| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 16, 8:42*pm, !Jones wrote:
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 There's a difference, Jonesy. You told me what I could and couldn't do. I didn't tell you to do anything at all, I merely observed that doing what you did makes you trailer park trash. I trust this note enhances your grasp of simple English; it would be too much to ask it to improve your morality. Andre Jute No human corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless Wiecky. I made him by stuffing a cow's bladder with pig offal. -- CE Statement of Conformity |
|
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 16, 9:55*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "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.*** Prove it, Trevor. 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. Since when did you go into the rotten lace business, Trevor? Or is that argument full of holes supposed to be a smelly Swiss cheese? -- Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here. Andre Jute Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science |
|
#83
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who's Danno got a hard-on for this week, was There's more sciencein Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 16, 2:50*am, Dan O wrote:
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. Maybe you two guys should get a room, let it all hang out. -- AJ |
|
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 16, 9:55*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "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.*** Prove it, Trevor. 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. Since when did you go into the rotten lace business, Trevor? Or is that argument full of holes supposed to be a smelly Swiss cheese? -- Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here. Andre Jute Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science |
|
#85
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who's Danno got a hard-on for this week, was There's morescience in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:50 am, Dan O wrote: 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. Maybe you two guys should get a room, let it all hang out. -- AJ Why would I get a room with someone whose posts I only see when you reply to them? nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
|
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "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.*** Prove it, Trevor. **Certainly. Examine the ice core data: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ 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. Since when did you go into the rotten lace business, Trevor? Or is that argument full of holes supposed to be a smelly Swiss cheese? -- Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here. **We all are. The planet is warming precipitously and some stupid people are disregarding the science, in preference for charlatans, liars and those who have an agenda. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#87
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who's Danno got a hard-on for this week, was There's morescience in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34worship!
On Nov 17, 12:29*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: On Nov 16, 2:50 am, Dan O wrote: On Nov 15, 5:17 pm, Nate Nagel wrote: 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. Maybe you two guys should get a room, let it all hang out. -- AJ Why would I get a room with someone whose posts I only see when you reply to them? Because only one of you will come out of that room, and I'm betting on you. I see the posts of Worthless Wiecky only when some newbie responds to him, so we're square. 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 |
|
#88
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
Hey, Andre....
No killfile after all? What a whining, puling, silly excuse of a jackass you have become in your latter years. You do really need your meds adjusted - you are playing well out of your depth, old thing! Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#89
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jonesy blows more smoke
On Nov 16, 12:44*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:59:02 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Pat" wrote: Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. *That "has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst. Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. *To do that, you'd have to start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for three decades while the other does not smoke. *Differences could then be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis. Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there will never be one. * Er, Jonesy, didn't they teach you any logic? If there is no proof that smoking tobacco is dangerous, why would it be "highly unethical" to conduct a corntrolled test to observe its effect? Leaving aside the fact that an act is either unethical or it is ethical, with no gradations, no "highly". For this reason, all we can do is point to correlation. *I'm not saying that smoking does *not* cause health problems... that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr. Jute writes: I'll take up this crap in a separate post. Andre Jute A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes |
|
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:55:39 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "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. Whether it's a 'driver', and if it is to what magnitude, remains to be seen. **We already know that CO2 provides Solar forcing equivalent to between 9% ~ 26%. This is not an insignificant range. 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. False. http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full **It would seem that the Greenland data does not agree entirely with the Antarctic data. Perhaps the Greenland data reflects more localised conditions? It has coincided with a similarly rapid rise in CO2 levels. Coincidence is not cause and effect. **When examining the data, you should note that correlation is VERY close. Without far more study, it is impossible to cite cause and effect. The data, however, is compelling. Solar output, volcano activity and other factors have not been able to explain the rise in temperatures. Partly because they've been summarily dismissed with little research done in those areas in deference to the 'presumed' conjecture. **********. Read ALL these reports: http://www.ipcc.ch/ All the known contributors to climate change are carefully examined. AGW is also riddled with things they "have not been able to explain" but AGW simply ignores them because, contrary to all scientific methodology, the conjecture is presumed true. **Nope. Just the science. Read these reports: http://www.ipcc.ch/ The only factor left is C)2 levels. Oh? Prove it. **We know that CO2 acts as a potent, long lasting GHG. Experimental data stretching back more than 100 years confirms this. Hint, that's a trap because you can't prove a negative. Which also means the claim cannot be made. **Then you may care to provide your suggestion as to why we are in the middle of a warming trend. Solar variability only explains 20% of the warming. The other 80% must be accounted for. Since CO2 is a known GHG and has increased by more than 30% over the period of the warming, it would seem that it is the likely culprit. I will, however, await you alternate explanation. Given that we know, You cannot know what you don't know. **We know that CO2 is a potent, long lasting GHG. A GHG that acts with around 9% ~ 26%. The argument that 'this is the only thing left that we know of" is fallacious because ignorance is not proof. E.g. Let us go back a few thousand years and speculate on the makeup of things. "All things must be made of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire because we know of nothing else that can explain it." Do you think that proves all things are made of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire or do you suspect there were a few things they didn't know? **That would depend on your definition of "Earth" and "air". The periodic table of elements can be found in "Earth", save a handful of manufactured elements. Btw, this logic fallacy is one of the things the scientific method is designed to address. I.E. Something is not presumed valid simply because it's currently your favorite speculation. **Indeed. CO2 is, however, the elephant in the room. beyond a shadow of doubt, A statement of religious fervor. **A statement of fact. CO2 is a known GHG. Nothing in science is "beyond a shadow of doubt" and the last time, before AGW that is, 'scientists' fell into that fallacious trap was the late 19'th century when it was lamented everything of significant had already been discovered. Oops. that CO2 is a potent GHG, Even if the conjecture is correct it's a weak GHG. Water vapor is, by far, the major one. At least, as far as we currently know. **So? What's your point here? That a (low end) figure of 9% is, somehow, irrelevant? Sorry. 