[Michael Press]

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-th...he%20queen.JPG

If you want to look slim ...

--
Michael Press

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 14, 6:05*pm, flipper wrote:

You took that witticism off a newly discovered ardipithecus carving,
no doubt.

Nah!

Just observation of the obvious. No wit required.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 14, 6:04*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

P.S. *Please do not cross post into other newsgroups; that reflects
poor Usenet manners, IMO.

Something else you should learn, Jonesy. Your opinion doesn't matter
to me. I'll do what I'm going to do regardless of whether you think it
is good netiquette, and sooner or later my version will become the
rule. So save your breath; I'm not in the least interested in
conforming to your lowest common denominator view of how one should
behave.

Yes, of course. All must conform to the "Great Jute" - Pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCC...eature=related

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 14, 1:22*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:21*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

For each green minded person there might be 2 who don't care what
happens and 3 who go by the FU2 idea and care only to own a 10 room
house, and make lotsa money to pay for a grossly polluting lifestyle
while cheering the boys with chain saws ripping down forests and
causing mahem and mass extinctions. They will believe we are entitled
to business as usual and God is on their side.

Oh, I dunno. I expect that God is pretty much indifferent to this
planet and its contents - it is all part of the bigger plan, after
all.

I agree on your points, that there is a God, that he, she or it is
indifferent, and there is a bigger plan which we are only scratching
at the surface to understand. As we look deeper into space we probably
will find the known universe is teeming with lifeforms and some might
be intelligent and we might really learn something. Then there are the
teeming universes outside our own. And our dissection of the atom
isn't over yet and much needs to be understood.
Had I lived in 1500, and said such things I'd have been burnt at a
stake somewhere.
Life has a queerness alright.

As to 'greeness' that is a moving target. Start with "things" - the
range from houses to cloths:
a) The greenest 'thing' is one that already exists.
b) Any new "thing" requires resources to make it, care to keep it, and
somewhere to put it when it is 'done'. This is called 'life-cycle
cost'.
c) Recycling has a cost - in many cases the cost is lower than the
alternative. In very nearly equally many the cost is equivalent to the
alternative. In very few, the alternative is both the wisest and most
green decision. Metals are category 1. Plastics wood, vegetable matter
and paper materials are category 2. Some are amenable to recycling as
similar products, some may become biofuels by distillation, some may
be burnt directly as fuel. Some chemicals (which likely should never
had been made in the first place) are category 3.


And one could say a whole pile of people shouldn't have been born.

I should show more tolerance eh.... :-)


d) No 'thing' may be viewed at a single moment. It must be viewed
across its entire life-cycle. So, windmills are very good 'things' as
they last a long time, don't cost very much and don't need much care
and use simple technology.

There have been a bunch of 50+ windmills erected 20km away on a hilly
ridge where the wind blows strong. After awhile their ruination of the
landscape becomes tolerable considering the power being generated.


Yes, there is cost in mining and refining
the materials going into them - but per category 1 above much may be
from existing sources, and when 'done' may be readily recycled. Solar
(photovoltaic) panels are very bad 'things' as they are costly to
install, costly to make and refine the materials, cannot be recycled
and have a limited life. Even with subsidies their so-called 'payback'
period is anything from 10 - 15 years. Without subsidies, they never
pay back due to those nasty life-cycle costs.

Indeed the volatge cells are a bit sus but all their metal is
recyclable. If they become dead at some point then the actual panels
don't contain a huge amount of noxious chemistry. So they seem benign
to me.

A company here has been selling panels which conatin vacuum sealed
glass tubes with metal pipes within to heat water. They are amazingly
more efficient at collecting solar heat and saving fossil heating of
water.
Every parent of a teenage daughter knows just how much time there
little dearie spends in the shower until the big tank of water runs
cold.

e) Similarly early-version hybrid vehicles. Making and disposing of
those batteries is a nasty process. It is getting better - but that is
a lagging technology. Better than gasoline - but not yet perfect.

There's a heap of progerss to be made.

So, as we look towards acquiring 'things' for the good life - we need
to make some choices. Do we buy our living 'thing' in a new
development (very likely on farmland) made with new materials (however
efficient)? Or do we buy an existing 'thing' that has never been on
farmland but may not be as efficient as that new 'thing'? The existing
'thing' is far greener than any new 'thing' in this case by any
measure. Even if bigger/smaller/whatever than the alternative new
'thing'. Follow that logic through all the rest of the 'things' we use
in our daily lives.

Do we restrict our life-style based on not wanting to use 'things'
that we feel are not so green, or do we do what we wish but with care
and acknowlegement of the footprints we leave? The former may (but not
necessarily will) lead to bitterness, resentment, provincialism, self-
righteousness and ignorance. The latter may be less 'green', but might
(not necessarily will) make us happier (and therefore better) people.

All our choices on 'things' have implications. And all that is
required is that when we make such choices we understand them.

"Thingism" is a fetid persuit. Otherwise known as "Stuffitis", or
rampant consumerism, or putting on the agony and putting on the style.
It could literally cost the earth.

