperature rise of 0.6 C over 100 years.
>
> FACT: No one has proven a causal link between CO2 and global
> temperatures. It may be a cause, but is more likely an effect.

You won't be convinced and this pile of faulty reasoning and defective
argument isn;t going to convince me.. ....

Bertie

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 7th 08, 09:02 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >> Dan > wrote in
> >> news:05dd3a97-b32b-4013-bdbb-0a6ab4e374d8
> @f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > On Mar 7, 11:58 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >> >> "Denny" wrote:
> >
> >> > Oh brother...
> >> >
> >> > Unless you haven't notice, there is no stasis in the Earth's
> climate,
> >>
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> > do you mean stasis or hystersis
> > because there is hystersis in the climate
>
>
> Really? That anything like the lapse rate?

mostly its the amount of heat stored in the deep ocean
and then composition of gasses in the atmosphere

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 09:02 PM

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dan > wrote in
>> >> news:05dd3a97-b32b-4013-bdbb-0a6ab4e374d8
>> @f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > On Mar 7, 11:58 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Denny" wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Oh brother...
>> >> >
>> >> > Unless you haven't notice, there is no stasis in the Earth's
>> climate,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So?
>> >
>> > do you mean stasis or hystersis
>> > because there is hystersis in the climate
>>
>>
>> Really? That anything like the lapse rate?
>
> mostly its the amount of heat stored in the deep ocean
> and then composition of gasses in the atmosphere

Oops., sorry, I thought you wrote hysteria.

Bertie
>

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 09:05 PM

On Mar 7, 3:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> >> >> IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Dan
>
> >> > Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
> >> > evidence?
>
> >> There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.
>
> >> > Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
>
> >> > 5 feet in 25?
>
> >> > Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate
> >> > Change" crisis of the moment.
>
> >> Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
> >> don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.
>
> >> > We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
> >> > colder.
>
> >> > But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."
>
> >> I know.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?
>
> All the alarmist noise?
>
>
>
> > Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?
>
> That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea until
> they break it.
>
>
>
> > Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
> > predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).
>
> > "When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
> > has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
> > by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
> > comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
> > not consensus."
>
> Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.
>
> Jesus wept.
>
> Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see evidence
> and can see the logical result according to the best information available.
>
> Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
> Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that people
> get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty short sighted
> and narrow view of the investment to boot.
>
> So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence based on
> my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no investment and
> I'm not crying about the sky falling.
>
> How about you?
>
> Bertie

I'm gonna be crying if the tax burden increases over 50% to fund more
bureaucracy.

How about you?

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 09:09 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 7, 3:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:b7d4582d-0a7f-4295-a2f4-8581da9e7b05
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Dan
>>
>> >> > Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which
>> >> > incontrovertible evidence?
>>
>> >> There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.
>>
>> >> > Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
>>
>> >> > 5 feet in 25?
>>
>> >> > Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate
>> >> > Change" crisis of the moment.
>>
>> >> Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette,
>> >> bjust don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.
>>
>> >> > We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
>> >> > colder.
>>
>> >> > But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."
>>
>> >> I know.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?
>>
>> All the alarmist noise?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?
>>
>> That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea
>> until they break it.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
>> > predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).
>>
>> > "When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of
>> > consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to
>> > avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he
>> > was right. When it comes to the natural sciences consensus is not
>> > science, and science is not consensus."
>>
>> Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.
>>
>> Jesus wept.
>>
>> Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see
>> evidence and can see the logical result according to the best
>> information available.
>>
>> Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
>> Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that
>> people get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty
>> short sighted and narrow view of the investment to boot.
>>
>> So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence
>> based on my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no
>> investment and I'm not crying about the sky falling.
>>
>> How about you?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I'm gonna be crying if the tax burden increases over 50% to fund more
> bureaucracy.

Non sequitor and this shows you have little conviction in your argument
if that's your bottom line.

IOW, you're not interested in anything but your wallet.
>
> How about you?

Nope. I live for beurocracy. I'd rather it go to them than spend it on
leisure pursuits, in fact.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 09:14 PM

On Mar 7, 4:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:4e7e8669-0788-4ab0-920b-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sorry to cloud your thinking, but here are the facts you desired.
>
> > Unfortunately they don't square with your preposterous claims or 20'
> > sea level rise.
>
> > FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
> > of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
> > in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
> > the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
> > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
> > during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
> > noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate
> long-
> > term trends.
>
> > FACT: Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
> > at the extreme end of the IPCC range (read the report).
>
> > FACT: Both James Hansen of NASA--the father of greenhouse theory--and
> > Richard Lindzen of MIT--the most renowned climatologist in the world--
> > agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the
> > world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the
> > next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional
> > warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ±
> > 0.04°C per decade."
>
> > FACT: No one has provided data that conclusively links human activity
> > to the temperature rise of 0.6 C over 100 years.
>
> > FACT: No one has proven a causal link between CO2 and global
> > temperatures. It may be a cause, but is more likely an effect.
>
> You won't be convinced and this pile of faulty reasoning and defective
> argument isn;t going to convince me.. ....
>
> Bertie

No problem.

I'd rather be flying, anyway.

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 09:16 PM

On Mar 7, 4:09 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Nope. I live for beurocracy. I'd rather it go to them than spend it on
> leisure pursuits, in fact.
>
> Bertie

Work for the DMV, do ya?

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 09:17 PM

Dan > wrote in news:9895dc21-7353-4d22-bba4-b038d827a648
@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 7, 4:09 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Nope. I live for beurocracy. I'd rather it go to them than spend it on
>> leisure pursuits, in fact.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Work for the DMV, do ya?
>

Nope.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 09:18 PM

Dan > wrote in news:d49cb264-ceb4-4ade-8d79-38725f282125@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 7, 4:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:4e7e8669-0788-4ab0-920b-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Sorry to cloud your thinking, but here are the facts you desired.
>>
>> > Unfortunately they don't square with your preposterous claims or 20'
>> > sea level rise.
>>
>> > FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
>> > of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
>> > in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
>> > the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
>> > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
>> > during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
>> > noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate
>> long-
>> > term trends.
>>
>> > FACT: Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
>
>> > at the extreme end of the IPCC range (read the report).
>>
>> > FACT: Both James Hansen of NASA--the father of greenhouse theory--and
>> > Richard Lindzen of MIT--the most renowned climatologist in the world--
>> > agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the
>> > world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the
>> > next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional
>> > warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1
> ±
>> > 0.04°C per decade."
>>
>> > FACT: No one has provided data that conclusively links human activity
>> > to the temperature rise of 0.6 C over 100 years.
>>
>> > FACT: No one has proven a causal link between CO2 and global
>> > temperatures. It may be a cause, but is more likely an effect.
>>
>> You won't be convinced and this pile of faulty reasoning and defective
>> argument isn;t going to convince me.. ....
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No problem.
>
> I'd rather be flying, anyway.

It's possible to do both.

Bertie

Kloudy via AviationKB.com

March 7th 08, 09:20 PM

gatt wrote:
>
> someday Detroit will be crushed by ice and ground into sand.

>-c

and it won't be a moment too soon.

sorry,

spent much of my prior life there.

ya'll can go back to your "Aviation" discussion.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 09:48 PM

On Mar 7, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > No problem.
>
> > I'd rather be flying, anyway.
>
> It's possible to do both.
>
> Bertie

What's that? Worry about Global warming and fly?

Honestly -- one of the appeals of flying is that I can concentrate on
something else, often completely.

It's refreshing.

Like a Junior Mint.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 09:55 PM

Dan > wrote in news:4b64d060-4674-4d42-bf13-
:

> On Mar 7, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > No problem.
>>
>> > I'd rather be flying, anyway.
>>
>> It's possible to do both.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What's that? Worry about Global warming and fly?

No, do something about it and fly.
>
> Honestly -- one of the appeals of flying is that I can concentrate on
> something else, often completely.

Why? You worry about it? I thought you didn't believe it.
>
> It's refreshing.
>
> Like a Junior Mint.

You should try flying what I fly. Minty fresh it is not.
>

Bertie

>

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 7th 08, 10:09 PM

"Dan" wrote:
>> IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>
>
> Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
> evidence?

There is enough ice on Greenland *alone* to raise msl 20+ feet. That is an
incontrovertible fact.

The rate of ice melt on Greenland is accelerating beyond predictions of only
a few years ago.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/481.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080115102706.htm

> Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

Not according to current models, but ominous things are happening in
Greenland and Antarctica that indicate there are previously unknown
accelerating phenomena at work.

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?

>
> 5 feet in 25?
>
> Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate Change"
> crisis of the moment.

Sorry, you cannot show any sleight of hand. It is quite evident that you
haven't studied any of the science.

>
> We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.

Far warmer in our history? Says who?

> But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

There goes the old irony meter again.

Roger[_4_]

March 7th 08, 10:43 PM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:43:19 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Try this
>> http://tinurl.us/a8b68b
>
>Facts don't matter, Denny. This "crisis" was never fact-based to begin
>with, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to sway the true
>believers...

In either direction.

Be it up or down, one year is not enough to make a yea or nay
statement.

Sunspot activity, or lack there of has long been known to create
drastic cold spells as with the so called "Maunder Minimum" and the
little ice age.

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. <:-))

Here (Midland MI) they are talking about the possibility of an all
time record snow fall total. 4 1/2 miles out of town where I live it's
been nothing special. The same is true in Minnesota. Some areas
already are reporting record snow falls while less than 10 miles away
(Minneapolis area) they have less than average. Here, so far our
temperatures are running close to average or a tad above on the 10
year scale.

Denny is about 10 to 15 miles from me and I'd bet his winter has been
different than mine, or Midland's. Driving over to the old family
farm (Breckenridge 30 mi SW of here) finds very little snow.
I don't know how the temps have been over there.

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

Whata Fool

March 7th 08, 10:47 PM

Dan > wrote:

>On Mar 7, 3:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> All the alarmist noise?
>>
>> > Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?
>>
>> That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea until
>> they break it.
>>
>> > Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
>> > predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).
>>
>> > "When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
>> > has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
>> > by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
>> > comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
>> > not consensus."
>>
>> Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.
>>
>> Jesus wept.
>>
>> Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see evidence
>> and can see the logical result according to the best information available.
>>
>> Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
>> Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that people
>> get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty short sighted
>> and narrow view of the investment to boot.
>>
>> So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence based on
>> my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no investment and
>> I'm not crying about the sky falling.
>>
>> How about you?
>>
>> Bertie
>
>I'm gonna be crying if the tax burden increases over 50% to fund more
>bureaucracy.
>
>How about you?
>
>Dan

Now Dan, Bertie obviously knows the science of climate change
very well, and she is sincerely concerned about the fate of the planet,
and wants to make sure the polar bears get plenty of baby seals to eat
and build up their body fat enough to get through the winter.

There are more important things than people keeping warm
and getting to work so they can buy food.

And the sky can't fall, it is not affected by gravity.

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 10:47 PM

On Mar 7, 5:09 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> > We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.
>
> Far warmer in our history? Says who?

Obviously it doesn't matter who says what (though here's a sample:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf)

This is the Big Problem with the Global Warming hysteria.

Those who reasonably suggest that the evidence is inconclusive that
Human Activity may not be completely responsible for the 0.6 C
worldwide temperature rise over a 100 year period, and that even if
there were a predictable rise the results will not be as catastrophic
as the alarmists claim must be silenced (for the children's sake, of
course).

I'm a reasonable person, fish, camp, canoe, hunt, and hike, have
written checks to support environmental issues, have various
memberships in ecologically forward organizations, recycle, etc, etc,
etc.

So don't equate "Doubt about Global warming" with "wants to pollute
the streams and kill the fish."

That's an smear campaign and that's what's been going on -- though you
will deny it.

At this point, I'm done with this topic and done trying to reason with
you.

It's the wrong venue, though not really -- because one day -- when
the Global Warming Nazis come collect the keys to your CO2 emitting,
fossil-fuel burning, Global Impacting Cessna -- maybe you'll wished
you'd stood up to their bullying.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 10:53 PM

Whata Fool > wrote in
:

> Dan > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 7, 3:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> All the alarmist noise?
>>>
>>> > Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?
>>>
>>> That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea
>>> until they break it.
>>>
>>> > Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
>>> > predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).
>>>
>>> > "When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of
>>> > consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to
>>> > avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he
>>> > was right. When it comes to the natural sciences consensus is not
>>> > science, and science is not consensus."
>>>
>>> Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.
>>>
>>> Jesus wept.
>>>
>>> Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see
>>> evidence and can see the logical result according to the best
>>> information available.
>>>
>>> Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
>>> Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that
>>> people get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty
>>> short sighted and narrow view of the investment to boot.
>>>
>>> So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence
>>> based on my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no
>>> investment and I'm not crying about the sky falling.
>>>
>>> How about you?
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>I'm gonna be crying if the tax burden increases over 50% to fund more
>>bureaucracy.
>>
>>How about you?
>>
>>Dan
>
> Now Dan, Bertie obviously knows the science of climate
> change
> very well, and she is sincerely concerned about the fate of the
> planet, and wants to make sure the polar bears get plenty of baby
> seals to eat and build up their body fat enough to get through the
> winter.
>
> There are more important things than people keeping warm
> and getting to work so they can buy food.

Yeh. Dealing with it will all make us freeze to death aif we don't
starve first.

>
> And the sky can't fall, it is not affected by gravity.

Actually, it is...

Bertie

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 7th 08, 10:55 PM

"Dan" wrote:

> "When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
> has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
> by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
> comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
> not consensus."
>
> http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?dd6aa6cf-117c-4edf-9039-3004159a2185

LOL.

Let's see; is the science settled? On the "yes" side:

US National Academy of Science
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society (yes! even the ACS!)

On the "no" side:

A hack novelist.

So naturally, you believe (drum roll)...The Hack Novelist!

Good thinking.

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 11:27 PM

On Mar 7, 5:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > And the sky can't fall, it is not affected by gravity.
>
> Actually, it is...
>
> Bertie

Only in a High pressure system...

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 11:27 PM

Dan > wrote in news:92f50be8-9b35-4eb0-a536-7116f6b6b4f3
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 7, 5:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> > And the sky can't fall, it is not affected by gravity.
>>
>> Actually, it is...
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Only in a High pressure system...
>

Try switching gravity off and see how much of a sky you have.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 7th 08, 11:33 PM

On Mar 7, 6:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:92f50be8-9b35-4eb0-a536-7116f6b6b4f3
> @f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 7, 5:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > And the sky can't fall, it is not affected by gravity.
>
> >> Actually, it is...
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Only in a High pressure system...
>
> Try switching gravity off and see how much of a sky you have.
>
> Bertie

I hate it when that happens.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 11:51 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 7, 6:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:92f50be8-9b35-4eb0-a536-7116f6b6b4f3
>> @f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 5:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > And the sky can't fall, it is not affected by gravity.
>>
>> >> Actually, it is...
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Only in a High pressure system...
>>
>> Try switching gravity off and see how much of a sky you have.
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> I hate it when that happens.
>

imagination is a powerful tool in begining to understand ho wnay machine
works. Particularly one you can't switch off and disassemble. All of the
forces and elements on and in the vicinity of earth drive our weather.
Of course it's cyclic and of course we're living in an unusually
peaceful period of realtively docile weather. Novody knows for sure what
is going to happen and nobody who has any sense is saying they do. There
are likely scenarios though and none of them are good. It may be that we
have little or nothing to do with it but that is very unlikely. But if
we are and even if it were only a slom chance we were ( it isn't, but
bear with me for argument's sake) then we're effectively playing russian
roullete.
As to the economic argument, I simply don't buy it. If the oil
disappeeard tomorrow we'd figure out a way to cope. There are lots of
promising technologies and, more than likely, more to come. These can
only help ensure a sound economic future.
Don;'t like paying beaurocrats? Go support someone who's doing
something. But a proiduct that's moving things the right way..
Even leaving aside the ecological aspects of continued use of IC engines
, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at all.
I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines ( including
a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)

A bit of a kick in the ass , whatever the reason, will do no harm at
all.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 12:11 AM

On Mar 7, 6:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> , the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at all.
> I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines ( including
> a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
> worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)

> Bertie

Very true. The E-185 in the 1947 Bonanza 35 I fly burns about 8 GPH to
fly 130 KIAS at 5000'. The C172E with the 145 HP engine we flew
yesterday burns 6-7 for about 110 KIAS (much draggier airframe, of
course).

About the only thing that's improved in IC is power to weight.

Now if you're talking motorcycles, the improvements in ride, handling,
speed, braking, adhesion -- you name it -- is night and day. The old
bikes are neat, but to get someplace fast -- give me a new bike any
day (and I've had both).

Makes me wish Honda was building airplanes...

(oh wait...)

Dan

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 12:14 AM

"Dan" wrote:

>> > We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.
>>
>> Far warmer in our history? Says who?
>
> Obviously it doesn't matter who says what

Oh, dear me; it certainly does. The statements of people who back up what
they say with published, peer reviewed research have credibility. The
rantings of cranks and political hacks do not.

> (though here's a sample:
> http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf)

"The fact that an almost linear change has been progressing, without a
distinct change of slope,
from as early as 1800 or even earlier (about 1660, even before the Industrial
Revolution),

suggests that the linear change is natural change. As shown at the top diagram
of Figure 1, a

rapid increase of CO2 began only after 1940."

Eh? What's this guy been smoking? The rise in CO2 shows strong averaged
congruence with the rise in CO2:

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

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

>
> This is the Big Problem with the Global Warming hysteria.

Oh, boy! Right off the bat, we know we can expect objectivity!

>
> Those who reasonably suggest that the evidence is inconclusive that
> Human Activity may not be completely responsible for the 0.6 C
> worldwide temperature rise over a 100 year period, and that even if
> there were a predictable rise the results will not be as catastrophic
> as the alarmists claim must be silenced (for the children's sake, of
> course).

Ah-ha! Watch out, boys and girls: it's The Great Scientific Conspiracy to
hide THE TRUTH.

>
> I'm a reasonable person, fish, camp, canoe, hunt, and hike, have
> written checks to support environmental issues, have various
> memberships in ecologically forward organizations, recycle, etc, etc,
> etc.
>
> So don't equate "Doubt about Global warming" with "wants to pollute
> the streams and kill the fish."

Now you're just making stuff up. I never said or even thought anything
remotely like that.

It's ok to doubt global warming. It's not ok to doubt the science while
remaining ignorant of what it actually says.

>
> That's an smear campaign and that's what's been going on -- though you
> will deny it.
>
> At this point, I'm done with this topic and done trying to reason with
> you.

Really? Before you even start?

Running away noted.

> It's the wrong venue, though not really -- because one day -- when
> the Global Warming Nazis come collect the keys to your CO2 emitting,
> fossil-fuel burning, Global Impacting Cessna -- maybe you'll wished
> you'd stood up to their bullying.

LOL.

"Nazis"

I guess the discussion really is over.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 12:17 AM

Dan > wrote in news:45b07162-394c-4fd9-824d-
:

> On Mar 7, 6:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> , the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at
all.
>> I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines (
including
>> a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
>> worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)
>
>> Bertie
>
> Very true. The E-185 in the 1947 Bonanza 35 I fly burns about 8 GPH to
> fly 130 KIAS at 5000'. The C172E with the 145 HP engine we flew
> yesterday burns 6-7 for about 110 KIAS (much draggier airframe, of
> course).
>
> About the only thing that's improved in IC is power to weight.
>
> Now if you're talking motorcycles, the improvements in ride, handling,
> speed, braking, adhesion -- you name it -- is night and day. The old
> bikes are neat, but to get someplace fast -- give me a new bike any
> day (and I've had both).
>
> Makes me wish Honda was building airplanes...
>
>

Still prefer my 1922 Raleigh... ..

Handling? Nothing beats a 1962 Matchless. . Brakes, I'll give you, but
the percentages are small. Performance is up but so is fuel
consumption...

Bertie

Whata Fool

March 8th 08, 12:55 AM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>Don;'t like paying beaurocrats? Go support someone who's doing
>something. But a proiduct that's moving things the right way..
>Even leaving aside the ecological aspects of continued use of IC engines
>, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at all.
>I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines ( including
>a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
>worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)
>Bertie

You owned a couple of 19th century cars?

Were they made in Europe?

http://cleveland.about.com/od/clevelandattractions/ss/crawford_2.htm

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 01:19 AM

On Mar 7, 7:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:45b07162-394c-4fd9-824d-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 6:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> , the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at
> all.
> >> I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines (
> including
> >> a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
> >> worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Very true. The E-185 in the 1947 Bonanza 35 I fly burns about 8 GPH to
> > fly 130 KIAS at 5000'. The C172E with the 145 HP engine we flew
> > yesterday burns 6-7 for about 110 KIAS (much draggier airframe, of
> > course).
>
> > About the only thing that's improved in IC is power to weight.
>
> > Now if you're talking motorcycles, the improvements in ride, handling,
> > speed, braking, adhesion -- you name it -- is night and day. The old
> > bikes are neat, but to get someplace fast -- give me a new bike any
> > day (and I've had both).
>
> > Makes me wish Honda was building airplanes...
>
> Still prefer my 1922 Raleigh... ..
>
> Handling? Nothing beats a 1962 Matchless. . Brakes, I'll give you, but
> the percentages are small. Performance is up but so is fuel
> consumption...
>
> Bertie

Get out... now that would be some ride!

A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably
be the closest in feeling, I suppose?

The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns,
suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can
take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older
skins.

And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to
remember....

(Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever
piloted)

Dan

Talk-n-Dog[_2_]

March 8th 08, 04:10 AM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 7, 3:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
>>>> :
>>>>> On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>>>>> IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>> Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
>>>>> evidence?
>>>> There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.
>>>>> Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
>>>>> 5 feet in 25?
>>>>> Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate
>>>>> Change" crisis of the moment.
>>>> Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
>>>> don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.
>>>>> We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
>>>>> colder.
>>>>> But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."
>>>> I know.
>>>> Bertie
>>> You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?
>> All the alarmist noise?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?
>> That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea until
>> they break it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
>>> predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).
>>> "When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
>>> has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
>>> by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
>>> comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
>>> not consensus."
>> Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.
>>
>> Jesus wept.
>>
>> Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see evidence
>> and can see the logical result according to the best information available.
>>
>> Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
>> Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that people
>> get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty short sighted
>> and narrow view of the investment to boot.
>>
>> So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence based on
>> my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no investment and
>> I'm not crying about the sky falling.
>>
>> How about you?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I'm gonna be crying if the tax burden increases over 50% to fund more
> bureaucracy.
>
> How about you?
>
> Dan
Start now..... if you add all your tax burden, it's already 50+

Jay Honeck[_2_]

March 8th 08, 04:30 AM

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

Jay Honeck[_2_]

March 8th 08, 04:38 AM

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

John T

March 8th 08, 07:03 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

What's the old saying? "Lies, lies and statistics"?

> There is enough ice on Greenland *alone* to raise msl 20+ feet. That
> is an incontrovertible fact.

It's also incontrovertible that Greenland was much warmer just 1000 years
ago than it is today. In fact, Greenland temperatures reached a maximum
around 1930, but they have decreased since (based on ice core readings by
Dahl-Jensen, et al). The Greenland glaciers didn't suffer a dramatic melting
event.

>> Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
>
> Not according to current models, but ominous things are happening in
> Greenland and Antarctica that indicate there are previously unknown
> accelerating phenomena at work.

The real question is: Why?

> 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?

Ah, the Precautionary Principle. Let's throw in "for the children" while
we're at it. :)

>> We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
>> colder.
>
> Far warmer in our history? Says who?

Says just about anybody's temperature reconstruction record which will show
periods such as the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm Period -
assuming, of course, you consider the years 5500-2000 B.C.E. and 1100-1300
C.E. to be "in our history."

Speaking of statistics, satellites can measure temperature over a wide area
of the earth at a time and have been doing so continuously for the past 18
years or so. They report a modest rise of 0.05° C per decade
(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm). This contrasts
sharply with the 0.25-0.4° C change reported by surface readings between
1978 and 1998.

Oh, I'm sure many of us here also remember the "coming ice age" predictions
of the '70's. It's certainly been mentioned in this thread before.

Further, we humans have supposedly warmed the earth due to all the CO2 we've
created since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Human-produced CO2
accounts for a far minority of the atmospheric CO2 (vice natural sources)
and total CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.054%. What's more, CO2 is a
poor greenhouse gas - far less potent than water vapor, for instance - and
at a mere 0.054%, it simply cannot drive warming trends. This combined with
ice core records proving CO2 peaks lag temperature by hundreds of years (as
much as 800 years) is a major reason the "pro-anthropogenic global warming"
(pro-AGW) crowd have abandoned Gore's famous graph trying to link CO2 as the
cause of warming.

My point?

1. Earth's climate has changed dramatically over the millenia from
extraordinarily warm periods to very cold ice ages long before humans came
along - only in the current interglacial, by the way.

2. It is the pinnacle of arrogance to think humans are capable of changing
*global* climate - especially in a mere 150 years.

3. A review of the players for the pro-AGW crowd shows a littany of
leftists, former Communists and general anti-capitalists.

I'm just not buying the "humans are causing global warming" line. There are
simply too many holes in that theory for it to be any more valid than the
former "coming ice age" scare of the '70's.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Roger[_4_]

March 8th 08, 07:22 AM

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:57:04 -0800 (PST), Dan >
wrote:

I know this is a waste of time but:
>Sorry to cloud your thinking, but here are the facts you desired.
>
>Unfortunately they don't square with your preposterous claims or 20'
>sea level rise.
>
>FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
>of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
>in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
>the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
>greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
>during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
>noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
>term trends.

That was on 01. They've changed their minds
>
>FACT: Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
>at the extreme end of the IPCC range (read the report).

Several of those from the committee were on TV recently and made the
statements their published figures were ultra conservative.
>
>FACT: Both James Hansen of NASA--the father of greenhouse theory--and
>Richard Lindzen of MIT--the most renowned climatologist in the world--
>agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the
>world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the
>next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional
>warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ±
>0.04°C per decade."

Your data is way out of date. I'm currently reading an article on
Hansen (the guy you quoted above). In it Hansen's analysis shows that
the earth warmed that 0.5C in the last 30 years for a current total
of 0.9C since 1880. The original data was taken from too small an
area.

>
>FACT: No one has provided data that conclusively links human activity
>to the temperature rise of 0.6 C over 100 years.

To quote again. "To questions about whether this warming is natural
or just a fluctuation the answer has become clear: The world is
getting warmer." Hansen stated. "The fact agrees so well with what we
calculate with our global climate model that I am confident we are
looking at warming that is mainly due to increasing human-made
greenhouse gases"

Hansen is using the 1 deg C as a tipping point that will put us into
dangerous territory. He figures at least a 2 to 3C rise by the end
of the century "Which is a temperature Earth hasn't experienced
since the middle of the Pliocene Epoch about three million years ago
when sea level was roughly _25_METERS_HIGHER_ than it is today"
(Again quoting Hansen)
>
>FACT: No one has proven a causal link between CO2 and global
>temperatures. It may be a cause, but is more likely an effect.
>
In previous cycles the temperature rose and then "carbon forcing"
caused the CO2 to rise. This time the CO2 rise is leading the
temperature rise making it one of the causes rather than a result.

So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says
differently.

The above remarks by Hansen can be found at
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 09:01 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:tDoAj.66221$yE1.47073@attbi_s21:

>> 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 --

Dummer 'n dirt.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 09:02 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:ZKoAj.66228$yE1.20864@attbi_s21:

>> 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!

Unbelievable.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 09:08 AM

Dan > wrote in news:b9da4887-a6d3-4c09-b9e5-
:
>
> Get out... now that would be some ride!
>
> A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably
> be the closest in feeling, I suppose?
>

What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke.
The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed
and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)

> The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns,
> suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can
> take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older
> skins.
>
> And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to
> remember....

!!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's
pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so you
have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost non-
existent, though.

Bertie
>
> (Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever
> piloted)
>
> Dan
>
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 09:24 AM

Whata Fool > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Don;'t like paying beaurocrats? Go support someone who's doing
>>something. But a proiduct that's moving things the right way..
>>Even leaving aside the ecological aspects of continued use of IC engines
>>, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at all.
>>I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines ( including
>>a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
>>worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)
>>Bertie
>
> You owned a couple of 19th century cars?
>
> Were they made in Europe?

One was, an early DeDion Bouton. The other was a a 1899 Sperry ( yes
Elemr,the same guy who , with his son, developed the first AC gyros)
electric. An extremely advanced propulsion system was the hallmark of this
contraption, btw. It had regenerative braking. Well, it still does. I sold
it to a friend. THe rest was strictly horse and buggy and it wasn't very
fast, but it did have a reasonable range of about 30 miles. Beautiful thing
it was, too. It was later marketed as the Cleveland electric. Elmer and his
son Lawrence also designed and installed many of the electric trolley
systems in the US around the turn of the century.
Lawrence is also credited with being the first mile high club member.
Tehre were lots of cars made in the US in the 19th century, but not as many
as europe. Henry Ford didn;t get going til 03 and his cars dserve their
place in history. Well, actually he started earlier, but lost his first
company whihc was bough up by a guy who renamed it after the town it was
built in. Cadillac MI.

Ferry Porsche also built electrics around this time. His electrics also had
regenerative braking. They also had motors which were integral with the
hubs of the wheels, which was a bad idea from the unsprung weight angle,
but a good one form efficiency. Four wheel drive as well.
I also owned a 1903 Ford A, a 1911 DeDion, a 1902 Olds, a 1922 Morris a
1906 Le Zebre and a couple of other oddballs that were a bit more
obscure...
A fascinating period in automotive history. There wasn't much that hadn't
been tried by 1905. Four wheel drive, fuel injection ( of sorts) variable
valve timing, V8s , you name it. France was the absolute center of the
universe for both autos and aviation then, BTW. Both their airplanes and
their cars set the patterns for both for the next century..

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 01:08 PM

On Mar 8, 4:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
> springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
> Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
> handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke.
> The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
> tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed
> and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)
>

One of the things we lost on or wheeled rockets is the perception of
speed -- Helmet, leathers, windscreen, etc all insulate the rider form
the road, to some degree.

I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.

Of course helmets were mandatory in cycling, but they weren't full
face, etc etc. If you fell (which I did), it hurt -- alot. You always
had that sensation of being on the edge of doom (similar to usenet).

The oldest bike I've ridden was a 50's vintage British something or
other. I was young and unaware of the legendary names so I don't
remember which. But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
asphalt.

The 80's bikes from Japan were a quantum leap forward in all respects
(starting, continuing running, brakes, etc), but the "car like"
expereince intruded on the ride.

My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
explain that.

>
> !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's
> pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
> Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
> that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so you
> have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost non-
> existent, though.
>
> Bertie

My next bike will likely be a beamer touring style. My wife likes to
ride along but the current ride isn't great two-up. I'll miss the 550
lb flickable ride, but -- ya gotta do what's right.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 02:48 PM

Dan > wrote in news:26c8c021-3ac3-48f6-837f-
:

> On Mar 8, 4:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
>> springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
>> Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
>> handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998
duke.
>> The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
>> tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure
footed
>> and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)
>>
>
> One of the things we lost on or wheeled rockets is the perception of
> speed -- Helmet, leathers, windscreen, etc all insulate the rider form
> the road, to some degree.

Well, one of the guys at "Mad Sunday" during the Isle of Man TT a few
years ago decided to confront that problem head on by riding around the
course buck nekkid. When you ride around buck nekkid you do not want to
fall off. But he did. Eeep!
I wonder what his sensation of speed felt like!
>
> I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
> soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
> race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
> 20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.

I'll bet! Lots more work though.
>
> Of course helmets were mandatory in cycling, but they weren't full
> face, etc etc. If you fell (which I did), it hurt -- alot. You always
> had that sensation of being on the edge of doom (similar to usenet).
>
> The oldest bike I've ridden was a 50's vintage British something or
> other. I was young and unaware of the legendary names so I don't
> remember which. But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
> band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
> asphalt.

Well, that's a good thing!
The Brits built lots of bikes back then. It coulda been a Norton,
Triumph, BSA, Matchless, James, AJS, Vincent, Francis Barnett, Royal
Enfield or Ariel amongst dozens of others.

Lots of thier bikes from back then were hardtail or had some primitive
form of rear suspension like a sprung hub or "plunger" suspension. By
the mid fifties they all had swing arm rears and telescopic forks. I've
ridden a good few form that period and thought they handled just fine,
but The AJS and Matchless were both extraordinary by the early sixties
( they're pretty much the same bike) and the Nortons form this period
are supposed to be spectacular in their roadholding capability.

> The 80's bikes from Japan were a quantum leap forward in all respects
> (starting, continuing running, brakes, etc), but the "car like"
> expereince intruded on the ride.
>
> My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
> machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
> sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
> explain that.

I know exactly what you mean. It;'s why I prefer the older ones, faults
and all.

>
>>
>> !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and
that's
>> pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
>> Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
>> that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so
you
>> have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost
non-
>> existent, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> My next bike will likely be a beamer touring style. My wife likes to
> ride along but the current ride isn't great two-up. I'll miss the 550
> lb flickable ride, but -- ya gotta do what's right.

My BMW is a sprts version of the old airhead 7 series. It's a high
compression 800 so it's quick enough, but it's really nice to ride. It
has some handling quirks, but once you ride it with some verve it
responds very well. It feels really substantial yet it's light and you
can feel every nut and bolt clicking in perfect harmony as you rail
along.

Bertie
>
>

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 8th 08, 02:58 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:tDoAj.66221$yE1.47073@attbi_s21:
>
> >> 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 --
>
>
>
> Dummer 'n dirt.

what he says is true
but he uses it to imply a fallacy

an -individual- has very little power over the climate
even a rich individual

however that does not imply that collectively people are powerless

individually you cannot build a pyramid
but get together maybe 50 000 working together during fallow with copper tools
and you can move mountains

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 03:01 PM

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:tDoAj.66221$yE1.47073@attbi_s21:
>>
>> >> 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 --
>>
>>
>>
>> Dummer 'n dirt.
>
> what he says is true
> but he uses it to imply a fallacy
>
> an -individual- has very little power over the climate
> even a rich individual
>
> however that does not imply that collectively people are powerless
>
> individually you cannot build a pyramid
> but get together maybe 50 000 working together during fallow with
> copper tools and you can move mountains

Oh, I agree completely. Jay's still dummer'n dirt, though.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 03:11 PM

On Mar 8, 9:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
> > soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
> > race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
> > 20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.
>
> I'll bet! Lots more work though.

Yeah, but I was in great shape then!!
>
> But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
> > band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
> > asphalt.
>
> Well, that's a good thing!
> The Brits built lots of bikes back then. It coulda been a Norton,
> Triumph, BSA, Matchless, James, AJS, Vincent, Francis Barnett, Royal
> Enfield or Ariel amongst dozens of others.

Probably a BSA -- it was in Canada -- my cousins had one of every
motorized toy sold -- it was a pre-teen boy's wonderland. My uncle
built a Chalet (what they called cabins in Quebec) and all roads were
dirt (sand, really) or some scattered gravel. Not ideal for those
sorts of bikes but you couldn't go too fast or get hurt too bad.

We actually spent most of our time on a little Honda Trail -- I think
it was one of Honda's earliest foray's into "off road."

There were two springs on either side of the rear axle but all show!

>
> Lots of thier bikes from back then were hardtail or had some primitive
> form of rear suspension like a sprung hub or "plunger" suspension. By
> the mid fifties they all had swing arm rears and telescopic forks. I've
> ridden a good few form that period and thought they handled just fine,
> but The AJS and Matchless were both extraordinary by the early sixties
> ( they're pretty much the same bike) and the Nortons form this period
> are supposed to be spectacular in their roadholding capability.

Never rode one -- would like to, but any I've seen are more jealously
guarded than any trophy wife.

> > My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
> > machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
> > sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
> > explain that.
>
> I know exactly what you mean. It;'s why I prefer the older ones, faults
> and all.

Might explain the current affinity for Champs and Cubs?

> My BMW is a sprts version of the old airhead 7 series. It's a high
> compression 800 so it's quick enough, but it's really nice to ride. It
> has some handling quirks, but once you ride it with some verve it
> responds very well. It feels really substantial yet it's light and you
> can feel every nut and bolt clicking in perfect harmony as you rail
> along.
>
> Bertie

That's one awesome feeling....

I rode bikes for a while during my break from aviation (when I
couldn't afford it). Very similar sensations, for alot less $$.

But not exactly the same. Thus the return to the addiction.

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 03:12 PM

On Mar 8, 9:58 am, mariposas rand mair fheal >
wrote:

> individually you cannot build a pyramid
> but get together maybe 50 000 working together during fallow with copper tools
> and you can move mountains

I prefer a fat guy on a Caterpillar.

Dan

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 8th 08, 03:26 PM

In article >,
Dan > wrote:

> On Mar 8, 9:58 am, mariposas rand mair fheal >
> wrote:
>
> > individually you cannot build a pyramid
> > but get together maybe 50 000 working together during fallow with copper
> > tools
> > and you can move mountains
>
> I prefer a fat guy on a Caterpillar.

did he make the caterpillar himself?

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 03:30 PM

Dan > wrote in news:1b8de725-9ae3-4323-8361-
:
>>
>> I'll bet! Lots more work though.
>
> Yeah, but I was in great shape then!!

I'd do it if I wasn't almost sure to be run down on the road.

>
> Probably a BSA -- it was in Canada -- my cousins had one of every
> motorized toy sold -- it was a pre-teen boy's wonderland. My uncle
> built a Chalet (what they called cabins in Quebec) and all roads were
> dirt (sand, really) or some scattered gravel. Not ideal for those
> sorts of bikes but you couldn't go too fast or get hurt too bad.

They're nice bikes. The fifties were kind of an in between time frm the
nice light rigid read things of the thirties and the more sophisticated
sixties bikes. I've ridden a Commando, which had rubber vibration
isolaters and that made it a litle vague compared to the earlier ones,
bu tstill a great bike. There was nothing like it when it came out, then
the CB 750 appeard and the rest is history.
>
> We actually spent most of our time on a little Honda Trail -- I think
> it was one of Honda's earliest foray's into "off road."
>
> There were two springs on either side of the rear axle but all show!

I rode one of those back then. A friend had one A 175 I think. Nice
little bikes and so solid compared to the other things!

> Might explain the current affinity for Champs and Cubs?

I preferred those back then. Though the Luscombe was the one I really
liked best. I've had three of them.
My first bike was good fun, too. A '59 Cushman Eagle..
>
>> My BMW is a sprts version of the old airhead 7 series. It's a high
>> compression 800 so it's quick enough, but it's really nice to ride.
It
>> has some handling quirks, but once you ride it with some verve it
>> responds very well. It feels really substantial yet it's light and
you
>> can feel every nut and bolt clicking in perfect harmony as you rail
>> along.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> That's one awesome feeling....
>
> I rode bikes for a while during my break from aviation (when I
> couldn't afford it). Very similar sensations, for alot less $$.
>
> But not exactly the same. Thus the return to the addiction.

Yeah, they are very similar feelings, but I'm a much better flyer than
rider and I don't think I'll ever "be one" with one!
Stil, good fun...

Bertie

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 03:57 PM

"John T" wrote:

> What's the old saying? "Lies, lies and statistics"?

What's that supposed to mean - that we can believe no science that uses
numbers?

Well-poisoning attempt noted.

>
>> There is enough ice on Greenland *alone* to raise msl 20+ feet. That
>> is an incontrovertible fact.
>
> It's also incontrovertible that Greenland was much warmer just 1000 years
> ago than it is today. In fact, Greenland temperatures reached a maximum
> around 1930, but they have decreased since (based on ice core readings by
> Dahl-Jensen, et al). The Greenland glaciers didn't suffer a dramatic melting
> event.

The ol' "Greenland paradise" story. It is not incontrovertible that Greenland
was "much warmer" in the MWP than it is now. Modern research shows the late
20th century is warmer:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/darrigo2006/fig5.jpg

Your second statement is misleading. Northern hemisphere temperatures reached
a temporary peak in the 1930s, declined until about 1970, and have been
climbing since. Greeland is not an ice cube on a hot sidewalk. It takes a
while for ice masses the size of Greenland's to absorb enough heat to get a
major melt event going. That seems to be underway now:

http://www.physorg.com/news122749356.html

>>> Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
>>
>> Not according to current models, but ominous things are happening in
>> Greenland and Antarctica that indicate there are previously unknown
>> accelerating phenomena at work.
>
> The real question is: Why?

It's been getting genarally warmer for the last 100 years.

>
>> 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?
>
> Ah, the Precautionary Principle. Let's throw in "for the children" while
> we're at it. :)

You against taking precautions?

>>> We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
>>> colder.
>>
>> Far warmer in our history? Says who?
>
> Says just about anybody's temperature reconstruction record which will show
> periods such as the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm Period -
> assuming, of course, you consider the years 5500-2000 B.C.E. and 1100-1300
> C.E. to be "in our history."

I'll grant you the Holocene Maximum, but "just about anybody's temperature
reconstruction" shows the MWP was not as warm as today. Most importantly,
nothing in anybody's reconstruction shows a spike as steep as the 20th
century's.

> Speaking of statistics, satellites can measure temperature over a wide area
> of the earth at a time and have been doing so continuously for the past 18
> years or so. They report a modest rise of 0.05° C per decade
> (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm). This contrasts
> sharply with the 0.25-0.4° C change reported by surface readings between
> 1978 and 1998.

So?

> Oh, I'm sure many of us here also remember the "coming ice age" predictions
> of the '70's. It's certainly been mentioned in this thread before.

Puh-leeze. That is one of the moldiest oldies in the AGW deniers' bag of
talking points. What serious scientists of the time really said:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

There is no comparison between a few articles in the popular press of that
time and the near universal agreement among climate scientists today about
what is happening to the planet.

> Further, we humans have supposedly warmed the earth due to all the CO2 we've
> created since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Human-produced CO2
> accounts for a far minority of the atmospheric CO2 (vice natural sources)
> and total CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.054%. What's more, CO2 is a
> poor greenhouse gas - far less potent than water vapor, for instance - and
> at a mere 0.054%, it simply cannot drive warming trends.

More from the oldies bag. Let's take your points in order:

* Human-produced CO2 accounts for a far minority of the atmospheric CO2
(vice natural sources)

You don't quantify "far minority," but it is empirically established that
human activity has produced a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 PPMV since about
1800.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
offers good explanations of how we know.

* and total CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.054%.

Yes. So? The major gases, nitrogen, oxygen and argon, are transparent to IR.
They don't matter when it comes to stopping heat from being radiated back to
space. It's the GHGs that prevent the planet from freezing. Pointing out that
CO2 is a small part of the total atmosphere is a red herring in this context.

* What's more, CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas-- far less potent than water
vapor, for instance

A good example of using an incomplete and misleadingly stated fact to make a
false point. H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect; it is not a forcing
agent. Simply put, perturbations in water vapor concentrations are too short
lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not
enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via
evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations
will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

* at a mere 0.054%, it simply cannot drive warming trends

I have already shown why your " mere 0.054%" argument is disingenuous. CO2 is
the most abundant and therefore most important of the *persistent* GHGs. It
is the persistent GHGs that control the long term retention of solar energy in
the atmosphere. The volume of CO2 in the atmosphere has recently risen 35% to
~380 PPM. That is the highest it has been for at least six hundred and fifty
thousand years, and almost all of the increase has happened since about 1800.
1800 roughly marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the
beginning of exponential growth of the human population. Furthermore, carbon
isotope tagging confirms the fossil fuel origin of much of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Therefore, it is logical and empirically demonstrable that human
activities are producing an increase in atmospheric CO2 unprecedented in the
climatological record for its *rapidity*.

Over the same 200-year period, the 5-year mean global temperature has steadily
risen, with well understood peaks and valleys due to other climate forcings
such as solar activity and volcanism and phenomena such as el niño/la niña.
Thus it seems obvious to me that human activities are warming the climate by
the massive emission of GHGs, principally CO2.

> This combined with ice core records proving CO2 peaks lag temperature by
> hundreds of years (as much as 800 years) is a major reason the
> "pro-anthropogenic global warming" (pro-AGW) crowd have abandoned Gore's
> famous graph trying to link CO2 as the cause of warming.

All the graphs I see on scientific sites still show this lag. It's there; it
can't be "abandoned." What it *means* WRT to the current CO2 rise is the part
that gets "abandoned" by AGW deniers.

In the ice core records to which you refer, CO2 rise is a reinforcing factor
in warming periods begun by earth's orbital cycle. In those cases, the CO2 is
released by the initial warming and then acts to amplify and lengthen the
subsequent warm period.

What's different about the present CO2 rise is that it is independent of the
regular orbital cycles. Nevertheless, it is producing the warming effect that
an increase in CO2 *must* produce.

> My point?
>
> 1. Earth's climate has changed dramatically over the millenia from
> extraordinarily warm periods to very cold ice ages long before humans came
> along - only in the current interglacial, by the way.

Yep.

> 2. It is the pinnacle of arrogance to think humans are capable of changing
> *global* climate - especially in a mere 150 years.

Hand waving.

Humans have jacked up the concentration of the most important greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere by 35%. The laws of physics demand that there be a result.

> 3. A review of the players for the pro-AGW crowd shows a littany of
> leftists, former Communists and general anti-capitalists.

Weakest of all your arguments. A review of the denier mouthpieces reveals a
motley collection of crackpots, right wing axe-grinders and energy company
whores. There are indeed leftists who have co-opted the issue, but that's
politics and beside the point. Unless you are claiming that every major
professional scientific organization in the world is composed of leftists,
former Communists and general anti-capitalists, your argument falls flat.

> I'm just not buying the "humans are causing global warming" line. There are
> simply too many holes in that theory for it to be any more valid than the
> former "coming ice age" scare of the '70's.

You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 04:06 PM

On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
> position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.

Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'

Long may we reign.

Dan

Talk-n-Dog[_2_]

March 8th 08, 04:36 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:b9da4887-a6d3-4c09-b9e5-
> :
>> Get out... now that would be some ride!
>>
>> A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably
>> be the closest in feeling, I suppose?
>>
>
> What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
> springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
> Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
> handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke.
> The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
> tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed
> and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)
>
>> The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns,
>> suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can
>> take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older
>> skins.
>>
>> And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to
>> remember....
>
> !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's

Ducati will do 130, been there.

> pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
> Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
> that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so you
> have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost non-
> existent, though.
>
>
> Bertie
>> (Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever
>> piloted)
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>

Talk-n-Dog[_2_]

March 8th 08, 04:37 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:b9da4887-a6d3-4c09-b9e5-
> :
>> Get out... now that would be some ride!
>>
>> A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably
>> be the closest in feeling, I suppose?
>>
>
> What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
> springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
> Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
> handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke.
> The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
> tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed
> and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)
>
>> The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns,
>> suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can
>> take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older
>> skins.
>>
>> And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to
>> remember....
>
> !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's

Ducati will do 130.

> pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
> Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
> that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so you
> have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost non-
> existent, though.
>
>
> Bertie
>> (Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever
>> piloted)
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 8th 08, 04:39 PM

Dan > wrote in news:00abaf35-a51a-4ddb-91ba-
:

> On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
>> position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.
>
> Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'
>
> Long may we reign.

If you;'re wrong , it will be a short one.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 04:43 PM

Talk-n-Dog > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:b9da4887-a6d3-4c09-b9e5-
>> :
>>> Get out... now that would be some ride!
>>>
>>> A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably
>>> be the closest in feeling, I suppose?
>>>
>>
>> What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
>> springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
>> Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
>> handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998
>> duke. The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is
>> very tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure
>> footed and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of
>> course)
>>
>>> The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns,
>>> suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can
>>> take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older
>>> skins.
>>>
>>> And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to
>>> remember....
>>
>> !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and
>> that's
>
> Ducati will do 130.
>

This one will go a lot faster than that. Well over 160 as reported by
thr owner. It's 0-100 time is mindblowing, about 6 seconds. Scariest
thing I was ever on , though he assures me it feels real comfy after
only a few miles.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 04:43 PM

On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Talk-n-Dog >
wrote:
>
> Ducati will do 130, been there.

With the plus that you look *really* good going that speed.

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 04:45 PM

On Mar 8, 11:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:00abaf35-a51a-4ddb-91ba-
> :
>
> > On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> >> You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
> >> position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.
>
> > Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'
>
> > Long may we reign.
>
> If you;'re wrong , it will be a short one.
>
> Bertie

I'll pick a short time over a lengthy existence with the alarmists in
charge.

Yikes -- talk about un-fun.

Dan

Talk-n-Dog[_2_]

March 8th 08, 04:46 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Talk-n-Dog >
> wrote:
>> Ducati will do 130, been there.
>
>
> With the plus that you look *really* good going that speed.

Just like an airplane.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 8th 08, 04:48 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 8, 11:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:00abaf35-a51a-4ddb-91ba-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>
>> >> You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support"
>> >> your position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3
>> >> above.
>>
>> > Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'
>>
>> > Long may we reign.
>>
>> If you;'re wrong , it will be a short one.
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> I'll pick a short time over a lengthy existence with the alarmists in
> charge.
>
> Yikes -- talk about un-fun.
>

What is an alarmist?

Bertie

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 05:01 PM

"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.

Nah. Humans are doing it, humans can stop doing it.

> Well, except to the folks who stand to make a few billion dollars in
> windfall profits by "studying" the phenomenon.

You heard that somewhere, evidently; whom are you talking about, exactly?

> 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.

Support taking tax breaks away from oil companies and applying them to
alternative energy development. Vote against politicians who are dumping
subsidies into bio-ethanol production and for politicians who'll spend the
money on solar and wind power. Drive a more fuel efficient car. Apply energy
conserving methods to your home and business.

Note that giving up your airplane is nowhere on the above list.

And I have a polite question: Do you understand why a 3 deg. C rise in global
average temperature by 2100 is a big deal?

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 05:10 PM

"Dan" wrote:

>> You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
>> position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.
>
> Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'

Did a little light go on?

> Long may we reign.

When will you start?

--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins

John T

March 8th 08, 05:40 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>
> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
> wishful thinking."
> -John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their hysteria.

Bottom line is we can throw numbers and counterpoints till hell freezes over
(which is just as likely as the next MWP) and we will not convince the other
to change their mind (due to the trust in "lies, lies, and statistics" we
both exhibit).

The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
cause.)

Now, if you want to discuss whether we should pay attention to a cleaner
environment and alternative energy sources to improve quality of life, we
have room to talk. Continuing to batter non-believers about the head trying
to force them to believe the AGW tripe is just as fruitless as the faithful
trying to convert an atheist.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 06:14 PM

"Dan" wrote:

>FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
term trends.<

Out of date.

NAC report, 2006:

"The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for
periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric
greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence
supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to
human activities, and they are not the primary evidence. "

>FACT: Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
at the extreme end of the IPCC range (read the report).<

Yeah, that's a fact. At least you got one right.

What you apparently don't know is that many scientists whose work was used by
the IPCC have said that the 4AR was too conservative.

>FACT: Both James Hansen of NASA--the father of greenhouse theory<

Wrong. Hansen is not "the father of greenhouse theory."

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

>and Richard Lindzen of MIT--the most renowned climatologist in the world--<

Renowned? Haw-haw-haw! You mean notorious. Lindzen is a whore.

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

>FACT: No one has provided data that conclusively links human activity
to the temperature rise of 0.6 C over 100 years.<

>FACT: No one has proven a causal link between CO2 and global
temperatures. It may be a cause, but is more likely an effect.<

Science doesn't prove things. Science develops theories that describe events
and processes in nature. The theory of anthropogenic climate change is now so
robust it is accepted by every major scientific organization in the world. Of
course, I realize you find Michael Crichton more credible.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 06:31 PM

"John T" wrote:

>>
>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>> wishful thinking."
>> -John Derbyshire
>
> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their hysteria.

Derbyshire is a conservative columnist who agrees that AGW is a fact. It is
the denier crowd who wishes it would all go away.

> Bottom line is we can throw numbers and counterpoints till hell freezes over
> (which is just as likely as the next MWP) and we will not convince the other
> to change their mind (due to the trust in "lies, lies, and statistics" we
> both exhibit).

Sorry, there's a big difference between your and my level of credulousness on
this issue. In order for you to maintain your position, you must allow
yourself the belief that virtually all the active geo-scientists in the world
are stupid, lying or stifled by a giant conspiracy. That is simply not
believable without deliberate self deception.

> The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
> has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
> Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
> out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
> don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
> cause.)

Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands "proof" in
that way. And this proof that is demanded is never defined. This tactic is
an old one; it's been used by evolution deniers for years.

> Now, if you want to discuss whether we should pay attention to a cleaner
> environment and alternative energy sources to improve quality of life, we
> have room to talk. Continuing to batter non-believers about the head trying
> to force them to believe the AGW tripe is just as fruitless as the faithful
> trying to convert an atheist.

Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've already
convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the world's scientists to
trick you, you are way too far gone.

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 06:47 PM

On Mar 8, 12:40 pm, "John T" > wrote:
>
> The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
> has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
> Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
> out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
> don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
> cause.)
>

Well said.

Dan

John T

March 8th 08, 06:49 PM

"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.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

John T

March 8th 08, 07:07 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>
> ...the belief that virtually all the
> active geo-scientists in the world...

Who's telling you about this consensus?

> Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands
> "proof" in that way. And this proof that is demanded is never
> defined.

Not at all. I'll even settle for a realistic theory (like Darwin's) with
real data to demonstrate it without needing a lot of assumptions to make the
result come out in a predetermined way.

> Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've
> already convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the
> world's scientists to trick you, you are way too far gone.
> "Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and
> remember the difference."
> - Clive James

Hehe. You're funny. Truly, you brought a smile to my day. :)

You're just proving that nobody likes a skeptic - regardless of the
skeptic's position. "Dare not question what we tell you, heretic!"

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 07:48 PM

"John T" wrote:

>> 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.

Invalid comparison.

junkscience is run by a lobbyist with a documented history of creating
disinformation in the service of tobacco, chemical and oil corporations.
Although Milloy frequently represents himself as an expert on scientific
matters, he is not a scientist himself. He has never published original
research in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

You may disagree with the scientists on RealClimate, but their reputations in
their profession are intact despite years of slander (against Mann, in
particular) by people like Milloy.

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 07:54 PM

On Mar 8, 2:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "John T" wrote:
> >>http://www.sourcewatch.org
> >>http://www.realclimate.org
>
> > Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you any more
> > than usinghttp://junkscience.comwould help me convince you of the fallacy
> > of your belief in AGW.
>
> Invalid comparison.
>
> junkscience is run by a lobbyist with a documented history of creating
> disinformation in the service of tobacco, chemical and oil corporations.
> Although Milloy frequently represents himself as an expert on scientific
> matters, he is not a scientist himself. He has never published original
> research in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
>
> You may disagree with the scientists on RealClimate, but their reputations in
> their profession are intact despite years of slander (against Mann, in
> particular) by people like Milloy.

I'm learning more -- such as -- your guys are pure, unsullied by
interests, while anyone who dares proffer contrary data must be a
minion of the evil capitalists...

I admire your expertise in the resorting to the ad hominem argument.

OK, done for now. heading outside to chop down a tree and burn it for
heat.

Dan

John T

March 8th 08, 07:55 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>
> Invalid comparison.

Not at all. All those sites are designed specifically to promote a
particular point of view and not provide balanced reporting of raw data.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 8th 08, 08:04 PM

"John T" > wrote in
:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> ...the belief that virtually all the
>> active geo-scientists in the world...
>
> Who's telling you about this consensus?
>
>> Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands
>> "proof" in that way. And this proof that is demanded is never
>> defined.
>
> Not at all. I'll even settle for a realistic theory (like Darwin's)
> with real data to demonstrate it without needing a lot of assumptions
> to make the result come out in a predetermined way.
>
>> Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've
>> already convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the
>> world's scientists to trick you, you are way too far gone.
>> "Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and
>> remember the difference."
>> - Clive James
>
> Hehe. You're funny. Truly, you brought a smile to my day. :)
>
> You're just proving that nobody likes a skeptic - regardless of the
> skeptic's position. "Dare not question what we tell you, heretic!"

Thats not the way it is at all. The only difference between your
position and the position of the intelligent design adherents is that
you're probably not invested in having to believe in divine creation but
you do have a major investment in the other.
IOW you are starting from a political position in regards ecological
damage. Science demands you go where the data leads you. You try and
lead it and you just end up blind.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 8th 08, 08:04 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 8, 12:40 pm, "John T" > wrote:
>>
>> The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However,
>> nobody has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global
>> climate change. Because that proof has been demanded and is
>> unavailable, the AGW crowd trots out the Precautionary Principle -
>> "just in case we're right." (And no, I don't think taking hugely
>> expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good cause.)
>>
>
> Well said.

All cherry picked to support a position.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 08:05 PM

"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..
Not much, but it will have to do.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 08:06 PM

"John T" > wrote in
m:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>> wishful thinking."
>> -John Derbyshire
>
> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
> hysteria.
>

**** you. I'm not hysterical.

Bertie

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 08:07 PM

"John T" wrote:

>> ...the belief that virtually all the
>> active geo-scientists in the world...
>
> Who's telling you about this consensus?

I've already posted a list of the major professional scientific organizations
which have issued position papers acknowledging the fact of anthropogenic
climate change. Do you have an alternate list?

>> Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands
>> "proof" in that way. And this proof that is demanded is never
>> defined.
>
> Not at all. I'll even settle for a realistic theory (like Darwin's) with
> real data to demonstrate it without needing a lot of assumptions to make the
> result come out in a predetermined way.

You sound just like a creationist. There are mountains of data and hundreds
(thousands?) of peer reviewed research papers supporting the science behind
AGW.

>> Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've
>> already convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the
>> world's scientists to trick you, you are way too far gone.
>> "Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and
>> remember the difference."
>> - Clive James
>
> Hehe. You're funny. Truly, you brought a smile to my day. :)
>
> You're just proving that nobody likes a skeptic - regardless of the
> skeptic's position. "Dare not question what we tell you, heretic!"

Don't give yourself airs.

If you were a true skeptic, you wouldn't fall for crap like the "scientists
were all hysterical about global cooling in the '70s" argument, or even worse,
the "CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere" argument. A very little checking
on your part would have revealed to you that you were being bull****ted.

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 8th 08, 08:15 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

> My first bike was good fun, too. A '59 Cushman Eagle..

Heh.

Hadn't thought about those in a long time.

One of my friends used his on his paper route. Another friend tried to beat a
train on his and got smushed.

They were *the* cool thing to have in my neighborhood. I yearned desperately
for one but only got to ride on the back of a few.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

John T

March 8th 08, 08:24 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>
> I've already posted a list of the major professional scientific
> organizations which have issued position papers acknowledging the
> fact of anthropogenic climate change. Do you have an alternate list?

*That* list is the consensus you speak of? Oh. Well. I *must* be wrong,
then.

I guess I could quickly compile a list of anti-AGW peers of your peers, but
I seriously doubt the effort is worth it since you're so tied to your own
belief system.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 08:41 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>> My first bike was good fun, too. A '59 Cushman Eagle..
>
> Heh.
>
> Hadn't thought about those in a long time.
>
> One of my friends used his on his paper route. Another friend tried
> to beat a train on his and got smushed.
>
> They were *the* cool thing to have in my neighborhood. I yearned
> desperately for one but only got to ride on the back of a few.

On the little rack or did your buds mount a buddy pad there? Mine only
had one seat which was a PITA, but it probably wouldn;t have hauled tow
up so well anyway. They are going for big bucks nowadays!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 08:44 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 8, 2:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "John T" wrote:
>> >>http://www.sourcewatch.org
>> >>http://www.realclimate.org
>>
>> > Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you
>> > any more than usinghttp://junkscience.comwould help me convince you
>> > of the fallacy of your belief in AGW.
>>
>> Invalid comparison.
>>
>> junkscience is run by a lobbyist with a documented history of
>> creating disinformation in the service of tobacco, chemical and oil
>> corporations. Although Milloy frequently represents himself as an
>> expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He has
>> never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific
>> journals.
>>
>> You may disagree with the scientists on RealClimate, but their
>> reputations in their profession are intact despite years of slander
>> (against Mann, in particular) by people like Milloy.
>
> I'm learning more -- such as -- your guys are pure, unsullied by
> interests, while anyone who dares proffer contrary data must be a
> minion of the evil capitalists...

IOW, you have no interest in learning anything but how to reinforce your
postition.

>
> I admire your expertise in the resorting to the ad hominem argument.

Bull****.
>
> OK, done for now. heading outside to chop down a tree and burn it for
> heat.

Which will grow a new tree in time.
Good start..

Bertie
>
>
>
>

John T

March 8th 08, 09:03 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message

>
> it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced.

Not until the data proves AGW is correct. I don't dispute recent increases
in temperature, but I have not seen any conclusive link to human activity
being the cause nor have I seen evidence the temperature changes are outside
"normal" ranges.

This is not some blind adherence to a pre-determined position nor is it
succumbing to peer pressure (which your lame "idiot" reference attempts to
accomplish). Take a look for yourself at the raw data for temperature
reconstructions from NASA and other sources. Here's a good start:
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/ (particularly the paleoclimate sets)

I've been perusing this site and others for a few years now downloading and
charting the data myself to see what the trends are. Frankly, in a
historical sense, recent temperature changes are entirely within "normal"
parameters for temperature reconstructions in both northern and southern
hemispheres.

The only temperature reconstructions that show alarming trends are those
based on the data sets like Mann's famed "hockey stick" and those data sets
have been questioned enough by his peers that I don't need to do so here.

The fact remains: Current temperatures are well within the norm defined as
the range of temperatures for the last 8,000 years.

(Nice try with the distro expansion, BTW.)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 09:25 PM

On Mar 8, 3:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > OK, done for now. heading outside to chop down a tree and burn it for
> > heat.
>
> Which will grow a new tree in time.
> Good start..
>
> Bertie

Yep. That's how it works. Great system, eh?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 8th 08, 09:27 PM

Dan > wrote in news:7422c4dc-9cf1-46fa-a318-
:

> On Mar 8, 3:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > OK, done for now. heading outside to chop down a tree and burn it
for
>> > heat.
>>
>> Which will grow a new tree in time.
>> Good start..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yep. That's how it works. Great system, eh?
>
>

Yes, it is.

Bertie

Peter J Ross[_2_]

March 8th 08, 09:58 PM

In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
the Bunyip > wrote:

> "John T" > wrote in
> m:
>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>>> wishful thinking."
>>> -John Derbyshire
>>
>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
>> hysteria.
>>
>
> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
>
> Bertie

NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
PJR :-)

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 10:28 PM

On Mar 8, 4:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > Yep. That's how it works. Great system, eh?
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> Bertie

OK.. story time...

In July 1983 I was an Air Force NCO (sergeant) working 7 day/week12
hour night shifts (6 PM to 6 AM) helping stand-up the Air Launched
Cruise Missile (ALCM) for the 416 Bombardment Wing at Griffiss Air
Force base in upstate NY.

At the time the missile's fielding was in the news as the Soviets
claimed it was "destabilizing" etc, etc. The ALCM was also an issue in
Canadian politics as we (The US Air Force) used a test range in the
Northwest territories which resembled Soviet terrain.

For a variety of reasons, a group of Canadians marched from Canada
down to Rome, NY to protest.

After a shift the day was perfect -- sunny, warm, light breeze. I was
sick of driving home, sleeping, getting up, and driving back, so on a
lark I jumped in my blue Ford Escort and headed north.

I was still in uniform when I came upon the marchers out in desolate
stretch of backcountry road. I smiled and waved as I drove north as
they marched south, but I don't think they knew who or what I was.

Near the end of the line a few guys jumped the line and made me stop
my car. When a few saw my uniform they scurried off, until half a
dozen surrounded my car. I rolled the windows down and said, "So
what's going on, eh?"

(As background -- my mother's family is Canadian and I spent my first
5 years in Canada and every summer after that. This meant I had the
twin cultural burdens of arrogance and guilt).

A few shouted slogans and I just waved them off.

One stayed near the passenger side window and had a cooler head. Soon
we were in a deep discussion about the nature of war, the insanity of
MAD, and the relative morality of Soviet and American empire.

This went on for about 45 minutes, when it dawned on both of us that
his group was now far, far down the road.

"Hop in and I'll give you a ride back," says I.

"Sure," says he and away we go, passing slow enough that everyone in
the crowd could see one of their number being hauled away in a Blue
Escort by a US Air Force NCO.

I stopped at the head of the line and he got out. We shook hands and
wished each other well while his cohorts looked on it stunned shock.

I drove home and went to bed, thinking nothing more of it, until the
next day when the Squadron First Sergeant said the CO heard about some
rogue Airmen helping out the protesters (they later made it on base
and threw some blood/red paint on the bone bird -- a B-52 hulk used
for parts and lightly guarded).

I borrowed my wife's car the next few days.

Dan

NY Times link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E0D61038F935A2575AC0A9659482 60)

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 8th 08, 10:33 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 8, 4:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > Yep. That's how it works. Great system, eh?
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> OK.. story time...
>
> In July 1983 I was an Air Force NCO (sergeant) working 7 day/week12
> hour night shifts (6 PM to 6 AM) helping stand-up the Air Launched
> Cruise Missile (ALCM) for the 416 Bombardment Wing at Griffiss Air
> Force base in upstate NY.
>
> At the time the missile's fielding was in the news as the Soviets
> claimed it was "destabilizing" etc, etc. The ALCM was also an issue in
> Canadian politics as we (The US Air Force) used a test range in the
> Northwest territories which resembled Soviet terrain.
>
> For a variety of reasons, a group of Canadians marched from Canada
> down to Rome, NY to protest.
>
> After a shift the day was perfect -- sunny, warm, light breeze. I was
> sick of driving home, sleeping, getting up, and driving back, so on a
> lark I jumped in my blue Ford Escort and headed north.
>
> I was still in uniform when I came upon the marchers out in desolate
> stretch of backcountry road. I smiled and waved as I drove north as
> they marched south, but I don't think they knew who or what I was.
>
> Near the end of the line a few guys jumped the line and made me stop
> my car. When a few saw my uniform they scurried off, until half a
> dozen surrounded my car. I rolled the windows down and said, "So
> what's going on, eh?"
>
> (As background -- my mother's family is Canadian and I spent my first
> 5 years in Canada and every summer after that. This meant I had the
> twin cultural burdens of arrogance and guilt).
>
> A few shouted slogans and I just waved them off.
>
> One stayed near the passenger side window and had a cooler head. Soon
> we were in a deep discussion about the nature of war, the insanity of
> MAD, and the relative morality of Soviet and American empire.
>
> This went on for about 45 minutes, when it dawned on both of us that
> his group was now far, far down the road.
>
> "Hop in and I'll give you a ride back," says I.
>
> "Sure," says he and away we go, passing slow enough that everyone in
> the crowd could see one of their number being hauled away in a Blue
> Escort by a US Air Force NCO.
>
> I stopped at the head of the line and he got out. We shook hands and
> wished each other well while his cohorts looked on it stunned shock.
>
> I drove home and went to bed, thinking nothing more of it, until the
> next day when the Squadron First Sergeant said the CO heard about some
> rogue Airmen helping out the protesters (they later made it on base
> and threw some blood/red paint on the bone bird -- a B-52 hulk used
> for parts and lightly guarded).
>
> I borrowed my wife's car the next few days.
>
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> NY Times link:
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9400E0D61038F935A2575AC0
> A965948260)

If there's a point I don;t see it.

Bertie

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 11:29 PM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 11:36:03 -0500, Talk-n-Dog wrote:

>> !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's
>
> Ducati will do 130, been there.

Done that and never again unless it has 4 wheels and a roll bar.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 11:31 PM

On Mar 8, 5:33 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> If there's a point I don;t see it.
>
> Bertie

It was subtle.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 8th 08, 11:35 PM

Dan > wrote in news:b4a2a664-239f-4790-8d7f-164c771eb327@
60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 8, 5:33 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> If there's a point I don;t see it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> It was subtle.
>

You think i should drive my wife's car?

There's no middle ground on this. It's bite the bullet or suffer the
consequences. Since it's unlikely we're going to do it, I'll just go to my
grave ****ed off about it.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 8th 08, 11:42 PM

On Mar 8, 6:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:b4a2a664-239f-4790-8d7f-164c771eb327@
> 60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:33 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> If there's a point I don;t see it.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > It was subtle.
>
> You think i should drive my wife's car?
>
> There's no middle ground on this. It's bite the bullet or suffer the
> consequences. Since it's unlikely we're going to do it, I'll just go to my
> grave ****ed off about it.
>
> Bertie

Depends on what she drives...

Talk-n-Dog[_2_]

March 9th 08, 12:23 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 11:36:03 -0500, Talk-n-Dog wrote:
>
>>> !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's
>> Ducati will do 130, been there.
>
> Done that and never again unless it has 4 wheels and a roll bar.
Just don't screw up.

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 12:24 AM

"John T" wrote:

>>
>> I've already posted a list of the major professional scientific
>> organizations which have issued position papers acknowledging the
>> fact of anthropogenic climate change. Do you have an alternate list?
>
> *That* list is the consensus you speak of? Oh. Well. I *must* be wrong,
> then.

You're catching on.

> I guess I could quickly compile a list of anti-AGW peers of your peers,

No, you couldn't.

> but I seriously doubt the effort is worth it since you're so tied to your
> own belief system.

Stop it. You're going to break my irony meter.

John T

March 9th 08, 01:07 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>
> You're going to break my irony meter.

I told you early on we wouldn't convince the other to change their
position/belief any you devolve this discussion into ad hominem.
<sarcasm>Shocking.</sarcasm> That's the pattern observed time after time
with this topic.

Some folks like to believe in magical beings; others like to believe humans
have the power to change global climate. I'll wait for the evidence for
either.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Kadaitcha Man[_2_]

March 9th 08, 01:12 AM

"Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
...
> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
> the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> "John T" > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>>>> wishful thinking."
>>>> -John Derbyshire
>>>
>>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
>>> hysteria.
>>>
>>
>> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both of
those posts with the Tourette Bot :)

However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
worth setting up.

Peter J Ross[_2_]

March 9th 08, 01:49 AM

In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:12:41 +1100, Kadaitcha Man
> wrote:

> "Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
>> the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> "John T" > wrote in
>>> m:
>>>
>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>>>>> wishful thinking."
>>>>> -John Derbyshire
>>>>
>>>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
>>>> hysteria.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both of
> those posts with the Tourette Bot :)
>
> However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
> worth setting up.

You might enjoy this:
http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim.bz2

And this is my working copy:
http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim-alpha.bz2

And this is a simplified, generic version that isn't customised for
Will Dockery:
http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/****ify.vim.bz2

In case you're wondering where I got the idea of transforming kooks'
posts in order to make fun of them, I got the idea from you, of
course.

If you were still alive I'd thank you properly.

--
PJR :-)

Art Deco[_4_]

March 9th 08, 01:56 AM

Kadaitcha Man > wrote:

>"Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
...
>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
>> the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> "John T" > wrote in
>>> m:
>>>
>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>>>>> wishful thinking."
>>>>> -John Derbyshire
>>>>
>>>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
>>>> hysteria.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both of
>those posts with the Tourette Bot :)
>
>However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
>worth setting up.

Ah well, perhaps Fred will return on a future date.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 02:01 AM

On Mar 8, 8:07 pm, "John T" > wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > You're going to break my irony meter.
>
> I told you early on we wouldn't convince the other to change their
> position/belief any you devolve this discussion into ad hominem.
> <sarcasm>Shocking.</sarcasm> That's the pattern observed time after time
> with this topic.
>
> Some folks like to believe in magical beings; others like to believe humans
> have the power to change global climate. I'll wait for the evidence for
> either.
>
> --
> John Thttp://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyerhttp://sage1solutions.com/products
> NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
> ____________________

This is the typical browbeating behavior that marks the true believers
in this "crisis."

We're supposed to believe that "going green" will require only minor
modifications to our daily behavior, with only minor inconveniences.

One poster suggested "Wind Power" as a viable replacement power
source.

What's unmentioned is wind power's impact on migrating birds, scenic
vistas, and native bats . We have a new "wind farm" being built on
Laurel Ridge, and we have several others in the surrounding area. Huge
tracts of mature forest growth are flattened to emplace these
monstrosities -- the watershed and bear and deer and grouse habitat is
now overshadowed by huge turbines.

Also unmentioned is how solar power can be a viable energy source
where the sun shines an average of 90 days a year.

If we think that our nasty, polluting, unregulated, non-emission
tested internal combustion and turbine engines we rely on to power our
aircraft wouldn't be pulled from the skies for the sake of the
children by the "enlightened majority," then we certainly are deluded.

Of course, certain celebrities, rocks stars, and Oscar Winning
Political blowhards would be exempt, so they continue leading the
cause.

Dan

Kadaitcha Man[_2_]

March 9th 08, 02:15 AM

"Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
...
> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:12:41 +1100, Kadaitcha Man
> > wrote:
>
>> "Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
>>> the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John T" > wrote in
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>>>>>> wishful thinking."
>>>>>> -John Derbyshire
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
>>>>> hysteria.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both
>> of
>> those posts with the Tourette Bot :)
>>
>> However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
>> worth setting up.
>
> You might enjoy this:
> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim.bz2
>
> And this is my working copy:
> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim-alpha.bz2
>
> And this is a simplified, generic version that isn't customised for
> Will Dockery:
> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/****ify.vim.bz2

I need more coffee. I thought the opening comment in in the first archive
said "This script is intended to be used with a restraint order..."

> In case you're wondering where I got the idea of transforming kooks'
> posts in order to make fun of them, I got the idea from you, of
> course.

Compliment taken, even if none was intended.

> If you were still alive I'd thank you properly.

:)

Neat stuff. I tend to code my transformations long-hand and don't make much
use of RegEx. I'm of the opinion that Visual Studio's RegEx is slow, plus I
need to learn it to a deeper level than I currently know it. I'll
disassemble your code into pseudocode to understand what it's doing. Many
thanks.

In between getting full body massages and toe-sucks from any one of several
Timorese rent-wives I'm writing Berserker VI from the ground up as a basic
newsreader with all the bots within easy reach. I intend to GPL the source
and put it up on my site, eventually. However living in heaven is my
priority at the moment and electricity is a rare commodity.

Kadaitcha Man[_2_]

March 9th 08, 02:29 AM

"Art Deco" > wrote in message
...
> Kadaitcha Man > wrote:
>
>>"Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
...
>>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
>>> the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John T" > wrote in
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>>>>>> wishful thinking."
>>>>>> -John Derbyshire
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
>>>>> hysteria.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both
>>of
>>those posts with the Tourette Bot :)
>>
>>However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
>>worth setting up.
>
> Ah well, perhaps Fred will return on a future date.

When I moved to the outlying Indonesian archipelago I gave my son my dual
Xeon beastie so I'd have to set everything up on this laptop from scratch.
It'd take too long. Sorry, mate. I plan to come back to Oz every few months
and if someone sets up an internet cafe in the straw and mud-brick village I
live in I'll set Fred loose to let you know. The only power in the village
is my 750w portable generator so it's only good enough for recharging a
laptop and running emergency lights at night if they're needed.

I've had to fork out a small fortune while I'm back here for a propane gas
operated refrigerator. Propane is easy to get but petrol is a four hour
journey away in Atambua city. It'll cost me just as much to get the thing
shipped over, assuming it doesn't sink on the death-trap ferries that ply
the region.

Mind you, I'm having fun. Interesting way to live. The only problem is, the
floor of the hut gets further from the ceiling every time you sweep it.
Apparently dirt floors will do that.

Peter J Ross[_2_]

March 9th 08, 02:42 AM

In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:15:45 +1100, Kadaitcha Man
> wrote:

> "Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:12:41 +1100, Kadaitcha Man
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
>>>> the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "John T" > wrote in
>>>>> m:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
>>>>>>> wishful thinking."
>>>>>>> -John Derbyshire
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
>>>>>> hysteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both
>>> of
>>> those posts with the Tourette Bot :)
>>>
>>> However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
>>> worth setting up.
>>
>> You might enjoy this:
>> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim.bz2
>>
>> And this is my working copy:
>> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim-alpha.bz2
>>
>> And this is a simplified, generic version that isn't customised for
>> Will Dockery:
>> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/****ify.vim.bz2
>
> I need more coffee. I thought the opening comment in in the first archive
> said "This script is intended to be used with a restraint order..."
>
>> In case you're wondering where I got the idea of transforming kooks'
>> posts in order to make fun of them, I got the idea from you, of
>> course.
>
> Compliment taken, even if none was intended.

A compliment was intended. I'm slowly working towards writing a "Fred"
emulator for *nix.

>> If you were still alive I'd thank you properly.
>
>:)
>
> Neat stuff. I tend to code my transformations long-hand and don't make much
> use of RegEx. I'm of the opinion that Visual Studio's RegEx is slow, plus I
> need to learn it to a deeper level than I currently know it. I'll
> disassemble your code into pseudocode to understand what it's doing. Many
> thanks.

I'd rather use a standard library like PCRE, but in order to do so I'd
have to make my code portable, and if I learned how to do that I'd no
longer be able to start Usenet comments with "I'm not a programmer,
but...".

> In between getting full body massages and toe-sucks from any one of several
> Timorese rent-wives

Tip: try not to call one of them by another's name.

> I'm writing Berserker VI from the ground up as a basic
> newsreader with all the bots within easy reach. I intend to GPL the source
> and put it up on my site, eventually.

Thanks in advance for that. Please use GPL 2, not 3.

> However living in heaven is my
> priority at the moment and electricity is a rare commodity.

Are you a regular in misc.survivalism yet?

--
PJR :-)

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 02:50 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>> They were *the* cool thing to have in my neighborhood. I yearned
>> desperately for one but only got to ride on the back of a few.
>
>
> On the little rack or did your buds mount a buddy pad there? Mine only
> had one seat which was a PITA, but it probably wouldn;t have hauled tow
> up so well anyway. They are going for big bucks nowadays!

Don't remember exactly. I do remember riding on the one guy's paper rack with
my feet in the bags. ;^)

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 02:57 AM

"John T" wrote:

>>
>> You're going to break my irony meter.
>
> I told you early on we wouldn't convince the other to change their
> position/belief any you devolve this discussion into ad hominem.
> <sarcasm>Shocking.</sarcasm> That's the pattern observed time after time
> with this topic.

IOW, you've got nothing. Noted.

> Some folks like to believe in magical beings; others like to believe humans
> have the power to change global climate. I'll wait for the evidence for
> either.

You wouldn't recognize evidence if it was scotch-taped to your forehead.

Go back and read junkscience.com some more; it soothes you, apparently.

Kadaitcha Man[_2_]

March 9th 08, 03:31 AM

"Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
...
> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:15:45 +1100, Kadaitcha Man
> > wrote:
>
>> "Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:12:41 +1100, Kadaitcha Man
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
>>>>> the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "John T" > wrote in
>>>>>> m:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> wishful thinking."
>>>>>>>> -John Derbyshire
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
>>>>>>> hysteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit
>>>> both
>>>> of
>>>> those posts with the Tourette Bot :)
>>>>
>>>> However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
>>>> worth setting up.
>>>
>>> You might enjoy this:
>>> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim.bz2
>>>
>>> And this is my working copy:
>>> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim-alpha.bz2
>>>
>>> And this is a simplified, generic version that isn't customised for
>>> Will Dockery:
>>> http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/****ify.vim.bz2
>>
>> I need more coffee. I thought the opening comment in in the first archive
>> said "This script is intended to be used with a restraint order..."
>>
>>> In case you're wondering where I got the idea of transforming kooks'
>>> posts in order to make fun of them, I got the idea from you, of
>>> course.
>>
>> Compliment taken, even if none was intended.
>
> A compliment was intended. I'm slowly working towards writing a "Fred"
> emulator for *nix.

If you want it, I'll gladly send you the Fred code, including the lexical
dictionary, conjugation rules, normalisations et al. It'll take a day or so
because the lexical dictionaries are encrypted and I have to extract some
code and modify it to dump the unencrytpted data. Mail me at the address in
my headers. Use the supersekrit Cabal Obsidian Order code word so I can
verify it's you I'm sending it to.

Many, many weelks of work went into building the lexical dictionary. Almost
endless research. I can save you an awful lot of time.

>>> If you were still alive I'd thank you properly.
>>
>>:)
>>
>> Neat stuff. I tend to code my transformations long-hand and don't make
>> much
>> use of RegEx. I'm of the opinion that Visual Studio's RegEx is slow, plus
>> I
>> need to learn it to a deeper level than I currently know it. I'll
>> disassemble your code into pseudocode to understand what it's doing. Many
>> thanks.
>
> I'd rather use a standard library like PCRE, but in order to do so I'd
> have to make my code portable, and if I learned how to do that I'd no
> longer be able to start Usenet comments with "I'm not a programmer,
> but...".

Seeing as I no longer need windows for work, perhaps now is a good time to
move permanently to linux. Hmmm...

>> In between getting full body massages and toe-sucks from any one of
>> several
>> Timorese rent-wives
>
> Tip: try not to call one of them by another's name.

Oh, they know the rules. Any protests and they're fired.

>> I'm writing Berserker VI from the ground up as a basic
>> newsreader with all the bots within easy reach. I intend to GPL the
>> source
>> and put it up on my site, eventually.
>
> Thanks in advance for that. Please use GPL 2, not 3.
>
>> However living in heaven is my
>> priority at the moment and electricity is a rare commodity.
>
> Are you a regular in misc.survivalism yet?

lol - there is no internet where I live. No phones, nothing. Hell, there's
probably not even a satellite in the sky. I enjoy the very simple lifestyle.
Absolutely no pressure to do anything. I have all the time I want to teach
my new-found friends about cultivating better vegetables and avoiding
malaria. There are no strings and most of the women are beautiful, and
exceedingly friendly too, for the right number of Rupiah.

The only real issue is medical care. It's non-existent here so I come back
to Oz to see my kids and stock up on essential medications. The villagers
call on me now when some poor sod gets dysentery so I keep a good store of
Imodium on hand.

Modern trappings are available if I want them, but they're in Atambua, which
is a fair hike on a walking stick. There is an irregular coach service to
the city but the timetable appears to be based on reading tea leaves and the
fall of flung chicken entrails.

I have my cash from the sale of my property, after a divorce split. I have
my superannuation, and my website brings in more advertising revenue in one
day than I need to survive a week or more here. In five years I qualify for
a reduced Australian pension (I'm not at early retirment age yet), and the
throbbing in the groin I get when I look at my RP6,000,000,000 bank balance
can't be beat. Well, metaphorically speaking and with some exceptions.

Anyway, mail me if you want Fred's guts. If you're serious about writing
something like Fred then this'll save you an awful lot of work. No
obsequious thanks required; I'd do the same for a white man.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

March 9th 08, 04:55 AM

> Support taking tax breaks away from oil companies and applying them to
> alternative energy development. Vote against politicians who are dumping
> subsidies into bio-ethanol production and for politicians who'll spend the
> money on solar and wind power. Drive a more fuel efficient car. Apply
> energy conserving methods to your home and business.

Hey, I feel green already. I am literally in favor of (or against) all of
the things you are!

Don't forget, I'm the guy who tried (unsuccessfully) to buy an electric car
last fall, and we have spent the winter (and a stupidly grand amount of
money) converting every light fixture in our three 3-story buildings to
compact fluorescent bulbs.

And everyone here knows how I feel about the scam called "ethanol"...

So, you see -- even conservatives can be eco-friendly -- especially when
being that way also benefits the bottom line.

As to whether any of this will affect the world's climate, well, I think you
know my opinion of *that*...

> Note that giving up your airplane is nowhere on the above list.

Whew! Thank goodness!

:-)

> And I have a polite question: Do you understand why a 3 deg. C rise in
> global average temperature by 2100 is a big deal?

In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global warming
scenario. After this winter -- the coldest, snowiest we've ever seen in
Iowa -- I'm all for any temperature increase that we humans can muster.

Hell, we should be so lucky...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 05:37 AM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> And I have a polite question: Do you understand why a 3 deg. C rise in
>> global average temperature by 2100 is a big deal?
>
> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global warming
> scenario.

Really? Name two.

John T

March 9th 08, 05:46 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>
> IOW, you've got nothing. Noted.
>
> You wouldn't recognize evidence if it was scotch-taped to your
> forehead.

No less than you, my friend. Your position is apparently so weak you have to
resort to this tactic.

You're boring me. Come back when you have some real data.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 12:35 PM

On Mar 8, 3:22 am, Roger > wrote:

>
> >FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
> >of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
> >in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
> >the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
> >greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
> >during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
> >noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
> >term trends.
>
> That was on 01. They've changed their minds

You mean they were wrong before?

How very interesting....

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 01:06 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:c5KAj.14637$TT4.599@attbi_s22:

>> Support taking tax breaks away from oil companies and applying them
>> to alternative energy development. Vote against politicians who are
>> dumping subsidies into bio-ethanol production and for politicians
>> who'll spend the money on solar and wind power. Drive a more fuel
>> efficient car. Apply energy conserving methods to your home and
>> business.
>
> Hey, I feel green already. I am literally in favor of (or against)
> all of the things you are!
>
> Don't forget, I'm the guy who tried (unsuccessfully) to buy an
> electric car last fall, and we have spent the winter (and a stupidly
> grand amount of money) converting every light fixture in our three
> 3-story buildings to compact fluorescent bulbs.
>
> And everyone here knows how I feel about the scam called "ethanol"...
>
> So, you see -- even conservatives can be eco-friendly -- especially
> when being that way also benefits the bottom line.
>
> As to whether any of this will affect the world's climate, well, I
> think you know my opinion of *that*...

A misinofrmed idiotic opinion

And you aren;t a consevative. You're an idiotic narrow minded little
****.

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

March 9th 08, 01:09 PM

>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global
>> warming scenario.
>
> Really? Name two.

Bob and Ralph.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 01:09 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>> They were *the* cool thing to have in my neighborhood. I yearned
>>> desperately for one but only got to ride on the back of a few.
>>
>>
>> On the little rack or did your buds mount a buddy pad there? Mine
>> only had one seat which was a PITA, but it probably wouldn;t have
>> hauled tow up so well anyway. They are going for big bucks nowadays!
>
> Don't remember exactly. I do remember riding on the one guy's paper
> rack with my feet in the bags. ;^)
>
>
>

He he. I got a model of one a few years ago, sitting in a display case.
I traded mine for a 57 Buick which was in good shape aside from the
cooling system

Bertie

Kadaitcha Man[_2_]

March 9th 08, 01:14 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

> A misinofrmed idiotic opinion
>
>
> And you aren;t a consevative. You're an idiotic narrow minded little
> ****.

I agree that that is probably a misinofrmed, idiotic opinion.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 01:27 PM

"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> A misinofrmed idiotic opinion
>>
>>
>> And you aren;t a consevative. You're an idiotic narrow minded little
>> ****.
>
> I agree that that is probably a misinofrmed, idiotic opinion.
>
>
>

Thenkew.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 01:28 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:UjRAj.68145$yE1.52587
@attbi_s21:

>>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global
>>> warming scenario.
>>
>> Really? Name two.
>
> Bob and Ralph.

Evasion noted.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 01:46 PM

On Mar 9, 1:37 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> >> And I have a polite question: Do you understand why a 3 deg. C rise in
> >> global average temperature by 2100 is a big deal?
>
> > 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

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 04:25 PM

"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?

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 04:28 PM

"John T" wrote:

>>
>> You wouldn't recognize evidence if it was scotch-taped to your
>> forehead.
>
> No less than you, my friend. Your position is apparently so weak you have to
> resort to this tactic.
>
> You're boring me. Come back when you have some real data.

Bye-bye, Brave Sir Robin.

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 04:35 PM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global
>>> warming scenario.
>>
>> Really? Name two.
>
> Bob and Ralph.

Another evasion, I note.

You don't know anything about the science behind this subject, do you, Jay?

You're willing to assert it's all a crock without having made any effort to
understand what you're condemning.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 04:52 PM

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.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 04:55 PM

Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie
> the Bunyip says...
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:UjRAj.68145$yE1.52587 @attbi_s21:
>>
>> >>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
>> >>> global warming scenario.
>> >>
>> >> Really? Name two.
>> >
>> > Bob and Ralph.
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>
> Maybe they're acronyms?
>

'Big oily *******' and 'Regularly all lymphnodes park here'.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 9th 08, 04:56 PM

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
>
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 04:56 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global
>>>> warming scenario.
>>>
>>> Really? Name two.
>>
>> Bob and Ralph.
>
> Another evasion, I note.
>
> You don't know anything about the science behind this subject, do you,
> Jay?
>
> You're willing to assert it's all a crock without having made any
> effort to understand what you're condemning.
>

It's 'what he does'

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 05:06 PM

Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie
> the Bunyip says...
>
>> Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >, Bertie
>> > the Bunyip says...
>> >
>> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> >> news:UjRAj.68145$yE1.52587 @attbi_s21:
>> >>
>> >> >>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
>> >> >>> global warming scenario.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Really? Name two.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bob and Ralph.
>> >>
>> >> Evasion noted.
>> >
>> > Maybe they're acronyms?
>> >
>>
>> 'Big oily *******' and 'Regularly all lymphnodes park here'.
>
> How's life? I was glad to see upon my return that you seem to
> have a bit more time these days to devote to keeping the lazy
> and the stupid in their place.
>

You know, ups and downs. I get more time than I used to cuz company now
pay for BB in hotel rooms... There also seems to be a sudden glut of the
lazy and stupid these days.

Bertie

Kali

March 9th 08, 05:24 PM

In >, Kadaitcha Man
said:
: "Peter J Ross" > wrote in message
: ...
: > In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
: > the Bunyip > wrote:
: >
: >> "John T" > wrote in
: >> m:
: >>
: >>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
: >>>
: >>>>
: >>>> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
: >>>> wishful thinking."
: >>>> -John Derbyshire
: >>>
: >>> Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
: >>> hysteria.
: >>>
: >>
: >> **** you. I'm not hysterical.
: >>
: >> Bertie
: >
: > NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:
: It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both of
: those posts with the Tourette Bot :)
:
: However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
: worth setting up.

poopies.

--
Kali

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 05:28 PM

Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie
> the Bunyip says...
>
>> Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >, Bertie
>> > the Bunyip says...
>> >
>> >> Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > In article >, Bertie
>> >> > the Bunyip says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> >> >> news:UjRAj.68145$yE1.52587 @attbi_s21:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in
>> >> >> >>> any global warming scenario.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Really? Name two.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bob and Ralph.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Evasion noted.
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe they're acronyms?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> 'Big oily *******' and 'Regularly all lymphnodes park here'.
>> >
>> > How's life? I was glad to see upon my return that you seem to
>> > have a bit more time these days to devote to keeping the lazy
>> > and the stupid in their place.
>> >
>>
>> You know, ups and downs. I get more time than I used to cuz company
>> now pay for BB in hotel rooms... There also seems to be a sudden glut
>> of the lazy and stupid these days.
>
> I got lured out of retirement last summer by an old friend who
> needed help with his IT shop. I've finally gotten things to
> where I have some time to play again.
>
> I don't know if its the relative anonymity or what, but teh
> usernetz has always seemed to hold a fascination for the
> mentally challenged. A 'target-rich' environment.

I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's kooks-a-plenty all
the sudden.

Bertie
>

Cow Tse Tung

March 9th 08, 05:40 PM

In article >, Bertie
the Bunyip says...

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:UjRAj.68145$yE1.52587
> @attbi_s21:
>
> >>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global
> >>> warming scenario.
> >>
> >> Really? Name two.
> >
> > Bob and Ralph.
>
> Evasion noted.

Maybe they're acronyms?

--

"I never thought there were corners in time
until I was told to go stand in one"
.....Grace Slick

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 05:48 PM

"Dan" wrote:

>> 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.

You haven't got any climate researchers. If you did, you could post links to
their peer-reviewed research.

You got suckered by a bogus petition. Because you wanted to

> I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

You don't even know what it means.

Don't strain your back.

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 05:56 PM

On Mar 9, 12:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > 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

Fine by me.

I'll just move to Iowa where's it gonna be paradise pretty soon!

Dan

Cow Tse Tung

March 9th 08, 06:02 PM

In article >, Bertie
the Bunyip says...

> Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >, Bertie
> > the Bunyip says...
> >
> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> >> news:UjRAj.68145$yE1.52587 @attbi_s21:
> >>
> >> >>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
> >> >>> global warming scenario.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really? Name two.
> >> >
> >> > Bob and Ralph.
> >>
> >> Evasion noted.
> >
> > Maybe they're acronyms?
> >
>
> 'Big oily *******' and 'Regularly all lymphnodes park here'.

How's life? I was glad to see upon my return that you seem to
have a bit more time these days to devote to keeping the lazy
and the stupid in their place.

--

"I never thought there were corners in time
until I was told to go stand in one"
.....Grace Slick

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 06:05 PM

On Mar 9, 1:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> You haven't got any climate researchers. If you did, you could post links to
> their peer-reviewed research.
>
> You got suckered by a bogus petition. Because you wanted to
>
> > I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.
>
> You don't even know what it means.
>
> Don't strain your back.

You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little tactics,
same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity hand-
wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."), same name-
calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.

So I'll be very clear, and quote no one to substantiate my claims
because:

1) no matter which "peer reviewed research" is provided you will
dismiss it
2) you can do your own leg work, but clearly you don't care to

So here you go, one last time: Global Warming due to Man Made Causes
which will result in a 20 foot rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of
Unmitigated ****.

I'll stick around that long and be sure to point it out to you.

Dan

Just go look it up!

March 9th 08, 06:13 PM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:28:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>
>I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's kooks-a-plenty all
>the sudden.

Always plenty to go around in the "twin towers were brought down by
remote controlled 767s and controlled demolition" threads in
alt.conspiracy.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 9th 08, 06:16 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 12:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:bd53a4da-10c7-445f-a2ac-bf7ce8b1dabc@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
>
>
> Fine by me.
>
> I'll just move to Iowa where's it gonna be paradise pretty soon!

Why, is Jay moving?

Seriously, you seem to fail to undersnd what this is all about. it's not
about a slightly balmier climate. It's about a good deal more energy
being involved in the wx. Whatever else may happen, that is certain.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 06:21 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 1:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Dan" wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> You haven't got any climate researchers. If you did, you could post
>> links to their peer-reviewed research.
>>
>> You got suckered by a bogus petition. Because you wanted to
>>
>> > I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.
>>
>> You don't even know what it means.
>>
>> Don't strain your back.
>
> You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
> anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little tactics,
> same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity hand-
> wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."), same name-
> calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.

So, you're saying a nuclear conflict would have been no big deal?

And "your kind?"

Good grief.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 06:21 PM

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in news:mair_fheal-
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's kooks-a-plenty all
>> the sudden.
>
> election year
>

True.

Bertie

Cow Tse Tung

March 9th 08, 06:24 PM

In article >, Bertie
the Bunyip says...

> Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >, Bertie
> > the Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Cow Tse Tung > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > In article >, Bertie
> >> > the Bunyip says...
> >> >
> >> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> >> >> news:UjRAj.68145$yE1.52587 @attbi_s21:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
> >> >> >>> global warming scenario.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Really? Name two.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Bob and Ralph.
> >> >>
> >> >> Evasion noted.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe they're acronyms?
> >> >
> >>
> >> 'Big oily *******' and 'Regularly all lymphnodes park here'.
> >
> > How's life? I was glad to see upon my return that you seem to
> > have a bit more time these days to devote to keeping the lazy
> > and the stupid in their place.
> >
>
> You know, ups and downs. I get more time than I used to cuz company now
> pay for BB in hotel rooms... There also seems to be a sudden glut of the
> lazy and stupid these days.

I got lured out of retirement last summer by an old friend who
needed help with his IT shop. I've finally gotten things to
where I have some time to play again.

I don't know if its the relative anonymity or what, but teh
usernetz has always seemed to hold a fascination for the
mentally challenged. A 'target-rich' environment.

--

"I never thought there were corners in time
until I was told to go stand in one"
.....Grace Slick

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 06:30 PM

Just go look it up! > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:28:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's kooks-a-plenty all
>>the sudden.
>
> Always plenty to go around in the "twin towers were brought down by
> remote controlled 767s and controlled demolition" threads in
> alt.conspiracy.
>

Oh god, not those guys. I fly a 757 for a living and it's mindnumbingly
frustrating to try and explain even the simplest detail of flying to
those ****s. I dont find them very entertaining as kooks either. The
endless shrieks of 'shill, shill' just aren't all that much fun.
netkkkops are a lot more fun.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 06:33 PM

On Mar 9, 2:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 1:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >> "Dan" wrote:
> >> >> 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.
>
> >> You haven't got any climate researchers. If you did, you could post
> >> links to their peer-reviewed research.
>
> >> You got suckered by a bogus petition. Because you wanted to
>
> >> > I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.
>
> >> You don't even know what it means.
>
> >> Don't strain your back.
>
> > You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
> > anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little tactics,
> > same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity hand-
> > wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."), same name-
> > calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.
>
> So, you're saying a nuclear conflict would have been no big deal?
>
> And "your kind?"
>
> Good grief.
>
> Bertie

We all knew the conflict would be catastrophic.

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.

It was.

To the Soviet Empire.

And yeah, his "kind." The insulting, name calling, rude, and obnoxious
"kind."

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 06:37 PM

On Mar 9, 2:16 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > I'll just move to Iowa where's it gonna be paradise pretty soon!
>
> Why, is Jay moving?
>
> Seriously, you seem to fail to undersnd what this is all about. it's not
> about a slightly balmier climate. It's about a good deal more energy
> being involved in the wx. Whatever else may happen, that is certain.
>
> Bertie

You're right that I am failing.

I am failing to agree with those who insist that the oceans will rise
20 feet, the 0.6 Degree rise we see is solely due to man made causes,
and that the earth is unable to regulate the temperature through
natural processes.

I'm also failing to agree that when the Climate change apostles
preach, "All the world's scientists agree," but when anyone dares
offer contrary opinion, they are pilloried as "not climate
scientists."

You fly in weather -- when the hell did a "scientist" ever get it
right 50% of the time?

In fact, that's another laughable trait of this latest "crisis" -- it
is the first time in science history that "all scientist agree."

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 06:38 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 2:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:85a42407-674c-4cca-811f-09df90a0f7cb@
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 9, 1:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> >> "Dan" wrote:
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> You haven't got any climate researchers. If you did, you could
>> >> post links to their peer-reviewed research.
>>
>> >> You got suckered by a bogus petition. Because you wanted to
>>
>> >> > I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.
>>
>> >> You don't even know what it means.
>>
>> >> Don't strain your back.
>>
>> > You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
>> > anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little
>> > tactics, same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same
>> > celebrity hand- wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children
>> > too.."), same name- calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.
>>
>> So, you're saying a nuclear conflict would have been no big deal?
>>
>> And "your kind?"
>>
>> Good grief.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> We all knew the conflict would be catastrophic.
>
> 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.
>
> It was.
>
> To the Soviet Empire.
>
> And yeah, his "kind." The insulting, name calling, rude, and obnoxious
> "kind."

I know what you mean.

Anyone who takes a certain point of view must be a name-calling rude and
obnoxious "kind".

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 06:41 PM

Dan > wrote in news:f50cda79-23cf-46c7-b0f9-
:

> On Mar 9, 2:16 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > I'll just move to Iowa where's it gonna be paradise pretty soon!
>>
>> Why, is Jay moving?
>>
>> Seriously, you seem to fail to undersnd what this is all about. it's
not
>> about a slightly balmier climate. It's about a good deal more energy
>> being involved in the wx. Whatever else may happen, that is certain.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're right that I am failing.
>
> I am failing to agree with those who insist that the oceans will rise
> 20 feet, the 0.6 Degree rise we see is solely due to man made causes,
> and that the earth is unable to regulate the temperature through
> natural processes.
>
> I'm also failing to agree that when the Climate change apostles
> preach, "All the world's scientists agree," but when anyone dares
> offer contrary opinion, they are pilloried as "not climate
> scientists."
>
> You fly in weather -- when the hell did a "scientist" ever get it
> right 50% of the time?

These days they're getting it right about 90% of the time.

My flight logs come with forecast winds for every waypoint. they are
generaly within 10degrees and 5 knots of forecast hours form when the
forecast was made.
Vis, winds, precip, are all forecast to an accuracy that would have been
thought impossible just a few years ago.

>
> In fact, that's another laughable trait of this latest "crisis" -- it
> is the first time in science history that "all scientist agree."

Jesus wept.

Bertie

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 9th 08, 06:55 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's kooks-a-plenty all
> the sudden.

election year

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

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 07:21 PM

On Mar 9, 2:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I know what you mean.
>
> Anyone who takes a certain point of view must be a name-calling rude and
> obnoxious "kind".
>
> Bertie

Point taken.

It was a poor choice of words.

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 07:24 PM

On Mar 9, 2:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > You fly in weather -- when the hell did a "scientist" ever get it
> > right 50% of the time?
>
> These days they're getting it right about 90% of the time.
>
> My flight logs come with forecast winds for every waypoint. they are
> generaly within 10degrees and 5 knots of forecast hours form when the
> forecast was made.
> Vis, winds, precip, are all forecast to an accuracy that would have been
> thought impossible just a few years ago.

>
> Bertie

From which source?

I've yet to see winds aloft match the forecast except when very strong
(>40 Knots @ 3000) or very light.

That said, I think the effect of the local topography is not factored
in or perhaps ignored (The Alleghenies).

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 07:25 PM

On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
wrote:
> > Dan > wrote in
> :
> > > 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.

That's the point.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 07:35 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 2:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > You fly in weather -- when the hell did a "scientist" ever get it
>> > right 50% of the time?
>>
>> These days they're getting it right about 90% of the time.
>>
>> My flight logs come with forecast winds for every waypoint. they are
>> generaly within 10degrees and 5 knots of forecast hours form when the
>> forecast was made.
>> Vis, winds, precip, are all forecast to an accuracy that would have
>> been thought impossible just a few years ago.
>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> From which source?
>

Can't you read? Me. I just told you. Moi, Ich, myself with my own eyes.

> I've yet to see winds aloft match the forecast except when very strong
> (>40 Knots @ 3000) or very light.
>

Well, what can I tel you, must be a denier serivce you're using.

> That said, I think the effect of the local topography is not factored
> in or perhaps ignored (The Alleghenies).

Mine are for high alt. The wx service wont tell you the wind at the top
of every peak, that's YOUR job to extrapolate.

They could if they were so inclined, though.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 07:37 PM

Dan > wrote in news:1f57732b-9b4a-4cf3-ab21-
:

> On Mar 9, 2:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I know what you mean.
>>
>> Anyone who takes a certain point of view must be a name-calling rude
and
>> obnoxious "kind".
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Point taken.

What point?
>
> It was a poor choice of words.
>
I thought they were perfect.

Bertie

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 07:40 PM

Dan > wrote in news:9ced5bde-8241-4ecd-9cb5-
:

> On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
> wrote:
>> > Dan > wrote in
>> >news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>> > > 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.
>
> That's the point.
>

Ah, another point.

You're ahead by three now!

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 07:49 PM

On Mar 9, 3:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> These days they're getting it right about 90% of the time.
>
> >> My flight logs come with forecast winds for every waypoint. they are
> >> generaly within 10degrees and 5 knots of forecast hours form when the
> >> forecast was made.
> >> Vis, winds, precip, are all forecast to an accuracy that would have
> >> been thought impossible just a few years ago.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > From which source?
>
> Can't you read? Me. I just told you. Moi, Ich, myself with my own eyes.
>
> > I've yet to see winds aloft match the forecast except when very strong
> > (>40 Knots @ 3000) or very light.
>
> Mine are for high alt. The wx service wont tell you the wind at the top
> of every peak, that's YOUR job to extrapolate.
>
> Bertie

I don't fly high alt -- I fly between 5-14k.

I know what my job is -- thanks, and therefore how to extrapolate.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 07:49 PM

Dan > wrote in news:c95ff77d-661d-48a0-9a9c-
:

> On Mar 9, 3:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> These days they're getting it right about 90% of the time.
>>
>> >> My flight logs come with forecast winds for every waypoint. they
are
>> >> generaly within 10degrees and 5 knots of forecast hours form when
the
>> >> forecast was made.
>> >> Vis, winds, precip, are all forecast to an accuracy that would
have
>> >> been thought impossible just a few years ago.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > From which source?
>>
>> Can't you read? Me. I just told you. Moi, Ich, myself with my own
eyes.
>>
>> > I've yet to see winds aloft match the forecast except when very
strong
>> > (>40 Knots @ 3000) or very light.
>>
>> Mine are for high alt. The wx service wont tell you the wind at the
top
>> of every peak, that's YOUR job to extrapolate.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I don't fly high alt -- I fly between 5-14k.
>
> I know what my job is -- thanks, and therefore how to extrapolate.
>

Then how come you didn't realise that that is where the error lay?

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 07:49 PM

On Mar 9, 3:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I thought they were perfect.
>
> Bertie

Then I'll keep them.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 07:56 PM

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article
> >,
> Dan > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
>> 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.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 07:59 PM

On Mar 9, 3:49 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > I know what my job is -- thanks, and therefore how to extrapolate.
>
> Then how come you didn't realise that that is where the error lay?
>
> Bertie

The errors are in velocity as well as direction, and far above "every
peak."

I used winds aloft as one example -- if you're going to assert that
current weather forecasting is 90% exact, I wanna know what service
your using.

And that's forecast -- not observation.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 08:09 PM

Dan > wrote in news:6081a008-813e-4109-a18e-
:

> On Mar 9, 3:49 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > I know what my job is -- thanks, and therefore how to extrapolate.
>>
>> Then how come you didn't realise that that is where the error lay?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The errors are in velocity as well as direction, and far above "every
> peak."

I thoght you said you knew what you were doing?

Ever heard of bernoulli?
>
> I used winds aloft as one example -- if you're going to assert that
> current weather forecasting is 90% exact, I wanna know what service
> your using.
>
> And that's forecast -- not observation.

That's forecast.

I use the same as you. Within reason, I'll stand by the 90%. In fact,
that's a conservative estimate. Compared to what forecasting used to be
like, forecasting is uncannily accurate.

We use fido for flight plan sheets. that;s the ones with weather. The
other is the same as you get. I think I've been surprised by weather
once this year.

Bertie

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 9th 08, 08:17 PM

> Dan > wrote in
> :

> > 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

Talk-n-Dog[_2_]

March 9th 08, 08:23 PM

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
> In article >,
> Dan > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
>> wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>> 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

There was diplomacy on Aliens to ensure our survival and we're still
surviving.... Damn, that Diplomacy and everybody agreeing works to
save us every time.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 08:37 PM

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > 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.
>
> everybody who mattered agreed
> mr smarty pants

True. Point is the idiots are at the wheel at the moment.

Bertei
>
>
> bleaaahhhh
>
> 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
>

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 9th 08, 08:50 PM

In article >,
Dan > wrote:

> On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
> wrote:
> > > Dan > wrote in
> > :
> > > > 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

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 08:54 PM

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.
>> >
>> > 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.

Bertie

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 9th 08, 09:37 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Dan > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
> >> 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.

everybody who mattered agreed
mr smarty pants

bleaaahhhh

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

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 9th 08, 09:48 PM

In article >,
Talk-n-Dog > wrote:

> mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Dan > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal >
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Dan > wrote in
> >>>> :
> >>>>> 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
>
> There was diplomacy on Aliens to ensure our survival and we're still
> surviving.... Damn, that Diplomacy and everybody agreeing works to
> save us every time.

if youre talking about the weaver movie
hey dude that was a movie - twerent real

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

mariposas rand mair fheal

March 9th 08, 09:54 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> > 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

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

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 10:07 PM

"Dan" wrote:

> You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
> anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little tactics,
> same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity hand-
> wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."), same name-
> calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.

More empty hand waving.

You haven't come up with a thing to show that that scientists are using
"phony-baloney cooked up numbers."

Nothing but wind.

And the Oregon Petition, of course.

> So I'll be very clear, and quote no one to substantiate my claims
> because:
>
> 1) no matter which "peer reviewed research" is provided you will
> dismiss it

You don't have any; it's obvious. You're fooling no one.

> 2) you can do your own leg work, but clearly you don't care to

I've done it. You obviously haven't.

Go listen to some more talk radio, why don't you? That's about your speed.

> So here you go, one last time: Global Warming due to Man Made Causes
> which will result in a 20 foot rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of
> Unmitigated ****.

More gas from the gas bag. You haven't backed up a thing you've said because
you can't.

>
> I'll stick around that long and be sure to point it out to you.

What happened to your promise to go away?

About as reliable as everything else you post, evidently.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 9th 08, 10:09 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dan" wrote:
>
>> You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
>> anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little
>> tactics, same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity
>> hand- wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."),
>> same name- calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.
>
> More empty hand waving.
>
> You haven't come up with a thing to show that that scientists are
> using "phony-baloney cooked up numbers."
>
> Nothing but wind.
>
> And the Oregon Petition, of course.
>
>> So I'll be very clear, and quote no one to substantiate my claims
>> because:
>>
>> 1) no matter which "peer reviewed research" is provided you will
>> dismiss it
>
> You don't have any; it's obvious. You're fooling no one.
>

You misunderestimate the number of major fools out there.

Bertie

Roger[_4_]

March 9th 08, 10:14 PM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 05:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 8, 3:22 am, Roger > wrote:
>
>>
>> >FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
>> >of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
>> >in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
>> >the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
>> >greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
>> >during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
>> >noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
>> >term trends.
>>
>> That was on 01. They've changed their minds
>
>You mean they were wrong before?
No, the consensus was based on available and up-to-date information at
the time. Since then new, better, and wider ranging information has
become available.

You have to remember too that most of these scientists have to be
careful about stepping on the toes of any particular administration in
power at the time if they wish to keep the grant money coming in. As
the present administration was quite anti global warming and has now
only grudgingly admitted the mankind's contribution those scientists
public reports were ultra conservative. Several leading
climatologists (one from NASA and a couple from the IPC- If you need
names I can replay the recording) have been on the educational
channels recently explaining just how careful they had to be and the
figures they gave the IPC were only a fraction of what their research
showed as possible.

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

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 10:23 PM

On Mar 9, 6:07 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
> > You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
> > anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little tactics,
> > same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity hand-
> > wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."), same name-
> > calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.
>
> What happened to your promise to go away?
>

I decided to **** you off just a little bit more.

Very entertaining, that.

:-)

Dan

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 10:41 PM

"Dan" wrote:

>> What happened to your promise to go away?
>>
>
>
> I decided to **** you off just a little bit more.

You need to keep it up a lot longer to manage that.

> Very entertaining, that.

Mm-hm. You don't have to come up with any real arguments because you're just
"playing around."

It's all just for fun. Right.

The last refuge of the usenet loser.

But by all means, keep it up.

I'm patient, and I love outing bull****ters. Very entertaining.

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 10:43 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>> You don't have any; it's obvious. You're fooling no one.
>>
>
>
>
> You misunderestimate the number of major fools out there.
>

****.

Now I'm depressed.

Matt Whiting

March 9th 08, 10:49 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!

I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541

or this?

http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 9th 08, 10:50 PM

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.

Matt

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 9th 08, 11:04 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13t8q09p9jer492
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>> You don't have any; it's obvious. You're fooling no one.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You misunderestimate the number of major fools out there.
>>
>
> ****.
>
> Now I'm depressed.
>

Only just now?

Bertie>
>

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 11:06 PM

On Mar 9, 6:50 pm, Matt Whiting > 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.
>
> Matt

Damn... I need to watch more Oprah...

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 9th 08, 11:09 PM

>> 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.

Matt, do you know who came up with that phrase?

Check it out.

> The evidence that global warming is starting to ebb is mounting

No it isn't. You're being bull****ted.

Post the evidence you've seen, please.

> 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.

Oh, dear: here we go.

Do you really want to talk about this, or just throw around phrases like that?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 9th 08, 11:11 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:8RZAj.165$555.2156
@news1.epix.net:

> 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?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 9th 08, 11:13 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
>
>>> 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.
>
> Matt, do you know who came up with that phrase?
>
> Check it out.
>
>
>> The evidence that global warming is starting to ebb is mounting
>
> No it isn't. You're being bull****ted.
>
> Post the evidence you've seen, please.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Oh, dear: here we go.
>
> Do you really want to talk about this, or just throw around phrases
> like that?
>
>
>

Rhetorical, right?

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 11:14 PM

On Mar 9, 6:41 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> Mm-hm. You don't have to come up with any real arguments because you're just
> "playing around."
>
> It's all just for fun. Right.
>
> The last refuge of the usenet loser.
>
> But by all means, keep it up.
>
> I'm patient, and I love outing bull****ters. Very entertaining.

Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" -- another
word loved by libs.

And it's not for fun, except in your case. The emotional intensity of
your religious worry crusade is downright luminescent

Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

You haven't and in no way can prove otherwise. And no laundry list of
wikipedia links will prove it, either.

Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
to be right." Then I'll fly back to Iowa, just for the view.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 9th 08, 11:16 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 6:41 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> Mm-hm. You don't have to come up with any real arguments because
>> you're just "playing around."
>>
>> It's all just for fun. Right.
>>
>> The last refuge of the usenet loser.
>>
>> But by all means, keep it up.
>>
>> I'm patient, and I love outing bull****ters. Very entertaining.
>
> Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" -- another
> word loved by libs.
>
> And it's not for fun, except in your case. The emotional intensity of
> your religious worry crusade is downright luminescent
>
> Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
> Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
> rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.
>
> You haven't and in no way can prove otherwise. And no laundry list of
> wikipedia links will prove it, either.
>
> Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
> to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
> to be right." Then I'll fly back to Iowa, just for the view.=

Of the beach.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 9th 08, 11:59 PM

On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 6:41 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> >> Mm-hm. You don't have to come up with any real arguments because
> >> you're just "playing around."
>
> >> It's all just for fun. Right.
>
> >> The last refuge of the usenet loser.
>
> >> But by all means, keep it up.
>
> >> I'm patient, and I love outing bull****ters. Very entertaining.
>
> > Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" -- another
> > word loved by libs.
>
> > And it's not for fun, except in your case. The emotional intensity of
> > your religious worry crusade is downright luminescent
>
> > Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
> > Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
> > rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.
>
> > You haven't and in no way can prove otherwise. And no laundry list of
> > wikipedia links will prove it, either.
>
> > Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
> > to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
> > to be right." Then I'll fly back to Iowa, just for the view.=
>
> Of the beach.
>
> Bertie

Given postulate A, B is unlikely.

Unless plate tectonics does the deed.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 10th 08, 12:09 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:3e621972-cdcd-4c70-8f16-d3c7e154449d@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 9, 6:41 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Mm-hm. You don't have to come up with any real arguments because
>> >> you're just "playing around."
>>
>> >> It's all just for fun. Right.
>>
>> >> The last refuge of the usenet loser.
>>
>> >> But by all means, keep it up.
>>
>> >> I'm patient, and I love outing bull****ters. Very entertaining.
>>
>> > Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" --
>> > another word loved by libs.
>>
>> > And it's not for fun, except in your case. The emotional intensity
>> > of your religious worry crusade is downright luminescent
>>
>> > Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
>> > Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20
>> > foot rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.
>>
>> > You haven't and in no way can prove otherwise. And no laundry list
>> > of wikipedia links will prove it, either.
>>
>> > Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to
>> > 2100 to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and
>> > continue to be right." Then I'll fly back to Iowa, just for the
>> > view.=
>>
>> Of the beach.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Given postulate A, B is unlikely.
>
> Unless plate tectonics does the deed.

Flippant.

Bertie.

Cow Tse Tung

March 10th 08, 01:44 AM

In article -
sjc.supernews.net>, mariposas rand mair fheal says...

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's kooks-a-plenty all
> > the sudden.
>
> election year

If perchance you're a Jefferson Airplane fan, its worth catching
their latest incarnation in concert. Paul Kanter gets really
wound up with his political rhetoric in election years.

--

"I never thought there were corners in time
until I was told to go stand in one"
.....Grace Slick

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 10th 08, 01:49 AM

"Dan" wrote:

>
>> Mm-hm. You don't have to come up with any real arguments because you're
>> just
>> "playing around."
>>
>> It's all just for fun. Right.
>>
>> The last refuge of the usenet loser.
>>
>> But by all means, keep it up.
>>
>> I'm patient, and I love outing bull****ters. Very entertaining.
>
> Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" -- another
> word loved by libs.

Rightard babbling. It had to happen.

> And it's not for fun, except in your case. The emotional intensity of
> your religious worry crusade is downright luminescent
>
> Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
> Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
> rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

The same bombastic pronouncement. Do you imagine that repetition makes it
more effective?

> You haven't and in no way can prove otherwise. And no laundry list of
> wikipedia links will prove it, either.
>
> Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
> to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
> to be right."

Now you're lapsing into incoherence. Is there spit on your keyboard?

By the way, neither I nor anyone else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100.
That's all in your head. You're delusional.

> Then I'll fly back to Iowa, just for the view.

You are out of your tiny mind.

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 10th 08, 01:56 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>> Do you really want to talk about this, or just throw around phrases
>> like that?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Rhetorical, right?
>

Inevitably.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 10th 08, 02:16 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13t95a1jcq2up34
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>> Do you really want to talk about this, or just throw around phrases
>>> like that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Rhetorical, right?
>>
>
>
> Inevitably.
>
>

Sigh.

Bertie

Alan[_6_]

March 10th 08, 08:12 AM

In article > Roger > writes:

>In previous cycles the temperature rose and then "carbon forcing"
>caused the CO2 to rise. This time the CO2 rise is leading the
>temperature rise making it one of the causes rather than a result.
>
>So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says
>differently.
>
>The above remarks by Hansen can be found at
>www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/

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.

I say this with some seriousness. If people really believe that
releasing CO2 into the atomsphere is risking disaster, they should be
willing to abandon use of fuels for transportation, heating their homes,
and electrical power generation.

Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

Alan

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 11:50 AM

On Mar 9, 9:49 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" -- another
> > word loved by libs.
>
> Rightard babbling. It had to happen.

Your language reveals you.

> > Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
> > Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
> > rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.
>
> The same bombastic pronouncement. Do you imagine that repetition makes it
> more effective?

Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
to be right."

> By the way, neither I nor anyone else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100.
> That's all in your head. You're delusional.

I expect you to prove there will be a 10 foot rise by then.

Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 10th 08, 01:21 PM

(Alan) wrote in
:

> In article > Roger
> > writes:
>
>>In previous cycles the temperature rose and then "carbon forcing"
>>caused the CO2 to rise. This time the CO2 rise is leading the
>>temperature rise making it one of the causes rather than a result.
>>
>>So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says
>>differently.
>>
>>The above remarks by Hansen can be found at
>>www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/
>
> 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.

> I say this with some seriousness. If people really believe that
> releasing CO2 into the atomsphere is risking disaster, they should be
> willing to abandon use of fuels for transportation, heating their
> homes, and electrical power generation.
>
> 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..

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 01:25 PM

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
it.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 01:31 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 9:49 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> > Of course you wouldn't stoop so low -- except in "Outing" --
>> > another word loved by libs.
>>
>> Rightard babbling. It had to happen.
>
> Your language reveals you.
>
>> > Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
>> > Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20
>> > foot rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.
>>
>> The same bombastic pronouncement. Do you imagine that repetition
>> makes it more effective?
>
> Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
> Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
> rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

No, it isn't. It's a very real possibility.

>
> Furthermore, to really irritate you, I plan on sticking around to 2100
> to point to the ocean and say "You're wrong and I'm was and continue
> to be right."

this won't happen. It will be me saying I told you so (if I'm dead I'll
leave a note on the fridge) but it will be too late.
That's the problem with this problem. You could be right. I hope you
are, actually, because I doubt that enough will be done. I thinkn it
very unliely that you're right, but I'll concede that it's possible and
so would most scientists.
the problem is, even if you are right, alternative energy sources will
have to be found this century to replace oil. It is going to run out.
When doesn;'t matter. A few decades or even centuries is the twinkling
of an eye. Even if we've only used 25% of the available oil on the
planet, to use up in a couple of centuries what it took nature a few
hundred million years to make is just stupid, pure and simple.
the other problem is, if I'm right and you ae wrong, it will be too
late. The I told you so's won't be something we can laugh at over a
beer.
In short, it has to be done either way. The only difference is when. IC
technology, much as I love it, is a bore. Nothing really new in over a
hundred years, unless you count crappy FADECs and the like. The Jet
engine is over a hundred years old now. Steam was only king for a bit
over a hundred years and in fact when steam was younger than that the
new brats of the future were already toddling around amusing people.(
the early IC cars of the 1880s and the early attempts at flight) We can
develop technologies that can carry us into the next century and we can
do it now.
>
>> By the way, neither I nor anyone else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise
>> by 2100. That's all in your head. You're delusional.
>
> I expect you to prove there will be a 10 foot rise by then.
>
> Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
> couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "
>

SOHF

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 10th 08, 01:41 PM

Dan > wrote in news:1bb3d569-38ec-42e0-a26e-
:

> 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
> it.
>

Or convert it to run on bunny farts. I'm considering adapting my
homebuilt to run on something strange. don't know what yet, but the
airplane is unlikely to go very far afield and the eingine is capable of
digesting fuel with the octane rating of carrot juice so I have some
lattitude there.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 02:15 PM

On Mar 10, 9:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
> > Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
> > rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.
>
> No, it isn't. It's a very real possibility.

Since we discoursing reasonably, I have to agree that a sea level rise
of 20' (or any magnitude) is a possibility. A variety of plausible
phenomenon can cause this, including volcanic activity or asteroid
impact.

> That's the problem with this problem. You could be right. I hope you
> are, actually, because I doubt that enough will be done. I thinkn it
> very unliely that you're right, but I'll concede that it's possible and
> so would most scientists.

And here's the problem with the "cause" (and they admit this in their
own literature) -- No one will join the crusade if the net result is a
20 centimeter rise in sea level, or a 1 degree C rise in average
temperature.

They must stress the cataclysmic to get people's attention (see "the
Day After Tomorrow" or any local news before a snowstorm).

As far as conceding it's possible -- I concede I will have an engine
failure on every flight, and yet I plan to arrive at my destination at
a certain time. As pilots we plan for contingencies, yet proceed with
confidence based on expereince.

Caution is a good thing. The inherent problems in this approach are
unintended consequences.

Buy a Prius and save the world? Oops -- what about those huge
batteries?

Build lots of windmills and cut emissions? Oops -- just killed a few
hundred migrating raptors, native bats, and leveled a few thousand
acres of forest.

Replace all those paper bags with plastic? Oops.. now the landfills
are full.

While there is certainly interaction between human activity, the
atmosphere, and overall climate patterns, must we then conclude that
all human activity is thus harmful and that the only direction the
climate can change is towards damage?

> the problem is, even if you are right, alternative energy sources will
> have to be found this century to replace oil. It is going to run out.
> When doesn;'t matter. A few decades or even centuries is the twinkling
> of an eye. Even if we've only used 25% of the available oil on the
> planet, to use up in a couple of centuries what it took nature a few
> hundred million years to make is just stupid, pure and simple.
> the other problem is, if I'm right and you ae wrong, it will be too
> late. The I told you so's won't be something we can laugh at over a
> beer.
> In short, it has to be done either way. The only difference is when. IC
> technology, much as I love it, is a bore. Nothing really new in over a
> hundred years, unless you count crappy FADECs and the like. The Jet
> engine is over a hundred years old now. Steam was only king for a bit
> over a hundred years and in fact when steam was younger than that the
> new brats of the future were already toddling around amusing people.(
> the early IC cars of the 1880s and the early attempts at flight) We can
> develop technologies that can carry us into the next century and we can
> do it now.

I agree 100%. As I said long ago on an earlier topic, I really don't
care if my powerplant burns mouse turds. The energy source isn't what
we require -- the power is.

While the IC engine is old, it still is the most efficient means of
converting transportable stuff into thrust. Unfortunately there is
more worthless heat released than actually converted into what we
want. Perhaps that needs some tightening up.

But I need to make something clear. I'm no cigar-smoking
industrialist.

I live in one of the most industrially ravaged ares in the country
(Pittsburgh area). Not far from my house are rows of coke ovens long
dormant. The ground all around grows only a few weeds as the soil is
far too alkaline after years of coke cinders leaching. All around this
county are "brown fields" -- places too damaged by chemical runoff to
be used for anything but parking lots.

My son and I spent 8 days canoeing 220 miles down the West Branch and
main stem of the Susquehanna River. The West branch flows though what
is now pristine wilderness -- black bear, elk, and bald eagle live
all along the shores. But the water is gin clear due to high acid
levels from upstream mine drainage. No fish live in the upper reaches,
even though it passes through scenes pulled from "A River Runs through
It."

I've spent days and nights backpacking through the second and third
growth forests all up and down the Alleghenies. In the most stretch
spots you will find open, bare spots where a charcoal furnace once
stood. Now nothing grows.

But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and coyotes and
beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of thousands of
otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over the once
empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train rail yards.

The ability of nature to recover -- when supplemented by enlightened
protection -- is astounding.

While I don't reject reasoned debate on this topic, and am willing to
consider my impact and what I can do mitigate that impact, I will
always reject the modern Robespierre's, who accept only complete
fealty, and label all others "traitors to the cause."

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 02:39 PM

Dan > wrote in news:0c475af1-d8f3-4e5b-a9f9-
:

> On Mar 10, 9:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
>> > Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20
foot
>> > rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.
>>
>> No, it isn't. It's a very real possibility.
>
> Since we discoursing reasonably, I have to agree that a sea level rise
> of 20' (or any magnitude) is a possibility. A variety of plausible
> phenomenon can cause this, including volcanic activity or asteroid
> impact.
>
>> That's the problem with this problem. You could be right. I hope you
>> are, actually, because I doubt that enough will be done. I thinkn it
>> very unliely that you're right, but I'll concede that it's possible
and
>> so would most scientists.
>
> And here's the problem with the "cause" (and they admit this in their
> own literature) -- No one will join the crusade if the net result is a
> 20 centimeter rise in sea level, or a 1 degree C rise in average
> temperature.
>

I would. a 1 deg c increase is a very bad thing for weather patterns. If
nature causes it , os be it, but it's stupid for us to continue in this
way.

> They must stress the cataclysmic to get people's attention (see "the
> Day After Tomorrow" or any local news before a snowstorm).

Maybe, doesn't matter and I don't really care what "they" whoever
"they" are do. This is a real problem and a logical one and can be dealt
with.

>
> As far as conceding it's possible -- I concede I will have an engine
> failure on every flight, and yet I plan to arrive at my destination at
> a certain time. As pilots we plan for contingencies, yet proceed with
> confidence based on expereince.

You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of engine
failures.
>
> Caution is a good thing. The inherent problems in this approach are
> unintended consequences.

OK, the loppoing down of vast amounts of indonesia's rainforest to
support biofuels may be a good example of that, but there are lots of
smarter things we could be doing now. I mean like right now, by the end
of the summer now.
>
> Buy a Prius and save the world? Oops -- what about those huge
> batteries?

Band-aid. They're not as good as an equivelant diesel.
>
> Build lots of windmills and cut emissions? Oops -- just killed a few
> hundred migrating raptors, native bats, and leveled a few thousand
> acres of forest.

Not neccesarily.
>
> Replace all those paper bags with plastic? Oops.. now the landfills
> are full.

Reuse bags. Mandatory where I live, BTW.
>
> While there is certainly interaction between human activity, the
> atmosphere, and overall climate patterns, must we then conclude that
> all human activity is thus harmful and that the only direction the
> climate can change is towards damage?
>
Mind opointong out where I wrote that?

>
>> the problem is, even if you are right, alternative energy sources
will
>> have to be found this century to replace oil. It is going to run out.
>> When doesn;'t matter. A few decades or even centuries is the
twinkling
>> of an eye. Even if we've only used 25% of the available oil on the
>> planet, to use up in a couple of centuries what it took nature a few
>> hundred million years to make is just stupid, pure and simple.
>> the other problem is, if I'm right and you ae wrong, it will be too
>> late. The I told you so's won't be something we can laugh at over a
>> beer.
>> In short, it has to be done either way. The only difference is when.
IC
>> technology, much as I love it, is a bore. Nothing really new in over
a
>> hundred years, unless you count crappy FADECs and the like. The Jet
>> engine is over a hundred years old now. Steam was only king for a bit
>> over a hundred years and in fact when steam was younger than that the
>> new brats of the future were already toddling around amusing people.(
>> the early IC cars of the 1880s and the early attempts at flight) We
can
>> develop technologies that can carry us into the next century and we
can
>> do it now.
>
> I agree 100%. As I said long ago on an earlier topic, I really don't
> care if my powerplant burns mouse turds. The energy source isn't what
> we require -- the power is.

I like it as much as th enext guy as i'm sure you can see.
>
> While the IC engine is old, it still is the most efficient means of
> converting transportable stuff into thrust. Unfortunately there is
> more worthless heat released than actually converted into what we
> want. Perhaps that needs some tightening up.
>
> But I need to make something clear. I'm no cigar-smoking
> industrialist.

>
> I live in one of the most industrially ravaged ares in the country
> (Pittsburgh area). Not far from my house are rows of coke ovens long
> dormant. The ground all around grows only a few weeds as the soil is
> far too alkaline after years of coke cinders leaching. All around this
> county are "brown fields" -- places too damaged by chemical runoff to
> be used for anything but parking lots.
>
> My son and I spent 8 days canoeing 220 miles down the West Branch and
> main stem of the Susquehanna River. The West branch flows though what
> is now pristine wilderness -- black bear, elk, and bald eagle live
> all along the shores. But the water is gin clear due to high acid
> levels from upstream mine drainage. No fish live in the upper reaches,
> even though it passes through scenes pulled from "A River Runs through
> It."
>
> I've spent days and nights backpacking through the second and third
> growth forests all up and down the Alleghenies. In the most stretch
> spots you will find open, bare spots where a charcoal furnace once
> stood. Now nothing grows.
>
> But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and coyotes and
> beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of thousands of
> otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over the once
> empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train rail yards.

he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>
> The ability of nature to recover -- when supplemented by enlightened
> protection -- is astounding.

Sure. you get an injury you heal.

Within limits.
>
> While I don't reject reasoned debate on this topic, and am willing to
> consider my impact and what I can do mitigate that impact, I will
> always reject the modern Robespierre's, who accept only complete
> fealty, and label all others "traitors to the cause."

And you were doing so well there.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 02:54 PM

On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of engine
> failures.
>
Not yet -- you offering?

> > But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and coyotes and
> > beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of thousands of
> > otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over the once
> > empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train rail yards.
>
> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>

Hunh?

As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees that need
trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.

Dan

Talk-n-Dog[_2_]

March 10th 08, 04:11 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mar 9, 9:49 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>

>> Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
>> couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "
>>

And only inconvenient to those living on the waters edge. Venice
seemed to survive.

§ñühw¤£f[_2_]

March 10th 08, 05:31 PM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:44:22 -0800
Cow Tse Tung > wasted precious bandwith
with:

> In article -
> sjc.supernews.net>, mariposas rand mair fheal says...
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> > > I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's
> > > kooks-a-plenty all the sudden.
> >
> > election year
>
> If perchance you're a Jefferson Airplane fan, its worth catching
> their latest incarnation in concert. Paul Kanter gets really
> wound up with his political rhetoric in election years.
>
Its nice to know some people still think that America can be saved.
:)

--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/09/bush-serenades-cheneys-secrecy/

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 10th 08, 07:10 PM

"Dan" wrote:

>> By the way, neither I nor anyone else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by
>> 2100.
>> That's all in your head. You're delusional.
>
> I expect you to prove there will be a 10 foot rise by then.
>
> Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
> couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "

It's time you were reminded of how this discussion has gone, since you seem
somewhat absent-minded.

You showed up flinging around some platitudes about the earth, the climate
and humanity. One of these was this brilliant observation:

> Humans adapt, period.

To which I replied:

"So a 20-foot sea level rise over a couple hundred years would be just an
inconvenience. Right."

Making the point that there are enormous changes that *could* happen over a
far shorter time scale than previous periods of human adaptation. An event
that even you should see would be a cataclysm far beyond the adaptability of
modern civilization.

Somehow, you have twisted this around in your mind to believe I owe you
proof there will be a 10 foot rise by 2100.

Nuts.

You are not acquitting yourself very well in this thread. You've postured,
you've bloviated, but you haven't posted a thing that indicates you have a
clue what modern climate science is about. You appear to believe, for
example, that effects of global warming must be linear. Furthermore, you
expect science to "prove" things, evidence that you don't know how science
works.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you don't know WTF you are talking about.

But I know that won't stop you. Keep it coming.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 07:32 PM

Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
:

> On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of engine
>> failures.
>>
> Not yet -- you offering?

If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing and
need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and lashed
to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>
>
>> > But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and coyotes and
>> > beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of thousands
of
>> > otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over the
once
>> > empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train rail
yards.
>>
>> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>>
>
> Hunh?

The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so good" as he
passed the fiftieth floor.
>
> As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees that need
> trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>

Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around it and
you're set.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 07:33 PM

Talk-n-Dog > wrote in news:l5dBj.1744
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:9b1905bc-48dd-456e-8992-3ba5f2b8bbf6
@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 9:49 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
>>> couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "
>>>
>
> And only inconvenient to those living on the waters edge. Venice
> seemed to survive.

Well, it won;'t survie that unless they all move up a story in their
houses.

Bertie
>
>

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 07:37 PM

On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
> :
>
> > On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of engine
> >> failures.
>
> > Not yet -- you offering?
>
> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing and
> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and lashed
> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>
>
>
> >> > But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and coyotes and
> >> > beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of thousands
> of
> >> > otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over the
> once
> >> > empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train rail
> yards.
>
> >> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>
> > Hunh?
>
> The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so good" as he
> passed the fiftieth floor.
>
>
>
> > As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees that need
> > trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>
> Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around it and
> you're set.
>
> Bertie

Hmm..not a bad idea...

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 07:46 PM

On Mar 10, 3:10 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

Speaking of inconsistency...

>
> To which I replied:
>
> "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a couple hundred years would be just an
> inconvenience. Right."

> [blah blah blah snipped]

However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
head. You're delusional."

So which is it? 20' rise or not?

Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."

Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
from it, proving or disproving thier claims.

How very convenient.

Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
zealot.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 07:46 PM

Dan > wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
:

> On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
engine
>> >> failures.
>>
>> > Not yet -- you offering?
>>
>> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
>> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing
and
>> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
lashed
>> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
>> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
>> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and coyotes
and
>> >> > beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of
thousands
>> of
>> >> > otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over
the
>> once
>> >> > empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train rail
>> yards.
>>
>> >> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>>
>> > Hunh?
>>
>> The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so good" as
he
>> passed the fiftieth floor.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees that
need
>> > trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>>
>> Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around it
and
>> you're set.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Hmm..not a bad idea...
>

Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to get in
can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 07:53 PM

On Mar 10, 3:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
> engine
> >> >> failures.
>
> >> > Not yet -- you offering?
>
> >> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
> >> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing
> and
> >> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
> lashed
> >> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
> >> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
> >> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>
> >> >> > But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and coyotes
> and
> >> >> > beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of
> thousands
> >> of
> >> >> > otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over
> the
> >> once
> >> >> > empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train rail
> >> yards.
>
> >> >> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>
> >> > Hunh?
>
> >> The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so good" as
> he
> >> passed the fiftieth floor.
>
> >> > As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees that
> need
> >> > trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>
> >> Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around it
> and
> >> you're set.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Hmm..not a bad idea...
>
> Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to get in
> can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....
>
> Bertie

Point 1: Already done.

Point 2: bunny farts. plenty of rabbits and they procreate like mad.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 07:54 PM

Dan > wrote in news:2ac83c1d-1830-4501-a1b3-
:

> On Mar 10, 3:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
>> engine
>> >> >> failures.
>>
>> >> > Not yet -- you offering?
>>
>> >> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
>> >> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one
thing
>> and
>> >> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
>> lashed
>> >> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose
them!
>> >> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of
your
>> >> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>>
>> >> >> > But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and
coyotes
>> and
>> >> >> > beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of
>> thousands
>> >> of
>> >> >> > otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over
>> the
>> >> once
>> >> >> > empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train
rail
>> >> yards.
>>
>> >> >> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>>
>> >> > Hunh?
>>
>> >> The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so good"
as
>> he
>> >> passed the fiftieth floor.
>>
>> >> > As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees
that
>> need
>> >> > trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>>
>> >> Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around
it
>> and
>> >> you're set.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Hmm..not a bad idea...
>>
>> Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to get
in
>> can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Point 1: Already done.
>
> Point 2: bunny farts. plenty of rabbits and they procreate like mad.
>

Now all you have to do is invent the technology to power all of your
toys and your house on one.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 07:59 PM

On Mar 10, 3:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:2ac83c1d-1830-4501-a1b3-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 3:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
> >> engine
> >> >> >> failures.
>
> >> >> > Not yet -- you offering?
>
> >> >> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
> >> >> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one
> thing
> >> and
> >> >> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
> >> lashed
> >> >> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose
> them!
> >> >> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of
> your
> >> >> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>
> >> >> >> > But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and
> coyotes
> >> and
> >> >> >> > beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of
> >> thousands
> >> >> of
> >> >> >> > otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over
> >> the
> >> >> once
> >> >> >> > empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train
> rail
> >> >> yards.
>
> >> >> >> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>
> >> >> > Hunh?
>
> >> >> The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so good"
> as
> >> he
> >> >> passed the fiftieth floor.
>
> >> >> > As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees
> that
> >> need
> >> >> > trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>
> >> >> Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around
> it
> >> and
> >> >> you're set.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Hmm..not a bad idea...
>
> >> Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to get
> in
> >> can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Point 1: Already done.
>
> > Point 2: bunny farts. plenty of rabbits and they procreate like mad.
>
> Now all you have to do is invent the technology to power all of your
> toys and your house on one.
>
> Bertie

We're at 1250' MSL here. So in 600 years we have something to worry
about.

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 08:02 PM

On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of engine
> >> failures.
>
> > Not yet -- you offering?
>
> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing and
> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and lashed
> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)

My dad once did a masonry job for a guy who had a (hope I remember
this right) Wright Cyclone 1934 vintage he offered to sell for $200
(1978 dollars).

He said the thing was a piece of art, but he had no use for it.

'rents -- oy!

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 08:15 PM

Dan > wrote in news:6ed4470d-2dd8-4335-a052-
:

> On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
engine
>> >> failures.
>>
>> > Not yet -- you offering?
>>
>> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
>> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing
and
>> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
lashed
>> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
>> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
>> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>
> My dad once did a masonry job for a guy who had a (hope I remember
> this right) Wright Cyclone 1934 vintage he offered to sell for $200
> (1978 dollars).
>
> He said the thing was a piece of art, but he had no use for it.
>
> 'rents -- oy!

Well, they can still be got pretty cheap. Rebuiding is also reasonable
for a lot of round engines. Some are at a premium, like the Warners, for
instance, but the rest are still pretty cheap and practiacal A Cyclone
would be pretty thirsty though. Mine is a little one. A Le Blond. 265
c.i. The later ones had enclosed valve gear lubed by engine oil. Nice
little engine. Should make the airplane go and sound, very well.

BTW, the guy who claimed the urpcup was the most efficent is obviously
unaware of the LeBond powered Bellanca Junior, which did about 100 knots
on about 70 HP, Rearwins also used this engine and topped 85 knots with
it. The 90 HP Rearwin Sportster would cruise at 95 knots plus, and all
this years before the Ercoupe

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 08:17 PM

Dan > wrote in news:5a5da29a-a1ff-4aec-bd58-
:

> On Mar 10, 3:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:2ac83c1d-1830-4501-a1b3-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 3:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots
of
>> >> engine
>> >> >> >> failures.
>>
>> >> >> > Not yet -- you offering?
>>
>> >> >> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential
for
>> >> >> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one
>> thing
>> >> and
>> >> >> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well
and
>> >> lashed
>> >> >> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose
>> them!
>> >> >> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of
>> your
>> >> >> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>>
>> >> >> >> > But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and
>> coyotes
>> >> and
>> >> >> >> > beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of
>> >> thousands
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> > otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken
over
>> >> the
>> >> >> once
>> >> >> >> > empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train
>> rail
>> >> >> yards.
>>
>> >> >> >> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>>
>> >> >> > Hunh?
>>
>> >> >> The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so
good"
>> as
>> >> he
>> >> >> passed the fiftieth floor.
>>
>> >> >> > As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees
>> that
>> >> need
>> >> >> > trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>>
>> >> >> Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble
around
>> it
>> >> and
>> >> >> you're set.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Hmm..not a bad idea...
>>
>> >> Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to
get
>> in
>> >> can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Point 1: Already done.
>>
>> > Point 2: bunny farts. plenty of rabbits and they procreate like
mad.
>>
>> Now all you have to do is invent the technology to power all of your
>> toys and your house on one.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> We're at 1250' MSL here. So in 600 years we have something to worry
> about.
>

What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced and
hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..

Bertie

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 10th 08, 08:17 PM

"Dan" wrote:

>> [blah blah blah snipped]

Evasion noted.

> However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
> else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
> head. You're delusional."
>
> So which is it? 20' rise or not?

> Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."

You are being obtuse, as usual. I'm beginning to think it might not be
intentional. Can't understand anything besides a straight line?

> Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
> see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
> from it, proving or disproving thier claims.

That's happening right now, but you've never actually looked into it, have
you?

You're fond of repetition so I'll repeat what you snipped: you don't know
what you are talking about--and you can't be bothered to find out,
apparently.

> How very convenient.
>
> Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
> zealot.

More huff-n-puff signifying nothing. Who's being exposed?

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.

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 08:26 PM

On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Dan" wrote:
> >> [blah blah blah snipped]
>
> Evasion noted.
>
> > However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
> > else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
> > head. You're delusional."
>
> > So which is it? 20' rise or not?
> > Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."
>
> You are being obtuse, as usual. I'm beginning to think it might not be
> intentional. Can't understand anything besides a straight line?
>
> > Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
> > see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
> > from it, proving or disproving thier claims.
>
> That's happening right now, but you've never actually looked into it, have
> you?
>
> You're fond of repetition so I'll repeat what you snipped: you don't know
> what you are talking about--and you can't be bothered to find out,
> apparently.
>
> > How very convenient.
>
> > Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
> > zealot.
>
> More huff-n-puff signifying nothing. Who's being exposed?
>
> 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?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 10th 08, 08:30 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Dan" wrote:
>> >> [blah blah blah snipped]
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>> > However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
>> > else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
>> > head. You're delusional."
>>
>> > So which is it? 20' rise or not?
>> > Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."
>>
>> You are being obtuse, as usual. I'm beginning to think it might not
>> be intentional. Can't understand anything besides a straight line?
>>
>> > Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
>> > see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
>> > from it, proving or disproving thier claims.
>>
>> That's happening right now, but you've never actually looked into it,
>> have you?
>>
>> You're fond of repetition so I'll repeat what you snipped: you don't
>> know what you are talking about--and you can't be bothered to find
>> out, apparently.
>>
>> > How very convenient.
>>
>> > Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
>> > zealot.
>>
>> More huff-n-puff signifying nothing. Who's being exposed?
>>
>> 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?
>

Doesn't matrer, is the answer. Whatever else is going to happen, our
weather is going to become much more hostile, energy will get insanely
expnesive if we continue to use the current methods of obtaining it and
the world will generalyl become an even ****tier place to live except
we'll probably have realistic virtual sex and fancier video games.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 08:47 PM

On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced and
> hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
> This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..
>
> Bertie

People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.

But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
Climate Change:

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
(about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica. {6.4}

And again:
Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
(°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative to
1980-1999)
Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
Constant Year 2000
concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59

And again:
Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
grow linearly with global average temperature change,
the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
rise. {10.6}

If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
ocean.

The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept a
full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If a
negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would
lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."

See again the word "Millenia"

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 08:49 PM

On Mar 10, 4:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:6ed4470d-2dd8-4335-a052-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
> engine
> >> >> failures.
>
> >> > Not yet -- you offering?
>
> >> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
> >> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing
> and
> >> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
> lashed
> >> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
> >> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
> >> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>
> > My dad once did a masonry job for a guy who had a (hope I remember
> > this right) Wright Cyclone 1934 vintage he offered to sell for $200
> > (1978 dollars).
>
> > He said the thing was a piece of art, but he had no use for it.
>
> > 'rents -- oy!
>
> Well, they can still be got pretty cheap. Rebuiding is also reasonable
> for a lot of round engines. Some are at a premium, like the Warners, for
> instance, but the rest are still pretty cheap and practiacal A Cyclone
> would be pretty thirsty though. Mine is a little one. A Le Blond. 265
> c.i. The later ones had enclosed valve gear lubed by engine oil. Nice
> little engine. Should make the airplane go and sound, very well.
>
> BTW, the guy who claimed the urpcup was the most efficent is obviously
> unaware of the LeBond powered Bellanca Junior, which did about 100 knots
> on about 70 HP, Rearwins also used this engine and topped 85 knots with
> it. The 90 HP Rearwin Sportster would cruise at 95 knots plus, and all
> this years before the Ercoupe
>
> bertie

It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.

Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
materials, and perhaps..?

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 08:50 PM

On Mar 10, 4:47 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced and
> > hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
> > This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..
>
> > Bertie
>
> People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.
>
> But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
> Climate Change:
>
> Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
> (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
> than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
> of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
> temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
> present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
> Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
> contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
> rise. There may also have been a contribution from
> Antarctica. {6.4}
>
> And again:
> Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
> (°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative to
> 1980-1999)
> Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
> Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
> Constant Year 2000
> concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
> B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
> A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
> B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
> A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
> A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
> A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59
>
> And again:
> Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
> climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
> the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
> basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
> include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
> Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
> to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
> in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
> grow linearly with global average temperature change,
> the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
> shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
> Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
> these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
> provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
> rise. {10.6}
>
> If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
> levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
> 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
> Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
> due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
> ocean.
>
> The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept a
> full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If a
> negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would
> lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
> a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."
>
> See again the word "Millenia"
>
> Dan

The above were extracted from "IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers.
In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA."

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 08:53 PM

Dan > wrote in news:19208192-d0a1-4249-a6a8-
:

> On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced
and
>> hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
>> This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.
>
> But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
> Climate Change:
>
> Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
> (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
> than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
> of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
> temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
> present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
> Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
> contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
> rise. There may also have been a contribution from
> Antarctica. {6.4}
>
> And again:
> Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
> (°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative to
> 1980-1999)
> Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
> Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
> Constant Year 2000
> concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
> B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
> A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
> B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
> A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
> A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
> A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59
>
> And again:
> Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
> climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
> the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
> basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
> include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
> Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
> to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
> in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
> grow linearly with global average temperature change,
> the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
> shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
> Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
> these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
> provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
> rise. {10.6}
>
> If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
> levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
> 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
> Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
> due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
> ocean.
>
> The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept a
> full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If a
> negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would
> lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
> a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."
>
> See again the word "Millenia"
>
>

It's moving and moving fast now. The greater worry for the greenalnd ice
sheet is the dilution of the gulf stream there is considerable evidence
that it's salinity is already on the wane and it has been known to shut
down very quickly in the past.
It's not going to do much for the tourist trade..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 08:59 PM

Dan > wrote in news:ed613966-4828-4aa4-acba-
:

>
> It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.
>
> Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
> materials, and perhaps..?

Mostly the culprit is desigining airplanes that were relatively easy to
manufacture and also to make them more appealling to more people. The old
Bellancas were a thing of rare beauty. I'm strongly tempted to get on as
they are still very cheap. the old 150 Franklin powered Cruisair will do a
genuine 150 mph with four up.
And then there are the prewar Cessnas. Beautiful things that did an honest
135 mph on 145 HP...

Bertie

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 10th 08, 09:27 PM

Dan wrote:

>
> 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?

Only from the tears of the environmental wackos when the science doesn't
pan out.

Talk-n-Dog[_2_]

March 10th 08, 09:30 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:2ac83c1d-1830-4501-a1b3-
> :
>
>> On Mar 10, 3:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
>>>>> :
>>>>>> On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
>>> engine
>>>>>>> failures.
>>>>>> Not yet -- you offering?
>>>>> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
>>>>> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one
> thing
>>> and
>>>>> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
>>> lashed
>>>>> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose
> them!
>>>>> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of
> your
>>>>> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>>>>>>>> But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and
> coyotes
>>> and
>>>>>>>> beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of
>>> thousands
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over
>>> the
>>>>> once
>>>>>>>> empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train
> rail
>>>>> yards.
>>>>>>> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>>>>>> Hunh?
>>>>> The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so good"
> as
>>> he
>>>>> passed the fiftieth floor.
>>>>>> As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees
> that
>>> need
>>>>>> trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>>>>> Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around
> it
>>> and
>>>>> you're set.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Hmm..not a bad idea...
>>> Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to get
> in
>>> can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Point 1: Already done.
>>
>> Point 2: bunny farts. plenty of rabbits and they procreate like mad.
>>
>
> Now all you have to do is invent the technology to power all of your
> toys and your house on one.
>

You'll have to raise enough to give the poor power too.

The wind is free so we should all get free power right?

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 09:47 PM

On Mar 10, 4:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:19208192-d0a1-4249-a6a8-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced
> and
> >> hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
> >> This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.
>
> > But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
> > Climate Change:
>
> > Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
> > (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
> > than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
> > of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
> > temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
> > present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
> > Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
> > contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
> > rise. There may also have been a contribution from
> > Antarctica. {6.4}
>
> > And again:
> > Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
> > (°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative to
> > 1980-1999)
> > Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
> > Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
> > Constant Year 2000
> > concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
> > B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
> > A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
> > B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
> > A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
> > A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
> > A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59
>
> > And again:
> > Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
> > climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
> > the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
> > basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
> > include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
> > Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
> > to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
> > in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
> > grow linearly with global average temperature change,
> > the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
> > shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
> > Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
> > these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
> > provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
> > rise. {10.6}
>
> > If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
> > levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
> > 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
> > Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
> > due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
> > ocean.
>
> > The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept a
> > full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If a
> > negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would
> > lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
> > a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."
>
> > See again the word "Millenia"
>
> It's moving and moving fast now. The greater worry for the greenalnd ice
> sheet is the dilution of the gulf stream there is considerable evidence
> that it's salinity is already on the wane and it has been known to shut
> down very quickly in the past.
> It's not going to do much for the tourist trade..
>
> Bertie

Not sure about that:

"The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th
century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland
coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At
the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature
has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of
the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet
and coastal regions are not following the current global warming
trend. A considerable and rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland
occurred in the 1920s when the average annual surface air temperature
rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years (at some stations the
increase in winter temperature was as high as 6 °C). This rapid
warming, at a time when the change in anthropogenic production of
greenhouse gases was well below the current level, suggests a high
natural variability in the regional climate."

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/clim/2004/00000063/f0020001/05140445

Dan[_10_]

March 10th 08, 09:51 PM

On Mar 10, 4:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:ed613966-4828-4aa4-acba-
> :
>
>
>
> > It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.
>
> > Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
> > materials, and perhaps..?
>
> Mostly the culprit is desigining airplanes that were relatively easy to
> manufacture and also to make them more appealling to more people. The old
> Bellancas were a thing of rare beauty. I'm strongly tempted to get on as
> they are still very cheap. the old 150 Franklin powered Cruisair will do a
> genuine 150 mph with four up.
> And then there are the prewar Cessnas. Beautiful things that did an honest
> 135 mph on 145 HP...
>
> Bertie

Nearby is someone I have to visit -- Bill Pancake, who is apparently
world renown for his Aeronca expertise.

I was floored when I learned the TAS of a Staggerwing from an owner...
unbelievable. And what a huge cabin!

I'm still impressed by the efficiency and performance of the '47 35 V
tail....

Dan

Matt Whiting

March 10th 08, 10:40 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:
> 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!
>
> I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?
>
> http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541
>
>
> or this?
>
> http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html
>
>
> Matt

Dan,

I'm still awaiting your reply. Are you still there?

Matt

Roger[_4_]

March 10th 08, 11:31 PM

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.
>>> >
>>> > 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.

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

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 10th 08, 11:32 PM

"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?

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 10th 08, 11:35 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

>> 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?
>
>
> Only from the tears of the environmental wackos when the science doesn't pan
> out.

OK, "Gig," that doesn't even make sense.

If you're going to chime in, at least try to be coherent.

Otherwise, go out to the shop and glue something.

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 10th 08, 11:54 PM

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>>
>> I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?
>>
>> http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541
>>
>>
>> or this?
>>
>> http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> Dan,
>
> I'm still awaiting your reply. Are you still there?
>

Sorry, Matt; missed it.

My answer is "So what?"

The rantings of a couple of old cranks against the work of thousands of modern
scientists? Who cares?

But I know you a little, Matt. I know you distrust modern science and are
always looking for someone to tell you it can't be right. You're a young
earth creationist, aren't you?

If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing real
research, go ahead. But do me one favor: spend some time finding out what all
the fuss is really about instead of just hunting for sites that make you feel
good. I suggest you start here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

and here:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 11th 08, 12:38 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 10, 4:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:19208192-d0a1-4249-a6a8-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey,
>> >> displaced
>> and
>> >> hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
>> >> This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.
>>
>> > But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
>> > Climate Change:
>>
>> > Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
>> > (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
>> > than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
>> > of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
>> > temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
>> > present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
>> > Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
>> > contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
>> > rise. There may also have been a contribution from
>> > Antarctica. {6.4}
>>
>> > And again:
>> > Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
>> > (°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative
>> > to 1980-1999)
>> > Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
>> > Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
>> > Constant Year 2000
>> > concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
>> > B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
>> > A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
>> > B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
>> > A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
>> > A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
>> > A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59
>>
>> > And again:
>> > Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
>> > climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
>> > the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
>> > basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
>> > include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
>> > Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
>> > to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
>> > in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
>> > grow linearly with global average temperature change,
>> > the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
>> > shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
>> > Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
>> > these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
>> > provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
>> > rise. {10.6}
>>
>> > If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
>> > levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
>> > 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
>> > Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
>> > due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
>> > ocean.
>>
>> > The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept
>> > a full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If
>> > a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that
>> > would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice
>> > Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."
>>
>> > See again the word "Millenia"
>>
>> It's moving and moving fast now. The greater worry for the greenalnd
>> ice sheet is the dilution of the gulf stream there is considerable
>> evidence that it's salinity is already on the wane and it has been
>> known to shut down very quickly in the past.
>> It's not going to do much for the tourist trade..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Not sure about that:

I am. Read some more.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 11th 08, 12:47 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 10, 4:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:ed613966-4828-4aa4-acba-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.
>>
>> > Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
>> > materials, and perhaps..?
>>
>> Mostly the culprit is desigining airplanes that were relatively easy
>> to manufacture and also to make them more appealling to more people.
>> The old Bellancas were a thing of rare beauty. I'm strongly tempted
>> to get on as they are still very cheap. the old 150 Franklin powered
>> Cruisair will do a genuine 150 mph with four up.
>> And then there are the prewar Cessnas. Beautiful things that did an
>> honest 135 mph on 145 HP...
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Nearby is someone I have to visit -- Bill Pancake, who is apparently
> world renown for his Aeronca expertise.
>
> I was floored when I learned the TAS of a Staggerwing from an owner...
> unbelievable. And what a huge cabin!,

Yes, but pretty thirsty. The R985 powered ones drink close to 25 GPH
depending on how fast you want to go and how high you guy. A friend of
mine had a B model with a 225 Jake in it and that was considerably more
efficient. Almost all of the wacos had good performance as well.
>
> I'm still impressed by the efficiency and performance of the '47 35 V
> tail....
>

Yeah, and it's 60 years old. more than halfway back in the history of
aviation since the wrights now.
Speaking of which, there are some items on the wright flyer that were
just about perfect, first time. The props, for instance, were just about
perfect for that appliaction. Even a computer and a century of education
could improve only marginally on them. The airfoil was also very good
Remember the size of that airplane and the fact it flew on about 10 HP.
Astonishing. I have a lot of texts from the twenties and thirties.
People poke fun at the simple looking machines of that day, but thye
knew an awful lot.
And in fact, while on the subject. there was a house designed at the
time the primary goal of which was maximizing energy and resources for a
shrinking planet. the Engineer responsible was R Buckminster Fuller and
the house had an interesting shower, in particular, that would do the
job with only a cup of water. its only recently come into it's own,
being used in airplanes now..
It's supposed to work very well.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 11th 08, 12:48 AM

Talk-n-Dog > wrote in news:QLhBj.1879
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:2ac83c1d-1830-4501-a1b3-
>> :
>>
>>> On Mar 10, 3:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>> You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
>>>> engine
>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>>>>> Not yet -- you offering?
>>>>>> If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
>>>>>> deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one
>> thing
>>>> and
>>>>>> need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
>>>> lashed
>>>>>> to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose
>> them!
>>>>>> Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of
>> your
>>>>>> eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
>>>>>>>>> But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and
>> coyotes
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of
>>>> thousands
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over
>>>> the
>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>>> empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train
>> rail
>>>>>> yards.
>>>>>>>> he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
>>>>>>> Hunh?
>>>>>> The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so
good"
>> as
>>>> he
>>>>>> passed the fiftieth floor.
>>>>>>> As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees
>> that
>>>> need
>>>>>>> trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
>>>>>> Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around
>> it
>>>> and
>>>>>> you're set.
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Hmm..not a bad idea...
>>>> Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to
get
>> in
>>>> can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Point 1: Already done.
>>>
>>> Point 2: bunny farts. plenty of rabbits and they procreate like mad.
>>>
>>
>> Now all you have to do is invent the technology to power all of your
>> toys and your house on one.
>>
>
> You'll have to raise enough to give the poor power too.

Not a problem, he;s going to shoot them.
>
>
> The wind is free so we should all get free power right?

Yep!

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 11th 08, 12:50 AM

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.
>>>> >
>>>> > 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?

Bertie

Matt Whiting

March 11th 08, 12:54 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>> I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?
>>>
>>> http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541
>>>
>>>
>>> or this?
>>>
>>> http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>> Dan,
>>
>> I'm still awaiting your reply. Are you still there?
>>
>
> Sorry, Matt; missed it.
>
> My answer is "So what?"
>
> The rantings of a couple of old cranks against the work of thousands of modern
> scientists? Who cares?
>
> But I know you a little, Matt. I know you distrust modern science and are
> always looking for someone to tell you it can't be right. You're a young
> earth creationist, aren't you?
>
> If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing real
> research, go ahead. But do me one favor: spend some time finding out what all
> the fuss is really about instead of just hunting for sites that make you feel
> good. I suggest you start here:

A man considered "the father of scientific climatology" is all of the
sudden a crackpot? Wow, you really have bought the Gore and company
propaganda hook, line and sinker.

> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I didn't see a whole lot of interest above. I'm amazed at the
rationalizations some so-called scientists will stoop to in an effort to
support a faulty hypothesis.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

There is much more evidence that warming causes high CO2 levels than
there is for the converse, yet the rationalizations continue.

Matt

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 11th 08, 01:02 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> or this?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>> Dan,
>>>
>>> I'm still awaiting your reply. Are you still there?
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, Matt; missed it.
>>
>> My answer is "So what?"
>>
>> The rantings of a couple of old cranks against the work of thousands
>> of modern scientists? Who cares?
>>
>> But I know you a little, Matt. I know you distrust modern science
>> and are always looking for someone to tell you it can't be right.
>> You're a young earth creationist, aren't you?
>>
>> If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing
>> real research, go ahead. But do me one favor: spend some time
>> finding out what all the fuss is really about instead of just hunting
>> for sites that make you feel good. I suggest you start here:
>
> A man considered "the father of scientific climatology" is all of the
> sudden a crackpot? Wow, you really have bought the Gore and company
> propaganda hook, line and sinker.
>
>
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> I didn't see a whole lot of interest above. I'm amazed at the
> rationalizations some so-called scientists will stoop to in an effort
> to support a faulty hypothesis.
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
>
> There is much more evidence that warming causes high CO2 levels than
> there is for the converse, yet the rationalizations continue.

A statement in itself that displays an ignorance that is breathtaking.

Stop sniffing cordite, Matt.

oops, sorry, you killfiled me, dincha?

Bertie

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 11th 08, 01:07 AM

>
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> I didn't see a whole lot of interest above. I'm amazed at the
> rationalizations some so-called scientists will stoop to in an effort to
> support a faulty hypothesis.

Was there some specific criticism you had?

>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
>
> There is much more evidence that warming causes high CO2 levels than there
> is for the converse, yet the rationalizations continue.

Let's hear it.

Jay Maynard

March 11th 08, 01:26 AM

On 2008-03-10, Dan Luke > wrote:
> If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing real
> research, go ahead.

I'll listen to the "people doing real research" when they quit
excommunicating people doing real research and reaching conclusions that
don't agree with theirs. There's a LOT of vitriol from the climate change
industry directed at those who disagree with them. I believe it's because
their sinecures would evaporate if the real science was allowed to be
presented.

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.
--
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[_25_]

March 11th 08, 01:27 AM

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-03-10, Dan Luke > wrote:
>> If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing
>> real research, go ahead.
>
> I'll listen to the "people doing real research" when they quit
> excommunicating people doing real research and reaching conclusions
> that don't agree with theirs. There's a LOT of vitriol from the
> climate change industry directed at those who disagree with them.

No, there isn't.

Bertie

Roger[_4_]

March 11th 08, 01:32 AM

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:12:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote:

>In article > Roger > writes:
>
>>In previous cycles the temperature rose and then "carbon forcing"
>>caused the CO2 to rise. This time the CO2 rise is leading the
>>temperature rise making it one of the causes rather than a result.
>>
>>So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says
>>differently.
>>
>>The above remarks by Hansen can be found at
>>www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/
>
> 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.

>
> I say this with some seriousness. If people really believe that
>releasing CO2 into the atomsphere is risking disaster, they should be
>willing to abandon use of fuels for transportation, heating their homes,
>and electrical power generation.

IF the figures are correct we could reach acceptable levels by simple
conservation along with renewable energy/fuels OTOH it would require
we change our way of doing things and truely abandon the American love
affair with the automobile including abandoning "flex fuel" credits
except when the vehicle actually uses something other than a fossil
based fuel.
We've also installed automatic/programmable set back thermostats in
the house and shop. We've installed new windows and additional
insulation in the attic and installed a new high efficiency natural
gas furnace . The shop is also well insulated and has 16" of blown in
cellulose overhead. I've looked into both active and passive solar
energy, but in Michigan we aren't even on the "pay-back scale" maps.
In addition I can find no subsidies available for residential sites in
our state and the only federal for residential I find is available for
contractors and new sites. Our zoning makes it difficult for the
individual to build anything substantial. We have low rates coupled
with low sunlight (lotsa clouds) which reduces the payback on a
reasonable system to well beyond 20 years. For us to be independent
of the mains about 75% of the time comes out to about a $50,000
investment. (and that's for a house of only 1000 ft^2)

Here, We've reduced our electrical usage by some 40% plus change in
the last two years. ALL screw in bulbs have been changed to CFLs.
We've gone to a Hybrid car that is currently averaging about 46 MPG.
It does a bit better in the summer.
I only drive the relatively small SUV when I need it to haul *stuff*
that is either to big, too heavy, or too dirty/greasy to put in the
car. I only make a couple trips a week into town and even coordinate
my route/stops to minimize the miles driven. In the warmer weather my
wife rides her bike into town (bout 30 miles round trip by roads for
her) and we've both been retired for some years. She rides about
3,000 miles a year and is an activist in alternative forms of
transportation. So in addition to the increased fuel efficiency we've
cut our miles per year by more than 50%

However IF I used the Deb to visit the kids it's less than a one day
trip. If we drove it'd be several days, two hotel stays, and 12 meals
that could be eliminated so again, even though the Deb currently gets
fewer MPG than the car, flying saves energy and money for long trips.
Unless you keep a car until the wheels are ready to fall off they are
EXPENSIVE to drive when the expenses are calculated in the same manner
as flying. I calculated the cost of flying Vs driving to the Denver
area to visit my daughter. The cheapest two were flying commercially,
or *renting* a car. the Deb came in just under a single non discount
coach class fare. The most expensive was driving our own car.
NOTE the following ignores depreciation: Take for example a car like
ours that gets an average of 46 MPG. Say $30,000 over 5 years
including interest. That's $6000 per year. add to that the $700 plus
or minus a bit for insurance. (plus a lot in some areas). IF you
drive 10,000 miles a year that works out to 67 cents per mile before
we figure gas. OTOH gas at $3.25 is 6.9 cents per mile. IOW the gas at
a bit less than 10% of the total 73.9 cents per mile is still by far
the smallest cost in driving. However, keeping that car just one year
beyond the point where it's paid for drops the cost per mile (assuming
no additional maintenance) by a tad over 10 cents per mile. Like
airplanes, the more you drive/fly the cheaper your cost per hour as
the majority is in fixed costs. BUT with cars and particularly the
new ones and hybrids even more so, the cost of keeping one beyond a
given point can almost become prohibitive UNLESS you do your own work
and have connections for parts. the battery in the hybrid is guarantee
for which ever comes first 8 years or (80 or 100,000 miles - I forget
which) an that sucker costs over $4,000.

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.

BTW dropping the MPG to 18 just happens to raise the cost to 18 cents
per mile for gas at $3.25 a gallon.
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.

>
> Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed.

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

Matt Whiting

March 11th 08, 02:01 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>> I didn't see a whole lot of interest above. I'm amazed at the
>> rationalizations some so-called scientists will stoop to in an effort to
>> support a faulty hypothesis.
>
> Was there some specific criticism you had?
>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
>>
>> There is much more evidence that warming causes high CO2 levels than there
>> is for the converse, yet the rationalizations continue.
>
> Let's hear it.
>
>

Did you even read the article?

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?

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.

"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.

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?

Matt

Dan[_10_]

March 11th 08, 02:20 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 11th 08, 02:27 AM

On Mar 10, 8:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in news:ed613966-4828-4aa4-acba-
> >> :
>
> >> > It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.
>
> >> > Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
> >> > materials, and perhaps..?
>
> >> Mostly the culprit is desigining airplanes that were relatively easy
> >> to manufacture and also to make them more appealling to more people.
> >> The old Bellancas were a thing of rare beauty. I'm strongly tempted
> >> to get on as they are still very cheap. the old 150 Franklin powered
> >> Cruisair will do a genuine 150 mph with four up.
> >> And then there are the prewar Cessnas. Beautiful things that did an
> >> honest 135 mph on 145 HP...
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Nearby is someone I have to visit -- Bill Pancake, who is apparently
> > world renown for his Aeronca expertise.
>
> > I was floored when I learned the TAS of a Staggerwing from an owner...
> > unbelievable. And what a huge cabin!,
>
> Yes, but pretty thirsty. The R985 powered ones drink close to 25 GPH
> depending on how fast you want to go and how high you guy. A friend of
> mine had a B model with a 225 Jake in it and that was considerably more
> efficient. Almost all of the wacos had good performance as well.
>
>
>
> > I'm still impressed by the efficiency and performance of the '47 35 V
> > tail....
>
> Yeah, and it's 60 years old. more than halfway back in the history of
> aviation since the wrights now.
> Speaking of which, there are some items on the wright flyer that were
> just about perfect, first time. The props, for instance, were just about
> perfect for that appliaction. Even a computer and a century of education
> could improve only marginally on them. The airfoil was also very good
> Remember the size of that airplane and the fact it flew on about 10 HP.
> Astonishing. I have a lot of texts from the twenties and thirties.
> People poke fun at the simple looking machines of that day, but thye
> knew an awful lot.
> And in fact, while on the subject. there was a house designed at the
> time the primary goal of which was maximizing energy and resources for a
> shrinking planet. the Engineer responsible was R Buckminster Fuller and
> the house had an interesting shower, in particular, that would do the
> job with only a cup of water. its only recently come into it's own,
> being used in airplanes now..
> It's supposed to work very well.
>
> Bertie

When you think that aviation is that young, and consider that the 47 V
can be upgraded to modern and fit right in to all contemporary
requirements -- it really is amazing.

Of course it may just be how little progress we've made in 60 years?

It's interesting that the Wrights choose a canard, pusher design. And
yet since then there have been few truly successful follow ups.

A cup of water for a shower? Sounds like the ------baths I used to
take in the field in the Army -- one canteen cup, a hand towel, and
maybe some baby wipes.

Dan

Roger[_4_]

March 11th 08, 02:28 AM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 05:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 8, 3:22 am, Roger > wrote:
>
>>
>> >FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
>> >of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
>> >in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
>> >the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
>> >greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
>> >during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
>> >noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
>> >term trends.
>>
>> That was on 01. They've changed their minds
>
>You mean they were wrong before?

Take the original "Global Cooling" statement ( often misquoted). that
the press took out of context and all of a sudden we were headed
toward another ice age. The scientist who made the statement gave a
lecture last month on University TV. When asked the inevitable he
replied, that he never predicted global cooling as such. He said the
original statement was the given cooling would happen "if the
particulate matter (pollution) in the atmosphere doubled by a given
date". (I don't remember the amount and date but could look it up)
So the global cooling every one latched onto was never really
predicted, at least not by the guy they were giving credit for it.

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 11th 08, 02:32 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> 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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 11th 08, 02:35 AM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 10, 8:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:8eedffdb-127c-4e77-b8ce-1d995e07c09f@
60g2000hsy.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 4:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in news:ed613966-4828-4aa4-acba-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager
>> >> > HP.
>>
>> >> > Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
>> >> > materials, and perhaps..?
>>
>> >> Mostly the culprit is desigining airplanes that were relatively
>> >> easy to manufacture and also to make them more appealling to more
>> >> people. The old Bellancas were a thing of rare beauty. I'm
>> >> strongly tempted to get on as they are still very cheap. the old
>> >> 150 Franklin powered Cruisair will do a genuine 150 mph with four
>> >> up. And then there are the prewar Cessnas. Beautiful things that
>> >> did an honest 135 mph on 145 HP...
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Nearby is someone I have to visit -- Bill Pancake, who is
>> > apparently world renown for his Aeronca expertise.
>>
>> > I was floored when I learned the TAS of a Staggerwing from an
>> > owner... unbelievable. And what a huge cabin!,
>>
>> Yes, but pretty thirsty. The R985 powered ones drink close to 25 GPH
>> depending on how fast you want to go and how high you guy. A friend
>> of mine had a B model with a 225 Jake in it and that was considerably
>> more efficient. Almost all of the wacos had good performance as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'm still impressed by the efficiency and performance of the '47 35
>> > V tail....
>>
>> Yeah, and it's 60 years old. more than halfway back in the history of
>> aviation since the wrights now.
>> Speaking of which, there are some items on the wright flyer that were
>> just about perfect, first time. The props, for instance, were just
>> about perfect for that appliaction. Even a computer and a century of
>> education could improve only marginally on them. The airfoil was also
>> very good Remember the size of that airplane and the fact it flew on
>> about 10 HP. Astonishing. I have a lot of texts from the twenties and
>> thirties. People poke fun at the simple looking machines of that day,
>> but thye knew an awful lot.
>> And in fact, while on the subject. there was a house designed at the
>> time the primary goal of which was maximizing energy and resources
>> for a shrinking planet. the Engineer responsible was R Buckminster
>> Fuller and the house had an interesting shower, in particular, that
>> would do the job with only a cup of water. its only recently come
>> into it's own, being used in airplanes now..
>> It's supposed to work very well.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> When you think that aviation is that young, and consider that the 47 V
> can be upgraded to modern and fit right in to all contemporary
> requirements -- it really is amazing.
>
> Of course it may just be how little progress we've made in 60 years?
>
> It's interesting that the Wrights choose a canard, pusher design. And
> yet since then there have been few truly successful follow ups.
>
> A cup of water for a shower? Sounds like the ------baths I used to
> take in the field in the Army -- one canteen cup, a hand towel, and
> maybe some baby wipes.
>

It was a misting thing. Apparently it works quite well. He designed a
whole house system that looked a bit like a flying saucer back in the
thirties. As well as a streamlined body for the Model A ford which
doubled it's fuel economy. I think someone is restoring the dymaxion
house as a museum piece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house

Bertie