9% is significant. 26% is moreso. Moreover, water vapour is very short lived in the atmosphere. CO2 is not. Water vapour has a much lesser effect in certain areas (Central Australia, the Atacama, the Sahara, et al) and CO2 acts as a much more significant driver. And, more importantly still, there is nothing we can do about water vapour. We CAN do something about CO2 levels. then it is reasonable to accept the fact that humans are altering the climate of this planet. Well, if one simply assumes unproven things then anything can seem 'reasonable' after that. **Here's the stuff we know: * CO2 is a significant GHG. * Methane is a more potent, but less significant GHG. * Water vapour is a much weaker, but more significant GHG (due to the very large quantities in the atmosphere). * Over the period of time that the planet's temperature has risen significantly (over the last 15 years), we have noted a dramatic rise in CO2 concentration. * Humans are directly responsible for the majority of the increase in CO2 levels. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#91
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Making fun of Jonesy's misconceptions of science is like shootingfish in a barrel
On Nov 16, 12:44*pm, !Jones wrote:
that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr. Jute writes: QUOTE Where's this evidence [of global warming], Jonesy. If it is so overwhelming, why don't you show it to us. Should be easy enough, being "overwhelming". /QUOTE I'm still waiting for the evidence, Jonesy. All you've given us so far is a demonstration of your gullibility, in the form, "Scientists say..." In fact they don't, not as a group, and the few who do have been reprimanded for it by their betters speaking under oath before the US Senate -- and, as you will expect by now, I've quoted academicians North and Wegman and several other members of their panels, right here on RBT. (It is one of the reasons the local global warmies, who get their "facts" from television, no longer argue with me but limit themselves to name-calling: I go to the source and get the true facts, every time.) just remember that there is no experimentally based, scientific evidence. * So you're in agreement with me, Jonesy! Then why are you indulging in this juvenile dickswinging? Some things we cannot prove. E.g.: Parallel lines don't intersect - unproven. Quite the contrary. It is well known to artists that parallel lines intersect at the horizon. Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon. Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base, though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented by 1 and zero. (If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof" without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point, the latter being *incapable* of proof.) Gravity, for that matter... * Nope, not gravity either. The fact that you cannot see gravity isn't in science a reason for denying its existence; it is observed by proxies and direct effects. For modern mathematical proof, with diagrams, see Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804. Same article without the diagrams, go to http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ In general, gravity had been measured and fully described and measured since in 1749 the Marquise du Chtelet (Voltaire's lover), knowing that she was likely to die in childbirth, hurried to finish her definitive paper on gravity later consulted by no less than Einstein. OK, I'll quit. *Gotta run, it's Monday. You should have quit before you exposed your ignorance four times in one short post. Jones Yours in scholarship, Andre Jute Visit Andre's books at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html |
|
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 17, 12:40*am, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "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.*** Prove it, Trevor. **Certainly. Examine the ice core data: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ The long term graph shows it has been much warmer -- and the earth didn't burn up. But I'm glad you show the cherry-picked graph of the last two hundred years at http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ook/index.html which shows CO2 rising and temperature all over the place in regular swinging cycles. If you were to open your mind, Trevor, you would discover that those regular short term cycles of temperature change happening about every 11 years coincide both sunspot activity. 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. Huh? You, and the "scientists" you quote, don't know what's causing temperature swings, so you want your ignorance to be proof that your faith should taken as the gospel? Bull**** to that! Science proceeds by proof, not by special pleading, no matter how hysterical. Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here. **We all are. Your pet alarmist, whom you cite above, doesn't know ****, and admits it by throwing out variant hypotheses in every paragraph, claiming something could happen because he believes in global warming. That's the cart before the horse. First the little ******, and you, must prove there's a correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise, then he must prove it is worldwide, then he must prove it is connected through more than coincidence or unrelated effect, then he gets shot down because the correlative fit with sunspots is better and it defies common sense that the largest heat source in our system shouldn't be the controlling one. The planet is warming precipitously Crap. The planet has been cooling for ten years now and the alarmists silly models failed to forecast the cooling. If they can't even forecast the next decade, why should we believe they can forecast the temperature a century hence. And, if they ever get their act together, they will grasp that we're recovering from the little ice age towards the temperatures reigning during the medieval warm period, and that the earth must be two to three degrees warmer, and rising, for several centuries before it is even necessary to investigate, never mind to panic like hysterical old women. and some stupid people are disregarding the science, There is no science in global warming. It is a religion, a scam, a big lie. And you bought it as a substitute for the guilt of Christianity that drove your early years, and as a substitute for the marxism that drove your youth. That's why your source, quoted above, talks in the most unscientific terms of the Earth as an "angry beast". Never heard such crap from you before, Trevor, even when you trailed around Pinkostinko's smelly coattails. in preference for charlatans, liars and those who have an agenda. I'm not a charlatan, nor am I a liar, nor do I have an agenda, nor do I have the slightest connection with an oil company; I haven't even owned a car since 1992, going everywhere by bicycle; I'm a hell of a lot greener than anyone else on these two conferences. I just insist on reading the statistics for myself. Global warming is, statistically, a scam. Your utterances are the Profession of Faith of the Disillusioned Middle Class. They are a statement of religious faith and it has nothing to do with science. Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au Andre Jute Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science |
|