But take your typical HT audio-visual system. The amoung of stuff to
make a big flat screen and 7.1 sound system is about the same as what
used to be used to make a pair of ESL57 and a pair of Quad-II plus a
control unit.
In time the stuff needed will diminish further. One can have a 700
watt amp with 7 channels using very little if is done with PWM amps,
ie, class D which are 96% efficient. Such huge advances in efficiency
allow a tiny weeny % of ppl to own a tubed stereo system with class A
amps weighing 120Kg. The vast majority of ppl will go for the
lightweight class D amps in a lightweight box and a huge flat screen,
and the cost is remarkably low. The sound of class D is at least as
good as the poorer class AB amps which class D is replacing, and it
suits a majority.

Patrick Turner.


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.

d

I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.

Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
it's anomalous.

When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
assertions, you've really lost the game.

d

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 14, 9:28*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:53 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:15:14 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:49 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

On Nov 12, 3:51*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.

Some people really need a lot of help to *put their minds in gear.

I admit that there is a possibility of a range of probabilities coming
true about greenhouse warming.

There is, currently, not even a working hypothesis for man induced CO2
'global warming', much less a theory, and speculation is not science.

You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.

d

I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.

Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
it's anomalous.

It all depends on how you construct the trend lines but if cherry
picked well enough, and 'anomalies corrected', they manage to claim a
'slight' (worst case flat) warming not as much as the previous but
'probably' (wave arms) just a 'pause' till it resumes even worse than
before despite there being not one shred of evidence to support the
speculation.

However, even if it did 'resume' we're no where near planetary 'highs'
for either temperature OR C02 and the only reason AGW pinheads imagine
so is because they actually think 150 years of measurements, 35 or so
if you only count satellites, coming out of a mini ice age means
something in a freaking 120,000 year glacial cycle. But despite our
best efforts at pumping CO2 into the air this interglacial is no where
near the last temperature peak 120,000 years ago, or the previous
interglacial cycle peak 240,000 years ago, or the interglacial peak
before that one as well as the one before that. All of which occurred
without the help, thank you, of Exxon, Mobile, Shell, BP and SUVs.

Hell, we're not even at the peak of THIS puny interglacial. That
occurred some 8000 years ago, give or take a few centuries.

And ALL of that is below the geological average as we're still in the
current 55 million year long (so far) glacial period with the last
honest to goodness 'warm' period being circa 75 million years ago; and
the preceding glacial period wasn't near as cold as this one. You've
got to go 3 glacial periods back some 450 million years to find
weather this chilly.

Oh, btw, CO2 levels were at a massive 4,500 ppm during that 450
million year ago COLD glacial period and 2,000 ppm during the 'not as
cold' glacial period 150 million years ago. Colder glacial period with
MORE, twice as much, CO2? And if CO2 drove temperature the entire
planet should have been a burned cinder instead of in deep glacial
periods.

Calling CO2 driven AGW 'science' is a farce.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Among the readers of r.a.t there would be a lot of doubters about
greenhouse warming.

Perhaps the high CO2 levels in the distant past were caused by
volcanic activity. Just hope and prey Yellowstone doesn't start up
bigtime any time soon. You could have high CO2 and cold if there was a
lotta smoke. An asteroid hit could have "interesting effects" not able
to be modelled easily. There may have been a big one that took out the
dinosaurs, but there also may have been smaller ones from time to time
whose impact left little evidence except what we see in the fossil
records.

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 15, 5:58*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 14, 1:26*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Pretty much a bunch of self-serving crap.

Andre, it is nice to see that you are doing your duty to the universe
and also serving as such an excellent example of why it needs be done.

To repeat: The human race, as you so fully prove has reached an
evolutionary dead end.

I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will
continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present
ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic
engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious
superstitions.


Lingering further simply impedes its
replacement from gaining its rightful place. So, our duty is to wipe
ourselves out as completely and quickly as is conceivably possible.
Failing that, to do nothing to impede the process. As to damaging the
planet in that process - again, repeating: all we are doing is messing
about around the edges and shifting a few oxides around here and
there. As the earth measures things our pernanent effect is nil and
our present value negative. But that we are rendering it useless for
ourselves is only a good thing. That we are fouling both our own nest
and that of many other planetary shareholders is also of no import,
again in a couple of million years all will be forgotten.

I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say.

We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into.
We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate
suicide.

If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be
left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human
elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2
million years time.

Patrick Turner

Keep on as you are - a ranting, brain-damaged little pipsqueak howling
from an Irish backwater. You are serving the highest and best use you
are able, after all.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.


You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart
from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we
are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps?

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.

d

I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.

Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
it's anomalous.

When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
assertions, you've really lost the game.

Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?


The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.

This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
"wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
more than somewhat desperate.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote:

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

The best available scientific experimentation and observation
(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.

Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
causes an atmospheric increase.

Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:35:42 -0600, flipper wrote:

This is the problem with models that use curve fitting.

I don't know which models you're referring to but GCMs generally
'model', not curve fit.

No, they do contain modules for the major known variables, but they
don't use theory, they juggle coefficients until things seem to fit.
And then of course there are the usual fiddle factors. The BBC had a
Met Office screen saver you could use for distributed calculation of a
climate model attempting to find a fit. The whole thing was utterly
ludicrous.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:56:14 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote:

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

The best available scientific experimentation and observation
(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.

Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
causes an atmospheric increase.

Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.

I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said
"implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the
data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with
proxies.

Sorry, I'm busy and not reading closely. Although Post Hoc doesn't
necessarily imply Propter Hoc, we can be sure that Pre Hoc precludes
Propter Hoc.

AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off
with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the
temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but
then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused
it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback"
scenario).

Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their
unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a
conforming 'explanation'.


Exactly, a classic begged question.

It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the
first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the
rest.


The whole thing is arm waving. Al Gore was interviewed on the BBC news
a couple of years back, and his entire talk consisted of debating
trade tricks. Very unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was the
interviewer who failed to call him on his chicanery.

d

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 15, 3:37*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will
continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present
ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic
engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious
superstitions.

Actually, if you think on it for a bit. genetic engineering - human-
engineered humans if you will - is an absolute dead-end. And as we
really haven't more than the smallest clue of the consequences of such
engineering it could wind up being the quite literal kiss of death.
That engineered individual will hardly be the product of evolution,
but the product of a committee decision on what is 'best'. An elephant
is a mouse made to government specifications, a camel is a horse
designed by a committee. Both are useful, but both are unintended
consequences.

I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say.

They cannot help but do so. The single variable is the amount of time
it takes. As it appears now we are pretty much doing everything within
our powers to move the process along short of deliberate self-
immolation. And that still remains a possibility.

We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into.
We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate
suicide.

No, few do. That particular behavior on this planet belongs only to
humans.

If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be
left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human
elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2
million years time.

Charles Addams had a cartoon in the New Yorker - two amoeba are at the
bottom of the last ocean after nuclear destruction, and they are
deciding whether they want to start over. The caption is: OK, only
this time, no brains. No human capacity has ever been supressed, and
no weapon of destruction has never been used.

Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Nate Nagel]

Peter Wieck wrote:

Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.

Eh, yes and no. You're correct that medical science can allow people to
live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." We
also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. However, it still
is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.

The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[[email protected]]

On Nov 13, 5:28*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:08*pm, landotter wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:54*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists,
designed carbon credits as a bigger bonanza for the ruling classes than
Prohibition. Fat Boy is the Joe Kennedy of our generation, a
"respectable" criminal.

Evidence for this claim?

Or is it so important for lunatics like yourself to emotionally
coalesce around lies that you'll just fix the facts afterward?

You get all insulting because I say Fat Al Gore is FAT? Sheet, Maxine,
you must be blind as well as impressionable:

Let's give you an eyetest. In this piccy, which FATTY is Greedyguts Al
Gore?
*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-th...20and%20the%20....

And once more, is the FAT guy on the left "Steal Big" Al Gore or is he
Fat Hanging Chad?
*http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/image...%20ROBERT%20DE....

Everybody's been laughing at Fat Al and his Church of Global Warming
Impressionables:

"Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he
is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the
election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every
time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the
scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman

"Gore's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David
Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al
Gore?'"

"And you can tell Gore's serious when he talks about the world ending
because he eats everything in sight." --Jimmy Kimmel

"If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president's
seeming largeness ... Here's an inconvenient truth: cake isn't a food
group" --Jon Stewart

Enjoy, Maxine, enjoy!

Andre Jute
*Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly

Don't know about Al Gore, but Queen Latifah is a godess

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 3:51*pm, " wrote:
On Nov 13, 5:28*pm, Andre Jute wrote:





On Nov 13, 10:08*pm, landotter wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:54*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists,
designed carbon credits as a bigger bonanza for the ruling classes than
Prohibition. Fat Boy is the Joe Kennedy of our generation, a
"respectable" criminal.

Evidence for this claim?

Or is it so important for lunatics like yourself to emotionally
coalesce around lies that you'll just fix the facts afterward?

You get all insulting because I say Fat Al Gore is FAT? Sheet, Maxine,
you must be blind as well as impressionable:

Let's give you an eyetest. In this piccy, which FATTY is Greedyguts Al
Gore?
*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-th...20and%20the%20...

And once more, is the FAT guy on the left "Steal Big" Al Gore or is he
Fat Hanging Chad?
*http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/image...%20ROBERT%20DE...

Everybody's been laughing at Fat Al and his Church of Global Warming
Impressionables:

"Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he
is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the
election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every
time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the
scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman

"Gore's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David
Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al
Gore?'"

"And you can tell Gore's serious when he talks about the world ending
because he eats everything in sight." --Jimmy Kimmel

"If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president's
seeming largeness ... Here's an inconvenient truth: cake isn't a food
group" --Jon Stewart

Enjoy, Maxine, enjoy!

Andre Jute
*Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly

Don't know about Al Gore, but Queen Latifah is a godess

I wonder how much Fat Al had to pay to be photographed with her.
British ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair charges 170 pounds sterling to
take a photo op with him. You can see Her Majesty Queen Latifah is
looking at Gore with the slightest tinge of distaste. Maybe she's a
closet Republican...

What's she a queen of anyhow, and why should Gore believe that she
casts credibility on her? Save me googling her, there's a good chap,
and tell me why she's enjoying the fifteen minutes Andy Warhol
promised us all.

Andre Jute
Not an impressionable. Not a trendy. Not even fashionable. Merely
right.

[Dan O]

On Nov 15, 7:47 am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.

Eh, yes and no. You're correct that medical science can allow people to
live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." We
also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. However, it still
is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.


.... You're gonna set me off again, man... ;-)

The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...

That's an economic trend. Even the people who now have children with
abandon, as you say, will have fewer when they rise into the middle
classes. Back in the 1960s when I first came to Ireland, it was a
society of the best educated peasants in the world whose young people
had to emigrate to find a living; families were large. When I came to
live here a generation ago, Ireland had joined the European Union
(whatever its name was then) and the family size was down to 3.8, i.e.
already below replacement. A couple of years ago Ireland reached the
fourth highest per capita GDP in the world, and the birth rate was
falling so fast, it was just quietly assumed in the chattering/
governing classes that to keep up the workforce we would have to look
towards immigration; hence Ireland's very open policy to immigrants.

Cyclists of the luddite religion should learn a lesson from this and
start encouraging growth because it means fewer people and fewer
people man fewer cars, and fewer cars mean emptier roads, and emptier
roads means increased safety for cyclists. Some people just don't know
what is good for them.

Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 1:45*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:56:14 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote:

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

The best available scientific experimentation and observation
(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.

Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
causes an atmospheric increase.

Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.

I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said
"implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the
data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with
proxies.

Sorry, I'm busy and not reading closely. Although Post Hoc doesn't
necessarily imply Propter Hoc, we can be sure that Pre Hoc precludes
Propter Hoc.

AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off
with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the
temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but
then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused
it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback"
scenario).

Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their
unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a
conforming 'explanation'.

Exactly, a classic begged question.

It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the
first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the
rest.

The whole thing is arm waving. Al Gore was interviewed on the BBC news
a couple of years back, and his entire talk consisted of debating
trade tricks. Very unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was the
interviewer who failed to call him on his chicanery.

You do understand, don't you, Don, that the BBC made a *policy
decision* that they would "support" global warming? It was announced
about the time the IPCC told news media that the "debate is over" and
"global warming is the consensus of the scientific community". Their
gullibility in this damaging public hysteria has undermined a trust in
their unbiased reporting it took the BBC three quarters of a century
to establish.

Now there are small signs of the BBC returning to sanity and balanced
reporting, but it is too late, their credibility is gone, and the
World Service television arm has a vested interest in global warming
scares because they're in part financed by those who have an interest
in keeping the hysteria alive. For instance, one of their biggest
advertisers is the Maldives, whose previous president closed down a
radio station rather than let the distinguished Swedish climatologist
who he appointed to study supposedly rising sea levels report that
there is no evidence sea levels are rising or will rise this century.
The current president of the Maldives held a stunt, faithfully
reported by the World Service, by holding a cabinet meeting
underwater. The BBC didn't, as far as I know, report the open letter
of the distinguished Swedish academician, appointed by the government
of the Maldives to study these matters, when he wrote to say there is
no danger to the Maldives of rising sea level.

Less science in global warming than in scientology, less honesty in
BBC reporting on global warming than in the sermons of redneck
fundamentalists.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

More no-nonsense analysis of the scientific shortfall in global
warming from the excellent Flipper:

On Nov 15, 12:56*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote:

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

The best available scientific experimentation and observation
(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.

Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
causes an atmospheric increase.

Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.

I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said
"implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the
data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with
proxies.

AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off
with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the
temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but
then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused
it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback"
scenario).

Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their
unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a
conforming 'explanation'.

It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the
first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the
rest.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 10:18*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.

d

I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.

Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
it's anomalous.

When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
assertions, you've really lost the game.

Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?

The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.

This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
"wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
more than somewhat desperate.

The analogy is with the Marxist Dialectic. If you decide what you will
find because it is your religion and unalterable, and then try to fit
the data to your preconceptions, you will always screw up. Every
experienced statistician knows that, except those involved in
climatology of the IPCC variety, who have gotten away with plain lies
and statistical fraud and intimidation of dissenters for so long that
they may think it a natural state of events.

It is striking that the Marxists debated precisely as the self-styled
climate "scientists" do: whenever the data absolutely and obviously
contradicts the preconception they're claiming to prove, they declare
it a "temporal anomaly" and pass on as if it didn't happen.

One ****** on RBT, a certain William Asher, simply describes proof
that there is no global warming, proof of lies from the IPCC,
condemnation under oath by the National Academy of Science in the
States -- all of it, as "boring, let's move on with what really
matters, how global warming could happen". That it's "uncool" to argue
facts about global warming is the modern version of the marxist
"temporal anomaly". In short, false religions are as false religions
do.

Always more of the same.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's recipes:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/FOOD.html

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 8:44*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart
from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we
are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps?

Nah, it won't be necessary; they'll die off anyway. According to
Meyers, a saint of the apocalyptics, half the species on earth will be
extinct anyway in a decade. He's been forecasting that since the 1960s
and every decade there are *more* species on earth than the decade
before.

Some people just don't want to see the truth.

Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 8:27*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:28*pm, flipper wrote:





On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:53 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:15:14 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:49 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

On Nov 12, 3:51*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.

Some people really need a lot of help to *put their minds in gear.

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 15, 6:47*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...

Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
suggests that blind alley.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 15, 10:29*pm, !Jones wrote:
Oh, well... I'm afraid that I don't have a great deal of emotional
investment here; further, as would be obvious should I close to the
debate, I'm only informed at a very low level. *Since I don't really
find the topic involving, I'm likely to remain thus.

On a cursory level, I find that the general conclusions are fairly
convincing. *It's a tad bit like arguing safety helmets... the
arguments against the idea of global warming are so utterly
overwhelmed by the preponderance of evidence

Where's this evidence, Jonesy. If it is so overwhelming, why don't you
show it to us. Should be easy enough, being "overwhelming".

to the contrary that I
tend to accept those data supporting global warming, all the while
acknowledging that other voices exist. *For that matter, smoking
tobacco has never been scientifically proven to cause health
problems... OK; however, I will accept what I see. *I'm not a medical
doctor, so you may do as you please.

Jones

False analogies all round, Jonesy, but sure, you want to make a
runner, don't let me detain you with reason or -- horrors! -- facts.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

PS
And you're poor white trash for renaming rec.audio.tube to
rec.audio.boobs. No one there would try to denigrate your hobby.

[Nate Nagel]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...

Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
suggests that blind alley.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Whether genetics play a role or simply being raised in a house with
well-educated, involved parents is the main factor, I do believe that
some people are better qualified to have kids than others. That may be
a not particularly PC opinion, but I do believe it to be true.

Oh, and being something of an aficionado of "vintage" SF, I am in fact
familiar with the story you mention...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Peter Wieck]

MY GOODNESS! You are an idiot. Not to mention leaping to conclusions,
post hog (ergo) propter hoc and so forth. No wonder you are Andre's
flavor-of-the-week. Please note the interpolations.

On Nov 15, 7:23*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:47:23 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:





Peter Wieck wrote:

Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.

Eh, yes and no. *You're correct that medical science can allow people to
live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." *We
also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. *However, it still
is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.

The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...

nate

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view,
Peter's conjecture has almost as many logic flaws as words with not
the least being the arrogance to imagine he knows the 'proper',
'improper', and 'dead end' paths of evolution.

Mpffff... don't know, don't care. Point being that the moment a
species protect their defectives and give them preferential breeding
status, it is doomed. Evolution is entirely merciless and evolution
has one (and only one) goal in mind - making more. The moment a
species interferes with or attempts to divert that goal, it is doomed.
(Fallacy of leaping to conclusions).

To wit, had the dinosaurs been given the gift of informed choice I
doubt they would have picked small, warm, furry bodies as their 'next
evolutionary step' but those 'inferior' creatures were the ones that
survived nonetheless and while Peter is, no doubt, infinitely more
intelligent than the dinosaurs he suffers, as do we all, from the same
lack of future vision.

The Dinosaurs had no choice in the matter. Warm, furry bodies just
happened to be more efficient at that particular moment and therefore
reached a (temporary) ascendency. We will no more choose our
successors than the dinosaurs chose theirs. But we will be succeeded.
Can't argue with several billion years of history, after all. (Fallacy
of false premises, and the Pathetic Fallacy, of course).

Now, while it may seem 'obvious' that 'defective' genes have no value
there's no way anyone, not even Peter, can know 'defective' genes
won't, either singly or in concert with other as of yet unknown gene
combinations, mutate and evolve into the next 'great leap'. Not to
mention some poor soul, despite suffering from a 'defective gene',
might be carrying some other gene of galactic important unbeknownst to
Peter.

Of course not - and exactly why 'engineering' is such a stupid blind
alley. We as a species haven't a clue of the consequences of our
smallest actions, much less something as fundamental as messing with
the genome. (Again, the fallacy of false premises).

The same goes for his argument about "spreading disease." While that
is certainly not 'good' for those affected the ones that survive might
be more robust. Is a physically more robust body evolutionarily
preferable to some other trait, or vice versa? Hell if I know and
neither does Peter.

There are several deseases out there that have neither a treatment,
cure nor vaccine, and that are (to-date) 100% fatal. And the spread of
these same diseases is entirely and 100% controllable - but that
control is simply not taken. Again, the mark of a lack of will to
preserve the species. Once that lack is not absolutely, paramount the
species is doomed - and as with any other element of the Human
Condition (in our case) - we are dickering over the time involved.
Point also being that these same diseases are blind alleys both for
the victims and the phages involved. No viable species will kill its
host (and itself) and be successful. (The fallacy of circular
reasoning). And a dominant species neither need be intelligent nor
attractive. (False premises).

I don't mean that as advocating, nor not, any particular policy but
simply to illustrate there's no way anyone can make the broad sweeping
declarations of clairvoyance Peter does.

Clairvoyance? Not hardly. Just basic observations of basic human
behavior. It ain't nohow rocket science. But when a species sends its
best-and-brightest to war and into high-risk circumstances to be
killed en-masse, leaving the inept, damaged, infirm and diseased home
to breed - what do you think might be the inevitable results? One
simple statistic to keep in mind: As of 1941, something like 21% of
the US population over 40 needed corrective lenses. As of 1946, it was
nearly 40%, as of today it is over 60%, perhaps as much as 75% (and
that spread is based on the fact that such issues are much better
diagnosed and corrected these days).Look at the statistics on
diabetes, asthma, allergies, and quite a few others. (Fallacy of
false premises, yet again).