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 17, 1:21*am, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: **Here's the stuff we know: * CO2 is a significant GHG. * Methane is a more potent, but less significant GHG. * Water vapour is a much weaker, but more significant GHG (due to the very large quantities in the atmosphere). * Over the period of time that the planet's temperature has risen significantly (over the last 15 years), we have noted a dramatic rise in CO2 concentration. * Humans are directly responsible for the majority of the increase in CO2 levels. A good deal of this is either outright false or very misleading. But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, Trevor, that you have all these ducks lined up and you can prove them -- than you *still* don't have a case because you have no proof of a causal connection, merely a suspicion so strong as to amount to a religious belief. That chain that you posit, even if true (and, as I say, the elements aren't even provably true), does not make a scientific case for anything at all. At the very best it might point to a weak hypothesis to investigate. But those who aren't already hysterically committed to global warming have a far, far stronger hypothesis on the table already. And then there is a growing movement that considers global warming a good thing and interference with climate recovery to say the level of the Medieval Warm Period to be damaging hubris and dangerous planet- engineering, far, far worse than the social engineering of the Stalin- Mao-Pol Pot axis of evil. Speculation isn't science, pal. You need proof, and you haven't got any. And the self-styled "scientists" who tried to lie proof into existence (among other lies the "Hockey Stick" of which you yesterday showed us a variant) have been caught and exposed as fraudsters. That's another proof that global warming is a religion, not a science, that its proponents are willing to lie for it. I were you, I'd leave this here. I have no desire to offend a techie I might need again, and you're simply not qualified or well-enough informed to carry on this sort of argument. It's starting to look like the rationalists are beating up on some poor Baptist fundie, and that's not nice. Andre Jute A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes |
|
#94
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
Michael Press wrote:
Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_ proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants grow faster. Oh, man. The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to like seeing you express this. Bill "just a tad stunned" S. |
|
#95
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 17, 6:36*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Michael Press wrote: Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_ proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants grow faster. Oh, man. *The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to like seeing you express this. Bill "just a tad stunned" S. Man, you take the words right out of my mouth. Whatever moved Michael to "betray the cause" by telling the truth? Hell, this looks like the boy is a scientist after all and I've been traducing him. What a good way for me to be proved wrong! That's a stunning summary, Michael. But you know, Sorni, the "cool kids", the global warming fundies and faithful, coulda found out what Michael says by reading their own bible instead of depending on TV misinformation soundbites. By way of example, one of the most striking lines in any IPCC report (and I've read them all, of course) says quite bluntly that up to 2% of global warming will be good for us economically and agriculturally. But the "cool kids", who think the revolution is smoking pot and listening to some dead Jamaican gangster, already heard on television that *any* temperature increase is *evil*. Andre Jute I've met luddites with more mechanical aptitude than Maxine Ott |
|
#96
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 17, 6:36 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote: Michael Press wrote: Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_ proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants grow faster. Oh, man. The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to like seeing you express this. Bill "just a tad stunned" S. Man, you take the words right out of my mouth. Whatever moved Michael to "betray the cause" by telling the truth? Hell, this looks like the boy is a scientist after all and I've been traducing him. What a good way for me to be proved wrong! That's a stunning summary, Michael. But you know, Sorni, the "cool kids", the global warming fundies and faithful, coulda found out what Michael says by reading their own bible instead of depending on TV misinformation soundbites. If they really cared about the "cause" (laughable on its face), then they'd contribute money and urging to this: http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/16/...he-or-wont-he/ Bill "good thing holding one's breath doesn't contribute to GW" S. *** By way of example, one of the most striking lines in any IPCC report (and I've read them all, of course) says quite bluntly that up to 2% of global warming will be good for us economically and agriculturally. But the "cool kids", who think the revolution is smoking pot and listening to some dead Jamaican gangster, already heard on television that *any* temperature increase is *evil*. Andre Jute I've met luddites with more mechanical aptitude than Maxine Ott |
|
#97
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:02:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote: There's a difference, Jonesy. You told me what I could and couldn't do. I didn't tell you to do anything at all, I merely observed that doing what you did makes you trailer park trash. I trust this note enhances your grasp of simple English; it would be too much to ask it to improve your morality. I don't see any difference, sir. I asked you not to cross-post the reply headers, thus replying to multiple, unrelated groups when my initial post had gone only to one (and I even said "please") ... you suggested that I could save my breath and that you'd do as you damn well liked, or something to that effect. Then *I* changed the reply headers and you went into a snit over it, calling me "trailer park trash". That's an impressive debate tactic, you know! Clearly, you're a man of formidable forensic talent! I usually don't post to multiple groups unless there is some rational connection between the two because it annoys people and is a commonly used harassment tactic. In a stretch, one might see how a global warming discussion could be appropriate for a bicycle group; I cannot see how it would possibly fit in an antique audio equipment discussion. So (since this is posted there)... rec.audio.tubes... what do the *rest* of you think of the incessant global warming argument? Is anyone else really interested? Would anyone really like to read another few weeks of this nonsense, or should I simply trim rec.audio.tubes out of the distribution and let Mr. Jute whine about it... he doesn't *like* it when I trim headers! (Mr. Jute thinks people like me are immoral for depriving RAT of our ... err... discussion; see above.) Jones |
|
#98
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jonesy blows more smoke
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:50:09 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote: Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. *That "has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst. Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. *To do that, you'd have to start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for three decades while the other does not smoke. *Differences could then be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis. Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there will never be one. * Er, Jonesy, didn't they teach you any logic? If there is no proof that smoking tobacco is dangerous, why would it be "highly unethical" to conduct a corntrolled test to observe its effect? Because it is the responsibility of the researcher with human subjects to show that there is no harm to the subjects... the simple lack of proof that there is any harm is not nearly enough. It's almost impossible to design an experimental study to investigate whether *anything* is harmful because, if you don't already know, then you can't do it. And you're beginning to bore me, sir. |
|
#99
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Making fun of Jonesy's misconceptions of science is like shooting fish in a barrel
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:49:18 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote: Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon. Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base, though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented by 1 and zero. (If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof" without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point, the latter being *incapable* of proof.) I don't even have a *clue* what you're talking about. I doubt that you do, either. I don't see many people engaging in discussion with you... I think that I'm going to do the nice people over in RAT a favor and proceed no further. Jones |
|
#101
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There's morescience in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34worship!