(To your example, learned behavior isn't genetic)- Hide quoted text -

No. Lysenko is rather more discredited these days than not. Eugenics
still kinda-sorta has some limited traction, sadly. (Once again,
leaping to conclusions together with false premises).

Flipper, when you learn to read for content rather than for your
carefully crafted opinions based on received wisdom, go ahead argue.
Otherwise, you are micturating in a windward direction and showing
your silliness all and at the same time.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Dan O]

On Nov 15, 5:17 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...

Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
suggests that blind alley.



Whether genetics play a role or simply being raised in a house with
well-educated, involved parents is the main factor, I do believe that
some people are better qualified to have kids than others. That may be
a not particularly PC opinion, but I do believe it to be true.

We know: You're awesome; everybody else sucks.

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 15, 7:44*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart
from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we
are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps?

d

The Bacteria have been around for a long time. Their heating
contribution may have lessened slightly due to man's efforts to reduce
forest cover.

Without bacteria we could not live. Fortunately for us, they have not
suddenly developed into a threat by changing the CO2 % in air.

But what is now changing rapidly is mankind's sudden conversion of
underground carbon stores into carbon dioxide, and we threaten all
living things including bacteria.

Perhaps Bacteria sense the T rise and take action against us by
developing some incurable Plague which they inflict on us to reduce
our numbers.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 15, 9:18*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.

d

I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.

Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
it's anomalous.

When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
assertions, you've really lost the game.

Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?

The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.

Depends where you make your measurements.
We have had many days now of over 30C even though its only springtime
and such T were never seen until Christmas.
37C is predicted for next thursday.

If you think the planet is cooling, you are mistaken.



This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
"wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
more than somewhat desperate.

Modelling doesn't matter any more.

Climate change is happening.

And we look like the cause.

Patrick Turner.

d- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:39:33 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

On Nov 15, 9:18*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.

d

I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.

Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
it's anomalous.

When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
assertions, you've really lost the game.

Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?

The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.

Depends where you make your measurements.
We have had many days now of over 30C even though its only springtime
and such T were never seen until Christmas.
37C is predicted for next thursday.

If you think the planet is cooling, you are mistaken.


This is a joke right? Or do you seriously believe you can extrapolate
to the entire planet from your neighbourhood.? You remind me a bit of
the political pundit during an election. The first result was in, and
because the Conservatives had won the seat his model predicted that
the Conservatives would end up with 100% of the seats.




This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
"wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
more than somewhat desperate.

Modelling doesn't matter any more.

Climate change is happening.


Climate change has always happened. That is what climate does. A
static climate is almost unheard of in the history of the Earth.

And we look like the cause.


If you look really serious as you say it, it will be true.

d

[Patrick Turner]

Perhaps the high CO2 levels in the distant past were caused by
volcanic activity.

Doesn't make any difference 'where' the CO2 comes from. CO2 is CO2 and
the conjecture is that the CO2 'greenhouse effect' increases linearly
with atmospheric CO2 concentration. But the empirical observation is
that for the vast majority of the earth's existence that has not been
the case.

And I have said it depends on smoke.

It's only in the last some million years, or less, that CO2 appears to
correlate with temperature but even then it LAGS temperature, which
implies temperature (or something else) drives CO2 and not the other
way around.

Just hope and prey Yellowstone doesn't start up
bigtime any time soon. You could have high CO2 and cold if there was a
lotta smoke.

And where is your scientific experimentation and observational
validation for that speculation?

Smoke reflects heat that would otherwise pass through air and heat it.


That was the conjecture when temperature was falling and the
anti-technology freaks were screaming "another ice age is coming."
That speculation didn't pan out either.

Neither that nor current AGW hysteria is 'science'. It's doomsday nuts
looking at a weather 'blip' and then hysterically looking for "how man
caused it" when even the most casual observer can see "climate change"
is the blooming norm and has been for roughly 4.5 billion years.

Of course climate changes. It appears to be changing fast now. And the
change appears to be caused by mankind's CO2 emissions. This is
inconvenient because much effort has been put into buildings that will
be flooded when sea levels rise, or they will need to be retro fitted
with greener technology for heating or cooling. Whole countries full
of people won't be able to move to northern latitudes or to southern
latitudes to escape heating and more tropical hurricanes.


Btw, the 'smoke and aerosols' conjecture was used to predict a
'catastrophic' climate impact from the Gulf War Kuwait oil fires and
that turned out to be a big fat dud as well.

Those fires were not a big deal compared to the rest of mankind's
effects. The Victorian Bushfires of 2008 also released millions of
tonnes of CO2. But California is also getting more fires. In asia vast
tracts of rain forest are leveled in slash and burn agriculture. The
smoke haze lingers for months during a burn season.

Just about all of what mankind does now has a lot wrong with it.

You see, in science, when predictions turn out wrong we say the
conjecture is falsified but AGW just ignores it, claims "the science
is settled" despite nothing working, and trots right on along.

Temp is going up up and away. Meanwhile nobody wants to suffer the
huge increase in cost of living to avoid climate change.

Maybe its already too late to do anything useful.



An asteroid hit could have "interesting effects" not able
to be modelled easily. There may have been a big one that took out the
dinosaurs, but there also may have been smaller ones from time to time
whose impact left little evidence except what we see in the fossil
records.

We could speculate that space aliens stuck a giant sun screen in orbit
too but speculation isn't science either.

Its more likely that some rogue nation wil start a nuclear war.

Space aliens might sound unlikely but it's probably not any more
extraordinary than your speculation the universe decided to rain
unusually large climate altering meteors on the planet just
coincidentally with two glacial periods, continuously for some 50-80
million years a stretch, but convenient turned off the barrage during
the intervening warm periods, and then hid all geological evidence of
them just to **** off AGW fanatics.

The real aliens are us. We think we can do any ****en thing and
nothing bad will happen.


I'll tell you what the 'experts' say. After expected speculations they
end with no one has much of a clue.

There is a mass of consensus amoung experts about greenhouse warming.

You are behind the times.

AGW proponents, on the other hand,
simply ignore anything that doesn't conform to their dogma, deny it
exists, or wave it off as "something to figure out later." But that
isn't science, it's 'religion'.

However, you missed the main point; which is that AGW proponents are,
at best, misleading or, at worst, flat out lying because current CO2
levels are *not* 'unusual' nor 'high' nor 'unprecedented and global
temperatures are *not* 'unusual' nor are they 'hot' nor are they
'unprecedented' nor any of the other hysterical claims made.

The Mann 'hockey stick' temperature graph is an example of flat out
fraud but the IPCC still uses it.

All AGW mythologists have done is exchange the ashes and sack cloth
"The end is near, sinner repent" billboard with "global warming,
sinner repent."

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

Feel free to ignore the evidence.

Lemme see now, 6 billion x 10Kg CO2 per day 24 x 365 days per year.

That's a lotta gas.

When the Earth had a population of only 1bill, CO2 per head per day
was more like 1Kg.

Not much T rise occurred as a result. But we bred up and then got
hooked on a king's way to live, and we are heating the atmosphere.
Other species of life altered CO2 before now but not as quickly as we
are nor with any awareness of what it was doing. Our awareness gives
us a choice about how we want the future.


The best available scientific experimentation and observation
(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.

Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
causes an atmospheric increase.

I think you may find CO2 emissions have never declined over any of the
last 100 years.

But there is a hell of a lotta hot air being said about greenhouse
heating.

Meanwhile the heating continues and I expect to see many more days of
over 35C during summers here. Its as if the interior climate of Oz
with its 40C + day peaks is extending over the coastal regions where I
live. This means fiercer bushfires more often and gradual
desertifcation of farming and forested lands and a huge reduction in
dam water storages and food production.

I think mankind will do too little too late to alter the temperature
rise.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 16, 2:38*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:37*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will
continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present
ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic
engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious
superstitions.

Actually, if you think on it for a bit. genetic engineering - human-
engineered humans if you will - is an absolute dead-end.

But at first we are cautious about "Playing God".
Then we start cloning plants and animals and now we are into plant
species genetic engineering to put more food on the table at lower
cost.

Sooner or later genetics will be applied to mums and dads thinking
about starting a family.

For starters, there are many genes that should be removed so they
don't become part of any new human.

Companies will spring up to arrange the genetics you want in a child.
All for a nice old price. But things will get cheaper in 20
generations time.....

And as we
really haven't more than the smallest clue of the consequences of such
engineering it could wind up being the quite literal kiss of death.

The invention of atom bombs looked like the kiss of death. Nuclear
power also looked like another. So did DDT. But we LEARN about the
pitfalls of our inventions or ideas and at the moment nuclear power
seems like a good option without pollution, and when well managed DDT
in Africa is saving more lives than losing them.


That engineered individual will hardly be the product of evolution,
but the product of a committee decision on what is 'best'.

Evolution is where nature decides what is best in a given set of
environmental circumstances and incorporating random mutations.

We can emulate Nature and make mutations allowing better survival
chances.

An elephant
is a mouse made to government specifications, a camel is a horse
designed by a committee. Both are useful, but both are unintended
consequences.

You are far too simplistic and unimaginative about the possibilities
of the future IMHO.

Go back 200 years to 1809. Did anyone forsee our way of life we have
now? If you asked Isac Newton about the future you may have got an
imaginative answer. But from some peasant full of superstitions and
bull****, and not from you today.

Go back and bring Leonardo Da Vinci to our time now. He'd marvel at
what we have, especially at what doctors and dentists can do, and when
he saw an aeroplane he'd just say "Yeah, took ya a damn long time to
make big silver birds.."
So Leo would be surprised, but not over awed. He was bright sort of
man and would feel happy to work amoung us to bring a different future
to the now we know, and the past we so happily leave behind.


I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say.

They cannot help but do so. The single variable is the amount of time
it takes. As it appears now we are pretty much doing everything within
our powers to move the process along short of deliberate self-
immolation. And that still remains a possibility.

I agree we don't appear to be on a good course, but our story ain't
over yet. While we heat the planet much change is still possible.

We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into.
We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate
suicide.

No, few do. That particular behavior on this planet belongs only to
humans.