On Nov 17, 12:19*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:02:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre Jute wrote: There's a difference, Jonesy. You told me what I could and couldn't do. I didn't tell you to do anything at all, I merely observed that doing what you did makes you trailer park trash. I trust this note enhances your grasp of simple English; it would be too much to ask it to improve your morality. I don't see any difference, sir. *I asked you not to cross-post the reply headers, thus replying to multiple, unrelated groups when my initial post had gone only to one (and I even said "please") ... you suggested that I could save my breath and that you'd do as you damn well liked, or something to that effect. *Then *I* changed the reply headers and you went into a snit over it, calling me "trailer park trash". *That's an impressive debate tactic, you know! *Clearly, you're a man of formidable forensic talent! I usually don't post to multiple groups unless there is some rational connection between the two because it annoys people and is a commonly used harassment tactic. *In a stretch, one might see how a global warming discussion could be appropriate for a bicycle group; I cannot see how it would possibly fit in an antique audio equipment discussion. So (since this is posted there)... rec.audio.tubes... what do the *rest* of you think of the incessant global warming argument? *Is anyone else really interested? *Would anyone really like to read another few weeks of this nonsense, or should I simply trim rec.audio.tubes out of the distribution and let Mr. Jute whine about it... he doesn't *like* it when I trim headers! *(Mr. Jute thinks people like me are immoral for depriving RAT of our ... err... discussion; see above.) Jones You're an idiot who can't even follow a thread, Jonesy. This thread *originated* on RAT in a post by Patrick Turner. It belongs to RAT. It is posted to RBT by courtesy because I know many on RBT take an interest in global warming. Now, some johnny-come-lately, one Jonesy, wants arbitrarily to deprive RAT of a thread started by Patrick Turner, a RAT in very good standing indeed. This is the second time of telling you, Jonesy: it isn't for johnny-come-latelies like you to tell anyone what they can post on RBT or RAT, and it is very ugly indeed for you to try and deprive RAT of its own thread. Andre Jute Nobless oblige, until my patience with American fools runs out |
|
#102
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jonesy blows more smoke
On Nov 17, 12:24*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:50:09 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre Jute wrote: Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. *That "has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst. Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. *To do that, you'd have to start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for three decades while the other does not smoke. *Differences could then be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis. Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there will never be one. * Er, Jonesy, didn't they teach you any logic? If there is no proof that smoking tobacco is dangerous, why would it be "highly unethical" to conduct a corntrolled test to observe its effect? Because it is the responsibility of the researcher with human subjects to show that there is no harm to the subjects... the simple lack of proof that there is any harm is not nearly enough. It's almost impossible to design an experimental study to investigate whether *anything* is harmful because, if you don't already know, then you can't do it. Be shorter just to say that you don't understand the concept of logic, Jonesy. You're so dumb, you're funny. And you're beginning to bore me, sir. Run, rabbit, run. Andre Jute A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes |
|
#103
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Making fun of Jonesy's misconceptions of science is like shootingfish in a barrel
On Nov 17, 12:29*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:49:18 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre Jute wrote: Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon. Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base, though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented by 1 and zero. (If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof" without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point, the latter being *incapable* of proof.) I don't even have a *clue* what you're talking about. *I doubt that you do, either. Even after Michael Press gave you a hint, albeit elliptical, that computer practice doesn't quite count up to exponentiation? You're right to run, Jonesy, if you can't even dance the two-step. I don't see many people engaging in discussion with you... I think that I'm going to do the nice people over in RAT a favor and proceed no further. All those I want to engage with me engage with me. Unfortunately some ignoramuses and undesirables also respond to my posts. But I'm well advanced in reducing the number of those in my threads to only the useful, the knowledgeable and the entertaining. I've already explained to you that I don't care for being "cool" if it means mindless acceptance of the stupidities of pointless breathers and eaters; I can safely leave that sort of hypocritical popularlty to clowns like you. Jones Ciao, Jonesy. Mind that someone doesn't mistake you for a rabbit and pot you for the pot. Andre Jute Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar |
|
#104
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 17, 7:34*pm, William Asher wrote:
Michael Press wrote: Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_ proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants grow faster. The only one of your "proven" statements that is true is the final one, where the FACE data do suggest plants grow faster in high-CO2 environments (provided they have enough nutrients and water to make use of the additional CO2 and they are C4 photosynthesizers). *The two about planetary warming (although you just asserted that as a given at the start) and CO2 levels are not proven, but inferred from proxy data records that could be shown to be false at some point in the future. *So, if you are using your statements to believe anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate, you are using false assumptions in your logic, since there is the possibility that the proxy records are wrong. * Er, Asher, how can this data hold true when the global warmies want to use it to prove something (after they've cooked the statistics) but those opposed to such stupidity aren't allowed to use it on the ground that new data may be found? Surely the data shows only one truth, that there isn't any global warming and zero causal connection between CO2 increase and global temperature rise. What is proven is that CO2 absorbs longwave IR radiation, that atmospheric gases that absorb longwave IR radiation provide a longwave surface radiative forcing to the planet, and that the Earth's climate is very sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing both in terms of the latitudinal distribution and average global magnitude. *Inferences you draw from those three facts are up to you. * -- Bill Asher Where the beef, Asher, the connection, the cause and effect by which all other science stands or falls, except the religion of global warming? Andre Jute "Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich "Oh, I've seen the loonies do that for half a century. Asher's problem is that he has such a poor grasp of history, he thinks the New Apocalypse of Global Warming is brand spanking new and exciting." -- Andre Jute |
|
#105
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:37:29 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote: You're an idiot... .... whatever; I have just run out of patients with your incessant name calling. Bear in mind that being so patently offensive that everyone else simply walks away in disgust isn't quite the same thing as winning a debate. May I suggest: "Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions." I think that was Rilke, as I recall... if he didn't say it, he should have! When someone asks difficult questions, try to address the question rather than the person asking it. Live the question! That is my parting advice to you sir... that, and... have a great life!!! Jones |
|
#106
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Making fun of Jonesy's misconceptions of science is like shootingfish in a barrel
On Nov 17, 9:24*pm, mike wrote:
In article c1cd63e5-4ead-4738-96d9- , says... On Nov 16, 12:44*pm, !Jones wrote: that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr. Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon. Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base, though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented by 1 and zero. This is probably the funniest thing I have seen you write yet Andre. In one short paragraph you display: a) * * *your inability to comprehend a simple argument; b) * * *your complete misunderstanding of factorisation and algorithmic complexity; c) * * *your habit of inserting random and irrelevant 'technicaleese' into your prose in an attempt to hide your ignorance; d) * * *your willingness to make a public fool of yourself at any cost. I thank you for the entartainment. Note that if this is actually a clever example of self-parody, then it is even more brilliant. Cheers, *Mike You're the feller from those islands some way off the coast of the Great Country, right? I saw a soundbite on the BBC World Service the other day in which your prime minister wittered on about what her government was doing about global warming. She seemed to be impressed by the fact that the debate is over. She didn't once ask who ended the debate, or by what argument, nor did she demand any proof, nor did she seem aware that the only part she read, the Summary for Policy Makers, reports in many instances the diametric opposite of what the main report states. I suppose you don't get much choice in your politicians, what with having such a small population, and so homogenous, but I certainly wouldn't vote for someone so complacent. I thank you for the compliments but perhaps you'd care to follow up with an explanation, because we're none the wiser to your technical contribution, if indeed any was intended. (You're right, of course; my original post was intended to run Jonesy around the buoys a couple of times, as was Michael Press's response to Jonesy, to pay him out for his pompous self-righteousness.) Andre Jute Name one famous New Zealander besides Hillary -- Australian joke |
|
#107
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
Here's another who presumes the hypothesis proven before making the
experiment. He just does it marginally more subtly than the other clowns. His name is Ben Weiner and he's the one who told the lie about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being "merely eurocentric phenomena" when I pointed out that there is no global warming when present and recent temperatures are so much lower than for several centuries in the MWP, and that it is more reasonable to assume that any warming trend as in the 1990 is merely a recovery from the LIA. Until the global warmies can explain away those historical, world-wide phenomena -- and not with statistical lies like Mann and Briffa told with their Hockey Stick which the IPCC still promotes -- no one in his right mind will believe in global warming. That essentially means forever, because in every other science but "global warming", those phenomena are entrenched in the historical record. Now who could possibly be dumb enough to fall for the debating trade crap Weiner puts up as arguments below? Offered up for your delectation! -- Andre Jute On Nov 17, 9:27*pm, " wrote: On Nov 16, 11:01*pm, Michael Press wrote: It is not proven that atmospheric CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It all depends on what the meaning of the word "proven" is. It is not proven that if I jump off a two-story building, I will break my legs. *Human bodies are complicated, non-linear, and difficult to model, and every landing is different. *However, given what we know about gravity and the impact forces on bodies, it is a reasonable assumption that I will probably break my legs if I land on my feet. *Arguably the only way to "prove" this is to either study the results of many documented falls (we don't have the repeat of N experiments in the CO2 case) or to jump myself. *However, most people will accept the physics and figure there's nowhere for the energy to go but into one's legs, and decline to jump. Bill Asher's point about CO2 radiative forcing is similar. IIRC, the global climate record doesn't have any analogous examples of rapid changes in the level of CO2 over a few hundred years (we couldn't resolve timespans of a few hundred years in the long term climate record anyway). However, increased CO2 causes radiative forcing, the climate system is sensitive to radiative forcing, and there is nowhere else for the energy to go. *If you think something else happens, how does it happen? Of course if you wait long enough, we will get an answer - do you want to wait 50 years and see whether the temperature has continued to increase? *This is like saying that you might as well jump, to test the hypothesis. Ben |
|
#108
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 17, 4:29*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's another who presumes the hypothesis proven before making the experiment. He just does it marginally more subtly than the other clowns. His name is Ben Weiner and he's the one who told the lie about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being "merely eurocentric phenomena" when I pointed out that there is no global warming when present and recent temperatures are so much lower than for several centuries in the MWP, ... The conventional use of quotation marks is to denote something that someone actually wrote. Thus a reasonable person, reading Andre's post, could assume that the quotation is attributed to me and that I described the MWP and Little Ice Age as "merely eurocentric phenomena." In fact I don't believe I have ever written that phrase. If you use Google advanced search for "eurocentric" in rec.bicycles.tech: http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...ch&sitesearch= http://preview.tinyurl.com/y928lfk it only occurs 6 times. Twice in 2004 and four times where Andre Jute attributes it to me. Falsely, as I never wrote it. Google search is imperfect, but at this point the burden is on Jute to prove that I wrote it. I hadn't realized that he had been repeatedly quoting me on the subject, as I don't follow all of his climate discussions. I may have written something about whether or not the MWP and Little Ice Age were northern-hemisphere only, which is a legitimate position: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period However, the use of quotation marks means a direct quote, not some random exaggerated paraphrase you feel like making up. A famous novelist such as Andre Jute should understand this. Whether the rest of Jute's beliefs are equally carefully argued is left to the reader's discretion. Ben |
|
#109
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There'smore science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34worship!
This is what I sent before incorrigible net-criminal Jonesy snipped it
in order to hide his crimes. And then the poor dumb cluck has the cheek to lecture me once more! ******* You're an idiot who can't even follow a thread, Jonesy. This thread *originated* on RAT in a post by Patrick Turner. It belongs to RAT. It is posted to RBT by courtesy because I know many on RBT take an interest in global warming. Now, some johnny-come-lately, one Jonesy, wants arbitrarily to deprive RAT of a thread started by Patrick Turner, a RAT in very good standing indeed. This is the second time of telling you, Jonesy: it isn't for johnny-come-latelies like you to tell anyone what they can post on RBT or RAT, and it is very ugly indeed for you to try and deprive RAT of its own thread. Andre Jute Nobless oblige, until my patience with American fools runs out ******* On Nov 17, 11:02*pm, !Jones wrote: On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:37:29 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre Jute wrote: You're an idiot... ... whatever; I have just run out of patients with your incessant name calling. *Bear in mind that being so patently offensive that everyone else simply walks away in disgust isn't quite the same thing as winning a debate. *May I suggest: "Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions." *I think that was Rilke, as I recall... if he didn't say it, he should have! When someone asks difficult questions, try to address the question rather than the person asking it. *Live the question! That is my parting advice to you sir... that, and... have a great life!!! Jones Then you should concentrate on the question of your poor manners and your dictatorial manner, Jonesy, instead of throwing personalities against me. And instead of trying to lie that you didn't make a dumb mistake by trying to deprive RAT of a thread they own. The final irony is when pompous moralists like Jonesy can't even keep to their own rules, even as they try to impose them on others. It ill serves the memory of Rainer Maria Rilke to have his name taken in ****poor pastiche by such a clown! Here's the real thing for comparison: "One must of course forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged." -- Rilke Andre Jute Nobless oblige -- until my patience runs out with a foul-mannered, pompous American fool |
|
#110
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There'smore science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34worship!
On Nov 18, 2:02*am, !Jones wrote:
That is my parting advice to you sir... that, and... have a great life!!! Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin. His typical reaction to someone who cannot be intimidated, buffaloed or otherwise crushed is to baffle them with bull**** as he is congenitally and entirely unable to confront them with the facts. His pattern is to attempt to outlast any with the temerity to confront him with his inadequacies. After which when (as is typical) he will kpretend to kill-file them. Intermediate steps will likely include a series of sock-puppets and proxies. You are in that special group to get the full Jute Treatment. Not only is it utterly predictable, it is also predictably pathetic. Note his pattern will include stuttering, repetition, 'excutive summaries' and various other devices and patterns connected only by an increasing desperation. Have fun - playing with Andre is a bit like playing with a hognose snake - that he is a snake is clear, that he has pretensions of toxicity is equally clear. But the brute fact of the matter is that he is a pretentious, fangless little remittance man driven to an Irish backwater as the rest of the world would not have him - and the Irish, an historically tolerant people - allow him to live out the rest of his unhappy days sequestered in a dark room in front of a glowing CRT grasping at an unattainable glory. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#111
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:48:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter
Wieck wrote: Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin. Actually, I wasn't trying to do that. Heck, I never even particularly disagreed with the chap... I admitted right up front that I didn't know much about global warming. I wonder what it is about that topic that floats his boat. I'd expect someone who believed that we needed to save the planet to be passionate... never met anyone who was passionate about apathy... until now, I mean. Strangest thing I ever did see... well... I saw a six-toed cat once; I spoze that was stranger. Jones |
|
#112
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There'smore science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34worship!
On Nov 18, 7:30*am, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:48:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Wieck wrote: Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin. Actually, I wasn't trying to do that. *Heck, I never even particularly disagreed with the chap... I admitted right up front that I didn't know much about global warming. I wonder what it is about that topic that floats his boat. *I'd expect someone who believed that we needed to save the planet to be passionate... never met anyone who was passionate about apathy... until now, I mean. Strangest thing I ever did see... well... I saw a six-toed cat once; I spoze that was stranger. Jones Well, if you check the latest blather from Bard of Bandon, you will see that he has spun into his usual response to anyone/anything that flows counter to his demands - now there are (at least) two threads complete with stutters, repeated self-quoting and the typical coterie of sock-puppets, sycophants and slavies that gather about him akin to flies gathering about - well you get the picture. Andre works at being a Bozo - assiduously. It is the center of his being and his single and singular goal in life. He never misses an opportunity to practice his avocation and becomes positively ferocious when crossed in his pursuit of ignorance. Polydactyl cats are relatively common - 58% in some breeds. Andre, on the other hand is thankfully and blessedly unique. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:06:03 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter
Wieck wrote: I have an old amplifier in my garage. *It just surfaced a few days ago as I was cleaning... it's a box with a bunch of tubes and stuff on top, but that won't tell you much, I don't suppose. *OK, there's a data plate: it says it's a McIntosh 20W-2 mono-tube. *It was my father's... I'm guessing it was manufactured in the '40s. *I remember using it in the '60s listening to the Beach Boys... "Everybody's gone surrrrrfin..." ("TURN THAT NOISE DOWN!!!") *I'd be leary of plugging it it today; however, the cord still looks OK. *Does that have any value? Jones Sure does. And, correct, don't plug it in without the proper test equipment (metered variac for a start). There are individuals who will pay real money for that. Not me, but there are those out there. OK, so... headers trimmed to eliminate the bicycle group (who, I'm sure, are less than interested,) what is the big deal about old tube stuff? Is it better? Actually, I have a whole system with an 8-track, Perpetuum Ebner turntable (you know... for the old LP records) and a few 8-track tapes... Moody Blues, *Every Good Boy Deserves Favor* and some Jefferson Airplane!!! "One pill makes you tiny and one pill makes yoy tall..." ("I'VE TOLD YOU FOR THE LAST TIME... TURN THAT DAMN NOISE DOWN...") I only have one speaker box... as I recall, we tore the magnets out of the other one in the '70s. We must have been in some kind of a record club because I have a ****load of... well... folk songs and... whatever they are... Casey Jones??? Erie Canal??? (".... if you've ever navigated on...") If anybody is close to Corpus Christi, TX and likes that stuff... ? Jones |
|
#114
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Making fun of Jonesy's misconceptions of science is like shooting fish in a barrel
|
|
#115
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Making fun of Jonesy's misconceptions of science is like shootingfish in a barrel
On Nov 18, 11:12*pm, mike wrote:
Mike - signing off for a month trekking in Nepal. He'll no doubt come back and tell us it was unnaturally warm and polluted, and he could hardly breathe for excess CO2! Have a happy holiday, Mike. Andre Jute Wishing I had the foresight to overwinter in Adelaide... |
|
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There'smore science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34worship!
On Nov 18, 5:41*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:06:03 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Wieck wrote: I have an old amplifier in my garage. *It just surfaced a few days ago as I was cleaning... it's a box with a bunch of tubes and stuff on top, but that won't tell you much, I don't suppose. *OK, there's a data plate: it says it's a McIntosh 20W-2 mono-tube. *It was my father's... I'm guessing it was manufactured in the '40s. *I remember using it in the '60s listening to the Beach Boys... "Everybody's gone surrrrrfin..." ("TURN THAT NOISE DOWN!!!") *I'd be leary of plugging it it today; however, the cord still looks OK. *Does that have any value? Jones Sure does. And, correct, don't plug it in without the proper test equipment (metered variac for a start). There are individuals who will pay real money for that. Not me, but there are those out there. OK, so... headers trimmed to eliminate the bicycle group (who, I'm sure, are less than interested,) what is the big deal about old tube stuff? *Is it better? Actually, I have a whole system with an 8-track, Perpetuum Ebner turntable (you know... for the old LP records) and a few 8-track tapes... Moody Blues, *Every Good Boy Deserves Favor* and some Jefferson Airplane!!! *"One pill makes you tiny and one pill makes yoy tall..." *("I'VE TOLD YOU FOR THE LAST TIME... TURN THAT DAMN NOISE DOWN...") I only have one speaker box... as I recall, we tore the magnets out of the other one in the '70s. We must have been in some kind of a record club because I have a ****load of... well... folk songs and... whatever they are... Casey Jones??? *Erie Canal??? *(".... if you've ever navigated on...") If anybody is close to Corpus Christi, TX and likes that stuff... ? Jones- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - OK... a couple of ground rules. I am giving opinions, not holy writ. I am not necessarily a fair arbiter as I am also showing my preferences. Here in the East, vintage equipment in good condition is thick on the ground. Many of the 'majors' originated around here, and where I sit is within 200 miles of several major manufacturers, some (such as McIntosh) still extant. McIntosh is considered by many as among the first makers to bring consistent, well-designed, well made, well executed tube audio equipment to the mass market - albeit the high end of that market. Along with Saul Marantz, Avery Fisher and a few others of the time, McIntosh more-or-less defined that market. Unlike the other two mentioned McIntosh did not attempt to spread too far or become too large, stayed focused on their niche and accordingly have survived to this day. Their equipment - even their very earliest entries - are the stuff of legend and as much because of this have retained an disproportionately important place in the hearts of Audio collectors world-wide. In many ways they are the Harley-Davidson of Audio, surviving their competitors and foreign invaders despite all odds. I am sure there is a Japanese collector out there who might just give you well into four figures for that amp assuming it to be in good, clean, restorable condition. Even more strangely, that same collector might never play it, ever - just leave it on the display shelf with a reverential label describing its origin and function. All that would depend on originality, condition, scarcity, condition, model number, condition, age and finally, condition of course. And, it could also not be worth much more than its scrap value either as above. But that is unlikely given the name. As to moving parts (8-track, PE table and such) - they are truly a moving target. The 8-Track might get you a few bucks to a collector of 8-tracks unless it is a Lear or some such, or has other non-function- related value. Same as the PE Table. Likely that was brought back by a military person as for the most part those tables were sold under the DUAL name here in the US. Were you to have a matching McIntosh pre-amp or tuner - that could also run into real money. It is 'all in accordance with' - I would suggest that you check out completed listings on eBay Audiogon and similar sources to get an idea of what the prices might run and if anything like your stuff has been sold there in the recent past. Writing for myself, my equipment is functional, maintained as functional and in service most of the time. As big as this house is, I still have limited space - that is no space for shelf-queens or museum pieces unless they are actually functional as well. So I have no interest in your equipment and I will not pretend to have any. There are five operating stereos in place, divided 3 (solid-state) and 2 (tube) - and the makings of several more. That is many-enough. And enough vintage radios to handle the need fo 'mono' stuff. As you are in Texas - even shipping R/T for restoration (which I would do) may not get you enough added value to what you have already unless you want it for yourself. From your statements that seems unlikely - but that is just a guess. I suggest you do a bit of research if you want to dispose of the stuff - you might be very pleasantly surprised. As to whether 'old tube stuff' is "better" or not - that depends. I happen to like the Dynaco ST-70 power amp - with a few tweaks and modifications. I find it reliable, well-behaved and very pleasant. My own front-line unit is 30 years in my hands and has operated for thousands of hours without the tiniest problem - just standard care- and-feeding. Others think they are the product of the devil and exist only to frustrate. De gustibus and all that. Similarly, I have no use at all for the Marantz 10B (Legendary tuner) - It is not so good a tuner for my needs - but it ain't nohow the cost - I do keep a Revox A720 (2 as it happens) as it is actually functional where the 10B was not. Again, all a matter of taste. My Scott LK-150 will be pried from my dead hands, however. And so forth and so on. Take care, Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the ****poor manners of Jonesy-come-lately, was There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:08:51 -0800 (PST), in rec.audio.tubes Peter
Wieck wrote: Same as the PE Table. Likely that was brought back by a military person as for the most part those tables were sold under the DUAL name here in the US. This is true. I bought it in the PX in Vung Tau, Vietnam about '69. Jones |
|
#118
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
Michael Press wrote:
In article , William Asher wrote: Michael Press wrote: Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_ proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants grow faster. The only one of your "proven" statements that is true is the final one, where the FACE data do suggest plants grow faster in high-CO2 environments (provided they have enough nutrients and water to make use of the additional CO2 and they are C4 photosynthesizers). The two about planetary warming (although you just asserted that as a given at the start) and CO2 levels are not proven, but inferred from proxy data records that could be shown to be false at some point in the future. So, if you are using your statements to believe anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate, you are using false assumptions in your logic, since there is the possibility that the proxy records are wrong. What is proven is that CO2 absorbs longwave IR radiation, that atmospheric gases that absorb longwave IR radiation provide a longwave surface radiative forcing to the planet, and that the Earth's climate is very sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing both in terms of the latitudinal distribution and average global magnitude. Inferences you draw from those three facts are up to you. Year 535 saw the onset of the dark ages. Literally the sky was dark, weather became cold and wet all around the globe, civil order disappeared. About 800 the weather started getting warm, a period known as the medieval warm period. Agriculture flourished, northern Europe saw a population explosion. Fourteenth century, the weather inexplicably turned cold and wet again. Grain rotted on the stalk. People had lost touch with their roots: turnip, beet, rutabega cabbage. Wheat bread is too good to give. They became malnourished, famine walked the land, and they were carried off by bubonic plague. Weather stayed cold until about 1850. The Thames river froze every winter and London threw an ice fair on the frozen river. In 1815 a series of eruptions in Indonesia culminated in a massive eruption of Tambora. The effect was crop failures in 1816 and food riots. The weather has been warming, but is not as warm as it was a thousand years ago. Clearly Bush's fault, all of it. |
|
#119
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
In article
, Andre Jute wrote: On Nov 17, 6:36Â*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote: Michael Press wrote: Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_ proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants grow faster. Oh, man. Â*The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to like seeing you express this. Bill "just a tad stunned" S. Man, you take the words right out of my mouth. Whatever moved Michael to "betray the cause" I have not betrayed anything or anyone. You have misread me. -- Michael Press |
|
#120
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message ... Michael Press wrote: In article , William Asher wrote: Michael Press wrote: Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_ proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants grow faster. The only one of your "proven" statements that is true is the final one, where the FACE data do suggest plants grow faster in high-CO2 environments (provided they have enough nutrients and water to make use of the additional CO2 and they are C4 photosynthesizers). The two about planetary warming (although you just asserted that as a given at the start) and CO2 levels are not proven, but inferred from proxy data records that could be shown to be false at some point in the future. So, if you are using your statements to believe anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate, you are using false assumptions in your logic, since there is the possibility that the proxy records are wrong. What is proven is that CO2 absorbs longwave IR radiation, that atmospheric gases that absorb longwave IR radiation provide a longwave surface radiative forcing to the planet, and that the Earth's climate is very sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing both in terms of the latitudinal distribution and average global magnitude. Inferences you draw from those three facts are up to you. Year 535 saw the onset of the dark ages. Literally the sky was dark, weather became cold and wet all around the globe, civil order disappeared. About 800 the weather started getting warm, a period known as the medieval warm period. Agriculture flourished, northern Europe saw a population explosion. Fourteenth century, the weather inexplicably turned cold and wet again. Grain rotted on the stalk. People had lost touch with their roots: turnip, beet, rutabega cabbage. Wheat bread is too good to give. They became malnourished, famine walked the land, and they were carried off by bubonic plague. Weather stayed cold until about 1850. The Thames river froze every winter and London threw an ice fair on the frozen river. In 1815 a series of eruptions in Indonesia culminated in a massive eruption of Tambora. The effect was crop failures in 1816 and food riots. The weather has been warming, but is not as warm as it was a thousand years ago. Clearly Bush's fault, all of it. Eruptions in Indonesia in 1815? Naw, clearly Obama's fault, just like everything else from the banking collapse to swine flu. Just ask an American Expert on Everything like Lard Valve or Flipper. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Supreme Court Worship Comes First With Respectable Conservatives | Audio Opinions | |||
| Keith's hatred of effective worship experiences. | Audio Opinions | |||
| Sluttie's worship of the Krooborg | Audio Opinions | |||
| FA: NOS GZ34 | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| weekly recording of worship service (speaking / music) | Pro Audio | |||
![Andre Jute[_2_] is offline](images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