Kinda depressing to think intelligence leads to slow suicide.

Women in Oz have been having more kids. The rate of chidren per woman
has risen from 1.7 to 2.0 over several years. Do we dare disagree with
any woman? Maybe they just don't see non-survival as an option, or if
they sense coming difficulties subconsciously, they think the obvious
thing to do is breed more people if more are set to die, burn, or
starve.

Unfortunately, we only have a MALE PERSPECTIVE about the future of our
species and global warming.

If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be
left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human
elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2
million years time.

Charles Addams had a cartoon in the New Yorker - two amoeba are at the
bottom of the last ocean after nuclear destruction, and they are
deciding whether they want to start over. The caption is: OK, only
this time, no brains. No human capacity has ever been supressed, and
no weapon of destruction has never been used.

Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.

Well on this I'd agree.

The American and Australian solution to global warming = buy a bigger
air conditioner.

Good grief, any other solution is going to ruin us all.

Patrick Turner.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 16, 2:47*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.

Eh, yes and no. *You're correct that medical science can allow people to
live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." *We
also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. *However, it still
is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.

The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
those less qualified have kids with abandon...

But the proportion of intelligent people born stays about the same
overall. And we can have an easy but extremely high energy reliant way
of life even if the average intelligence is very low because it only
takes a very few smart arses to show the rest of us morons how to live
better than yesterday.

It takes less than 10% of all people to grow and process the food we
consume.

Cream rises to the top, and real intelligence takes in the ability to
survive well overall rather than to be a nerdy maths expert who never
has time to find a wife. But that nerd will inseminate the minds with
his ideas that could lead to useful advances. The nerd does not need
to have any children; his ideas have far more effect, eg, Bill Gates?

In any 100 people chosen at random, you will find some with a lotta
brains from big families who were poor. The advances dreamed up by the
brightest allow the prolific breeding habits of the dumb and the
weak.

Patrick Turner.

[!Jones]

Let's see if I have this right... in one posting, we get:

P.S. *Please do not cross post into other newsgroups; that reflects
poor Usenet manners, IMO.

Something else you should learn, Jonesy. Your opinion doesn't matter
to me. I'll do what I'm going to do regardless of whether you think it
is good netiquette, and sooner or later my version will become the
rule. So save your breath; I'm not in the least interested in
conforming to your lowest common denominator view of how one should
behave.

Then, in your next posting, you write:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:52:19 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote:

And you're poor white trash for renaming rec.audio.tube to
rec.audio.boobs. No one there would try to denigrate your hobby.

Perhaps you might want to save your breath, buddy; I'm not in the
least interested in conforming to your lowest common denominator view
of how one should behave... and, if you don't like it, just remember:
you wrote it.

Jones

[Trevor Wilson]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote:

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

The best available scientific experimentation and observation
(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.

Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
causes an atmospheric increase.

Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.

**********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby, does
not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it can
clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now, we
are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:

-394ky
-353ky
-333ky
-304ky
-295ky
-258ky
-183ky
-85ky
-18ky
now

You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and CO2
levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the
fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures are
following.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote:

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

The best available scientific experimentation and observation
(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.

Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
causes an atmospheric increase.

Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.

**********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby, does
not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it can
clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now, we
are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:

-394ky
-353ky
-333ky
-304ky
-295ky
-258ky
-183ky
-85ky
-18ky
now

You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and CO2
levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the
fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures are
following.

Let me quote that article

"However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and
water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration
increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or
whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of
the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much
has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or
perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."

And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2
concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees.

d

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 16, 3:42*pm, !Jones wrote:

Perhaps you might want to save your breath, buddy; I'm not in the
least interested in conforming to your lowest common denominator view
of how one should behave... and, if you don't like it, just remember:
you wrote it.

Jones, didn't you know?? Andre conforms to the Golden Rule - thems
what is the gold makes the rules. As he is the gold standard for all
he surveys and his domain is infinite - less only to that of the
Creator, resistance is futile.

(And actual discussion will leave you spinning. In the immortal words
of Gertrude Stein: "There is no There there.")

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Trevor Wilson]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote:

Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
so the atmosphere is heating up.

There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

The best available scientific experimentation and observation
(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.

Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
causes an atmospheric increase.

Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.

**********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby, does
not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it
can
clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now,
we
are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:

-394ky
-353ky
-333ky
-304ky
-295ky
-258ky
-183ky
-85ky
-18ky
now

You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and
CO2
levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the
fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures
are
following.

Let me quote that article

"However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and
water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration
increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or
whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of
the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much
has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or
perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."

And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2
concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees.

**CO2 is not the SOLE driver of temperature and climate on this planet. It
is ONE driver. In the last 150 years we have witnessed a rise in temperature
that has been more rapid than at any time in the last 600,000 years. It has
coincided with a similarly rapid rise in CO2 levels. Solar output, volcano
activity and other factors have not been able to explain the rise in
temperatures. The only factor left is C)2 levels. Given that we know, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that CO2 is a potent GHG, then it is reasonable to accept
the fact that humans are altering the climate of this planet.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Wieck]

Mpfffff.... All of you. Invincible Ignorance is just that.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA