[Patrick Turner]

I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.
Most other people are, so I ain't alone, and many facts remain to
become known.

Basically people want CO2 emissions lowered, but are only prepared to
pay a small amount to achieve that. A cooler world is pie in the sky
for many ppl.

At present, Australia's Labour govt is trying desperately to get ETS
and CPRS passed into law but the Senate is controlled by the Liberal
Party and Greens etc and Labour does not have a senate majority.

If the Liberals fail to allow the passage of the proposed laws there
might be an early election next year and unfortunately it'd be too
early for everyone to feel the results of ETS and CPRS laws.

The leadership of the Liberals is in turmoil, and all because so few
people can agree about so much that is at stake for the immediate
future. I think some politicians don't really mind if they get voted
out over ETS and CPRS.

But the people voted for everyone in the senate, and the two house
system ensures that one political party rarely ever gets everything it
wants when it wants. Establishing a dictatorship in Oz would be
difficult under our system.

Here we have had a tradition of democracy and it should become clear
by 2013 if the CO2 emissions are going down, and people will have
begun to realise how much they are having to pay for them to go down.

They'll pay in higher electricity, food and transport bills directly.
The cost of living will just rise. They'll also pay indirectly through
taxes spent to compensate the big end of town including major
polluters.
Basically, as a result of ETS and CPRS, the standard of living will
fall. No politician will ever say such words.
But its not all gloomy. If Oz does OK while continuing to sell mining
products to China and elsewhere we may well afford to be able to
convert to a luxury of an economy based on low CO2 emissions, and the
COL may not rise much.

So I really don't have to worry if political parties destroy
themselves, or if many people talk themselves to death over
greenhouse. Sooner or later, we all get to vote here. It'd be nice if
there was yearly votes for the public to allow them to vote on major
issues of the year. But I don't know why the politicians should be
worried either. Even if they think their **** don't stink, the people
have a habit of smelling it and voting accordingly. So they should
realise their job is only a temporary job.

I doubt enough will ever be done worldwide to seriously lower CO2
emissions.
Ordinary people here are trying to buy houses twice the size of the
houses they grew up in and they just want more and ****ing more and
more. You see it in their waist lines. The whole world is heading that
way.

So I see that democracy has rather a lot of inertia and its difficult
to get ppl to change their basic greedy habits. Better communications
world wide are spreading greed-hope amoung have-not billions that they
too might have apple pie like the rich people. So as change to low
carbon happens in some parts of the globe there is change to increased
consumption and population in other parts.

I might ask what happens when Oz and other well meaning countries
addopt expensive low CO2 energy measures while the rest of the world
fails because of consumption expansion and population increase. People
here might ask "Well why the **** did we bother?"
Many are asking the question right now.

Patrick Turner.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Most other people are, so I ain't alone, and many facts remain to
become known.

All facts remain to be known.

In fact, if anyone is claiming that there are facts, that is a
scientific first (science does not and never has dealt with facts)
worthy of a Nobel prize.

d

[Fu Knee]

On Nov 30, 9:44�am, Patrick Turner wrote:


/snip



Ordinary people here are trying to buy houses twice the size of the
houses they grew up in and they just want more and ****ing more and
more. You see it in their waist lines. The whole world is heading that
way.

/snip


Hi RATs!

And it only gets worse, never better. Here, in the leader of the brat
pack Amerrorica, people are trying to buy a hundred empty houses, of
any and every size, as they are such a great investment, long term.
After all, staying wealthy forever, and always getting even wealthier,
is the only thing that really matters, right?

Some of the more astute join a banking gang, which allows sharing of
the joy of owning hundreds of thousands of empty homes.

Others run the latest craze in betting shops, where you can purchase,
for meer pennies, insurance that will make you God if everybody else
dies, and many other such noble events. Wonderful, clever equities
with names like "reverse reverse double negative make me really,
really rich if it all ends by Friday".

And, do not worry if you cannot make sense of anything, your children
will, or someone's children will, or at least they will learn to
pretend they do, which is all we ever did, right?

Happy Ears!
Al

PS Do not worry about the waist lines, real winners hire Personal
Trainers for that. Only foolish, poor people are fat

PPS The romantics will always try to rent out their empty spaces. Some
idiots just like to keep busy ...

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 3:49*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

1. The Medieval Warm Period was several centuries of weather warmer by
several degrees around the globe than today. There was no industry or
automobiles, in short, very little manmade CO2. It was a time of
plenty when our present agriculture was established.

2. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, with coalfired
foundries belching smoke and very high CO2, there was the Little Ice
Age.

3. CO2 has been at about ten times present levels. The earth survived
very well, thank you.

4. In the perspective of the MWP we live in a cool period. If the IPCC
were to give up cutting off the graphs to favour only their preferred
interpretation, everyone would easily see that we are on the upslope
of recovery from the LIA towards, we hope, the balmier climes of a neo-
MWP. Such an uptrend is perfectly natural, as is short-term variations
within it. The recent hullabaloo about the 1990 supposedly being
symptomatic of global warming was just such a natural short-term
variation.

5. There is a statistical time-correlation (historically repetitive
pattern) between CO2 emissions and the global temperature rise. CO2
emissions *follow* temperature increases by 800 years plus/minus 200
years. How can CO2 emissions then be said to cause global warming?

6. A closer correlation between natural global temperature swings
around any trend line exists with sunspot activity. For instance, the
LIA coincides with the Maunder Minimum of abnormally low sunspot
activity. The Sun is the largest heat source the Earth knows, but a
politically intractable object!

All the above facts, which enjoy broad cross-disciplinary scientific
agreement, are contrary to any argument (and that is all it can be in
the absence of proof, that there is global warming or, even if there
is global warming, that it is caused by CO2. Indeed, the facts, agreed
by everyone except politically-inspired climate "scientists" tied to
the discredited IPCC, indicate that no warming has ever or is likely
to be caused by CO2, natural or manmade.

7. A fact we should not forget. CO2 is not some kind of poison. It is
a naturally occurring gas, and it is the food of many green things
which together constitute the lungs of the planet. They breathe our
waste products and breathe theirs, which is oxygen.

To give Patrick a little more credit (for him to squander on
irrelevant diversions), we are in danger with this witchhunt on CO2 of
forgetting our place in the scheme of things, of letting our heads
swell. Patrick is right about our hubris, but he has the cause arse
about end.

8. A scientific consensus, buried deep in the IPCC reports but
rewritten to mean almost the opposite in the Summary for Policy
Makers, states that moderate global warming would be beneficial. This
warming would in fact bring us back up to MWP levels, but the IPCC,
having tried to lie the MWP out of existence (in fact to create it an
un-period in the same way the Soviets created inconveniently truthful
dissenters un-persons) no longer mentions the MWP...

9. These *are* the facts, and they are incontestable. Their
incontestability also accounts for the desperate efforts of the global
warming high priesthood (Mann, Jones, that lot of now discredited
criminals and thugs) to lie them out of existence with hockey sticks
and other despicable statistical "tricks", and to "hide the decline"
when their models inevitably failed to predict the next natural
variation, the current decline in global temperature they're trying to
hide.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:58:58 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

OK, I was really talking about the prognosticating power of science
(eg, it is a FACT that the earth will heat up intolerably during the
next century). Of course things that have happened in the past are
facts. But in the Orwellian world of AGW, inconvenient facts can
conveniently disappear.

Proofs are quite another matter. Science certainly doesn't deal in
proof. The highest accolade that is ever given to a piece of work that
appears beyond disproof is to call it a theory. And one quality that
every theory must have to be accepted is that it must be falsifiable -
ie if it is wrong, there is a way to show that it is wrong. AGW admits
of none of this, hence it is not science.

d

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 5:16*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:58:58 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute

wrote:
I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg *politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

OK, I was really talking about the prognosticating power of science
(eg, it is a FACT that the earth will heat up intolerably during the
next century). Of course things that have happened in the past are
facts. But in the Orwellian world of AGW, inconvenient facts can
conveniently disappear.

Proofs are quite another matter. Science certainly doesn't deal in
proof. The highest accolade that is ever given to a piece of work that
appears beyond disproof is to call it a theory. And one quality that
every theory must have to be accepted is that it must be falsifiable -
ie if it is wrong, there is a way to show that it is wrong. AGW admits
of none of this, hence it is not science.

d

Of course it isn't science; we're dealing with a secular religion. But
Patrick, who taught himself electronics and thus may be presumed to be
familiar with some part of the scientific method, should know better
than to be so impressionable as to jump on the bandwagon and swallow
his spoonful of global warming snake oil. Patrick, for being a useful
fellow, is entitled to kid gloves handling, but I'm running out of
patience with the rest of the global warmies. -- AJ

[Fu Knee]

On Nov 30, 9:16�pm, flipper wrote:

The problem was, back then, there were things they did not know, and
didn't know they didn't know, but, of course, now we *do* 'know',
right?




Hi RATs!

Well, a few are intermittanty aware there are some who glory in the
posturing possibities of a few current proposals.

______

"Who was it that set up a system, a supposedly democratic system,
where we end up voting for the lesser of two evils? Was George
Washington the lesser of two evils? Sometimes. I wonder ..."

- The Villege Fugs, circa 1968


"The princess and the prince discuss: what's real and what is not.
And all is well inside the gates of Eden."

- Robert Zimmerman, same decade

Happy Ears!
Al

[Michael Press]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:16:11 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:58:58 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

OK, I was really talking about the prognosticating power of science
(eg, it is a FACT that the earth will heat up intolerably during the
next century).


Of course things that have happened in the past are
facts.

While that may be epistemologically true it is not in real life
because it presumes you actually do 'know' what "happened in the
past."

An illustrative historical example was Lord Kelvin's estimate for the
earth's age based on thermodynamics. The science was 'flawless' in
that thermodynamics works and his math was correct.

You mistake Lord Kelvin's intention.
He intended to show that there is
something going on that science did not ken.
Always one of the high points in a
scientific life, such as the anomalous
specific heat curve at very low temperatures.

Aeronautical engineering at one time could
not explain the flight of the bumblebee.
It did not mean "Scientists prove that a
bumblebee cannot fly" as many gleefully exclaimed.
Vortex shedding, you unschooled louts.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

The problem was, back then, there were things they did not know, and
didn't know they didn't know, but, of course, now we *do* 'know',
right?

They knew that they did not know.

--
Michael Press

[Engineer[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 10:49*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Most other people are, so I ain't alone, and many facts remain to
become known.

All facts remain to be known.

In fact, if anyone is claiming that there are facts, that is a
scientific first (science does not and never has dealt with facts)
worthy of a Nobel prize.

d

From Robbie Burns’ poem "A Dream from 1786":
"But facts are chiels that winna ding,
An downa be disputed"
English translation:
"But facts are fellows that will not be overturned
And cannot be disputed".

Now, what are they?
Cheers,
Roger

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:05:46 -0800 (PST), Engineer
wrote:

On Nov 30, 10:49*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Most other people are, so I ain't alone, and many facts remain to
become known.

All facts remain to be known.

In fact, if anyone is claiming that there are facts, that is a
scientific first (science does not and never has dealt with facts)
worthy of a Nobel prize.

d

From Robbie Burns’ poem "A Dream from 1786":
"But facts are chiels that winna ding,
An downa be disputed"
English translation:
"But facts are fellows that will not be overturned
And cannot be disputed".

Now, what are they?

Gibberish, apparently.

d

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 1, 7:29*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:05:46 -0800 (PST), Engineer





wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:49*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Most other people are, so I ain't alone, and many facts remain to
become known.

All facts remain to be known.

In fact, if anyone is claiming that there are facts, that is a
scientific first (science does not and never has dealt with facts)
worthy of a Nobel prize.

d

From Robbie Burns’ poem "A Dream from 1786":
"But facts are chiels that winna ding,
An downa be disputed"
English translation:
"But facts are fellows that will not be overturned
And cannot be disputed".

Now, what are they?

Gibberish, apparently.

d

Delighted to see two engineers agree with me that the poet knows best.

Andre Jute
Poet (well, at least I was, until I discovered there was no money in
it)

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 4:46*pm, Fu Knee wrote:

PPS The romantics will always try to rent out their empty spaces.

Room with a view through two oval windows. Empty space between my ears
for rent.

LOL.

Andre Jute
If I weren't an intellectual, I'd be rich

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 1, 2:49*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic.

An effect on something caused by mankind.


And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

There ARE many known facts about global warming so far.

Most other people are, so I ain't alone, and many facts remain to
become known.

All facts remain to be known.

In fact, if anyone is claiming that there are facts, that is a
scientific first (science does not and never has dealt with facts)
worthy of a Nobel prize.

What planet did you come from?

You can only get a Nobel prize if you are familiar with science which
is evidence based, ie, based on facts which can be proven. No proof =
no facts = no Nobel prize.

Vacuum tubes operate due to thermionic emission and electron flow in
avacuum between cathode and anode. The flow is controlled by grids and
the applied grid voltage. This is a scientific fact. So don't tell me
rubbish by saying "science does not and never has dealt with facts".

Patrick Turner.


d

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 1, 3:46*am, Fu Knee wrote:
On Nov 30, 9:44 am, Patrick Turner wrote:

/snip



Ordinary people here are trying to buy houses twice the size of the
houses they grew up in and they just want more and ****ing more and
more. You see it in their waist lines. The whole world is heading that
way.

/snip

Hi RATs!

And it only gets worse, never better. Here, in the leader of the brat
pack Amerrorica, people are trying to buy a hundred empty houses, of
any and every size, as they are such a great investment, long term.
After all, staying wealthy forever, and always getting even wealthier,
is the only thing that really matters, right?

Being wealthy sure beats trying to buy forgiveness for your sins from
a priest so you can get a good place in Heaven.

**** that idea, people wanna sin all day and night and have a good
place right here right now for as long as the doctors can keep 'em
alive and looking young.

The change in beliefs and expectations over a thousand years is called
"progress".

Some of the more astute join a banking gang, which allows sharing of
the joy of owning hundreds of thousands of empty homes.

More civilised than joining a bonking gang........



Others run the latest craze in betting shops, where you can purchase,
for meer pennies, insurance that will make you God if everybody else
dies, and many other such noble events. Wonderful, clever equities
with names like "reverse reverse double negative make me really,
really rich if it all ends by Friday".

And, do not worry if you cannot make sense of anything, your children
will, or someone's children will, or at least they will learn to
pretend they do, which is all we ever did, right?

You have really got it Al.

The young folks cease being children and pick up the cat at 21 and
begin to swing it around by the tail.

As the cat swings around it growls a bit and the young folks think
everything is under control and they are the first generation to know
it all.

Then the cat learns to poke a front paw out which catches the young
person's nose, and half a nose is ripped off.

Life, which is the cat, wins by half a nose......



Happy Ears!
Al

PS Do not worry about the waist lines, real winners hire Personal
Trainers for that. Only foolish, poor people are fat

PPS The romantics will always try to rent out their empty spaces. Some
idiots just like to keep busy ...

So what is the average rental income for the brain volume of an idiot?

Is it any more than a brain which thinks it knows every thing?

I can't rent out the insides of my vacuum tubes which are empty
spaces.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 1, 3:58*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 30, 3:49*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg *politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

1. The Medieval Warm Period was several centuries of weather warmer by
several degrees around the globe than today. There was no industry or
automobiles, in short, very little manmade CO2. It was a time of
plenty when our present agriculture was established.

How could anyone know if the warm period you say was a fact really was
a world wide fact?

I guess someone somewhere might have taken pollen, soil and ice
samples and done the analysis. I ain't an expert in the field of
forensic historical climatology though. I've never heard of your
factoid mentioned anywhere else except here, and I am averagely
educated, and keep an ear to the world and what is said.



2. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, with coalfired
foundries belching smoke and very high CO2, there was the Little Ice
Age.

Despite the beginning of CO2 emissions by industry, their effect could
not have ever been significant at all because they were so utterly
tiny compared to the last 50 years.

3. CO2 has been at about ten times present levels. The earth survived
very well, thank you.

Evidence?

4. In the perspective of the MWP we live in a cool period. If the IPCC
were to give up cutting off the graphs to favour only their preferred
interpretation, everyone would easily see that we are on the upslope
of recovery from the LIA towards, we hope, the balmier climes of a neo-
MWP. Such an uptrend is perfectly natural, as is short-term variations
within it. The recent hullabaloo about the 1990 supposedly being
symptomatic of global warming was just such a natural short-term
variation.

I still think we are ****ing up the environment and the atmosphere.
You've seen my figures on what estimates I have made about the amount
of CO2 per person is being sent skyward and such facts are widely
known.
Once excessive CO2 is up there it tends to stay up there.

There is overwhelming evidence gathered now by many research places
about changing species distributions which indicate only one trend -
that the world is warming up.

5. There is a statistical time-correlation (historically repetitive
pattern) between CO2 emissions and the global temperature rise. CO2
emissions *follow* temperature increases by 800 years plus/minus 200
years. How can CO2 emissions then be said to cause global warming?

I've only heard that T rise occurs after CO2 rise.

I've heard that most scientists agree that the Earth is warming. And
they agree mankind is causing the warming, or helping a natural
phenomena along like a man pouring gasoline on a natural bush fire.




6. A closer correlation between natural global temperature swings
around any trend line exists with sunspot activity. For instance, the
LIA coincides with the Maunder Minimum of abnormally low sunspot
activity. The Sun is the largest heat source the Earth knows, but a
politically intractable object!

All the above facts, which enjoy broad cross-disciplinary scientific
agreement, are contrary to any argument (and that is all it can be in
the absence of proof, that there is global warming or, even if there
is global warming, that it is caused by CO2. Indeed, the facts, agreed
by everyone except politically-inspired climate "scientists" tied to
the discredited IPCC, indicate that no warming has ever or is likely
to be caused by CO2, natural or manmade.

If there were no arguments, I'd agree that everyone had agreed about
the facts. But they don't agree, and the facts for one man can be
bull**** for another.

The Liberal Party of Oz just elected a new leader because 51% of the
party reckon the Labour Govt has got it all wrong about Emissions
Trading Schemes, and Carbon Pollution Reduction Schemes. As a result
of leadership change the Senate, which is controlled by the Liberals,
has refused to to pass the two bills which would otherwise have sent
the cost of living up which many people just don't wanna pay.
You'd be proud of of what the Liberals have done this week. The Govt
will have to go back to the drawing boards.

But the Govt cam force an election and if 75% of the people disagree
with the Liberals then they will be decimated. And ETS and CPRS will
become law regardless of whether you are right or whether the
inconvenient facts you quote are right.

Its OK though. In the fullness of time the fullness of the most
factual facts become known and the bul**** facts become disproven.
Going off carbon for energy would be expensive but benign progress.
Maybe we need the passage of another generation or two before mankind
really can know how the complex Earth weather systems interact.

But mankind would not like to be in a position in 2059 with everyone
grumbling about the lazy argumentative generation of 2009 being such a
bunch of ignorant deniers when there was evidence about CO2 warming
caused by man, and there were measures which could have been taken to
counter the warming which is getting worse.

7. A fact we should not forget. CO2 is not some kind of poison. It is
a naturally occurring gas, and it is the food of many green things
which together constitute the lungs of the planet. They breathe our
waste products and breathe theirs, which is oxygen.

Too much CO2 like too much O2 or N2 or CH4 would be deadly.......

Present amounts of CO2 are not causing easily agreed on effects which
could be construed as being poisonous. If CO2 were to rise to say
4,500PPM, then we'd have a problems. Rain water and sea water would
have high levels of carbonic acid.


To give Patrick a little more credit (for him to squander on
irrelevant diversions), we are in danger with this witchhunt on CO2 of
forgetting our place in the scheme of things, of letting our heads
swell. Patrick is right about our hubris, but he has the cause arse
about end.

Well, the cause-effect order is exactly what concerns many
scientists.

I am only a simple man, and I can't know enough, and all I know is the
reported consensus amoung many scientists that CO2 warming is occuring
seems to outweigh those scientists saying whatever we do is OK and
business as usual is OK and CO2 levels don't matter and don't have any
effect on global T.

51% of a whole political party voted in by 45% of australians must
think that CO2 warming is a pile of "absolute crap" which is what the
new Liberal leader, Mr Tiny Abutt did recently once say.


8. A scientific consensus, buried deep in the IPCC reports but
rewritten to mean almost the opposite in the Summary for Policy
Makers, states that moderate global warming would be beneficial.

I'm sure whether this is true or not could occupy several books. None
of the authors would agree.

This
warming would in fact bring us back up to MWP levels, but the IPCC,
having tried to lie the MWP out of existence (in fact to create it an
un-period in the same way the Soviets created inconveniently truthful
dissenters un-persons) no longer mentions the MWP...

Now look 'ere mate, yer jist dazzlin me with smoke, mirrors and
bull**** :-)

9. These *are* the facts, and they are incontestable.

So why is everyone with half a good brain at least contesting
everything?

Their
incontestability also accounts for the desperate efforts of the global
warming high priesthood (Mann, Jones, that lot of now discredited
criminals and thugs) to lie them out of existence with hockey sticks
and other despicable statistical "tricks", and to "hide the decline"
when their models inevitably failed to predict the next natural
variation, the current decline in global temperature they're trying to
hide.

Andre Jute


The trouble with facts is that many of them are doubted.

*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

The outcomes of "relentless rigour" have often been rivers of blood
and uneccessary suffering. We are perhaps lucky that since Caesar we
have evolved tolerance towards evidence which proves established facts
are plain wrong. It has led to much better doctors, dentists, and
bicycles.......IMHO of course.

Patrick Turner.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Patrick Turner wrote:
[...]
But mankind would not like to be in a position in 2059 with everyone
grumbling about the lazy argumentative generation of 2009 being such a
bunch of ignorant deniers when there was evidence about CO2 warming
caused by man, and there were measures which could have been taken to
counter the warming which is getting worse.[...]

I say let the glorious day arrive when humans realize they have doomed
themselves by their greed!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 1, 4:45*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 30, 5:16*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:





On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:58:58 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute

wrote:
I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg *politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

OK, I was really talking about the prognosticating power of science
(eg, it is a FACT that the earth will heat up intolerably during the
next century). Of course things that have happened in the past are
facts. But in the Orwellian world of AGW, inconvenient facts can
conveniently disappear.

Proofs are quite another matter. Science certainly doesn't deal in
proof. The highest accolade that is ever given to a piece of work that
appears beyond disproof is to call it a theory. And one quality that
every theory must have to be accepted is that it must be falsifiable -
ie if it is wrong, there is a way to show that it is wrong. AGW admits
of none of this, hence it is not science.

d

Of course it isn't science; we're dealing with a secular religion. But
Patrick, who taught himself electronics and thus may be presumed to be
familiar with some part of the scientific method, should know better
than to be so impressionable as to jump on the bandwagon and swallow
his spoonful of global warming snake oil. Patrick, for being a useful
fellow, is entitled to kid gloves handling, but I'm running out of
patience with the rest of the global warmies. -- AJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Believing in Global CO2 warming has become baffling to many rational
ppl who cannot understand how anyone with a science degree from a good
university could believe in Creationism where ther Bible tells the
literal truth and the Great Food and Noah's Ark really happened.

But I can assure everyone that there ARE many with uni degrees who
prefer Creationism to anything at all written by Charles Darwin, or by
that terrible recent scoundrel, Richard Dawkins.

For myself, there definitely is a God, and He, She, or It is an
Infinite Being which has an infinitely sized description and thus
cannot be fitted within my tiny finite brain, only slightly better
than a chimp's.

How is it that the mass in the atoms in my finger are aware of the
mass of stars light years away? Why does gravity exist? Anyway, at
present experiments are underway to answer questions about which
particles within parts of atoms are responsible for mass and time
itself. The sooner we know more the better I say, but to me it looks
like science is only scratching the surface of the discoverable facts
below the facts below the facts.

The sooner we conclude observations of the dynamics within the Earthly
climate, the better. So far the observations have been alarming. We've
taken a bit of a geek at things and ****E! look at what CO2 is doing.
And its the only atmosphere we have.

God is probably an extremely busy entity. He must have all his time
taken up just reading reports and is too busy to do much for anyone.
There must be billions of planets where life has begun, ceased, blown
itself to bits, still flourishing, has warming bothers, is beginning
to freeze over etc.

The sooner we make contact with distant life forms the better,
although if history on Earth is any indicator, should we make contact
and say a merry cheerful "Hiya man" to some distant civilisation then
they soon come over for dinner and eat the lot of us in a week.

A few escapees from dinner time will mutter amoung themselves, "Aw
****, and all we really wanted was some advice on atmospherics, and
they come and got us."

Talking to the neighbours could be dangerous.

But somewhere something or someone knows the answers to our questions.

A young Irish priest had it partially right when he said to a woman
who felt she'd lost the Faith, "Man was made in the image of God, and
man isn't perfect. So God isn't perfect then is he? if he was he would
not make men who lie and cheat and beat their wives."

The woman tried to go back to mass the following week, but her mind
assaulted her with another mass of further questions and hellish
feelings about life and her disastrous marriage.

Priests nor God can give us all the answers we crave.

So we struggle with our science. Its all we have.

The more variables there are in a complex interactive sytem, the less
likely scientists can agree about the definition of the system let
alone agree about modifying the system behaviour.

But a heck of a lotta scientists now reckon we are heating up Mutha
Earth.

Many economists are saying "For crisake we'll be rooned if we try to
get off carbon"

So I cannot ignore scientists or economists.

And in an ideal world, the 1kW per hour I need to be supplied to me so
I can live should not come from burning fossil fuels.

So let us un-carbonerize energy production. Good for you and me.

I'm currently making a nice headphone amp with trioded EL84, and have
a pair of SE amps to rewire.
I ain't feelin guilty.

Patrick Turner.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:08:49 -0600, flipper wrote:

Vacuum tubes operate due to thermionic emission and electron flow in
avacuum between cathode and anode.

And you're absolutely sure you know, for a 'fact', what an electron
is, are you?

Reminds me of a story of a physics student at an interview for a
university. The learned professor asked "And tell me, what is an
electron?" The student stuttered a bit and said, "sorry I've
forgotten". "Oh dear", said the professor, "only two beings in the
whole of creation knew the answer to that question, and now one of
them has forgotten".

d

[KeithR]

flipper wrote:

You can only get a Nobel prize if you are familiar with science which
is evidence based, ie, based on facts which can be proven. No proof =
no facts = no Nobel prize.

Oh, please. Obama got the Nobel prize and he not only doesn't know
squat about science but got it without having done anything but
blather.

Umm, I don't think that a knowledge of science is a requirement for the
Nobel Peace prize. OTOH I am not sure what he has done for peace. Maybe
they were just grateful that Dubya had gone.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:27:10 +1100, keithr
wrote:

flipper wrote:

You can only get a Nobel prize if you are familiar with science which
is evidence based, ie, based on facts which can be proven. No proof =
no facts = no Nobel prize.

Oh, please. Obama got the Nobel prize and he not only doesn't know
squat about science but got it without having done anything but
blather.

Umm, I don't think that a knowledge of science is a requirement for the
Nobel Peace prize. OTOH I am not sure what he has done for peace. Maybe
they were just grateful that Dubya had gone.

He had clearly done nothing. The Nobel Peace Prize has officially been
renamed "The Not Being George Bush Prize".

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:34:26 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:37:09 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:08:49 -0600, flipper wrote:

Vacuum tubes operate due to thermionic emission and electron flow in
avacuum between cathode and anode.

And you're absolutely sure you know, for a 'fact', what an electron
is, are you?

Reminds me of a story of a physics student at an interview for a
university. The learned professor asked "And tell me, what is an
electron?" The student stuttered a bit and said, "sorry I've
forgotten". "Oh dear", said the professor, "only two beings in the
whole of creation knew the answer to that question, and now one of
them has forgotten".

d

ROTFLOL

Speaking of funny lines, although not quite that funny, as I posted I
thought of Men in Black where Edwards has just learned there are space
aliens on earth and questioning why 'the people' aren't told. Not
Jay's comment: "People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you
know it," but the next part.

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody 'knew' the Earth was the center
of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody 'knew' the Earth
was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you 'knew' that humans were alone
on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Pithy and humorous yet still worthy of thought.

Great movie. I love the 'reality inversion'. Tabloids have the 'truth'
and the New York times gets lucky sometimes.


Quite. Not about the flat earth bit though. Not only has it been known
since antiquity that the earth was spheroid, but the first really
accurate measurement of its diameter was made in the third century BC
by Eratosthenes. And of course sailors never believed they might sail
over the edge; they knew better than anyone on land that it was round.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:21:03 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:46:52 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:34:26 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:37:09 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:08:49 -0600, flipper wrote:

Vacuum tubes operate due to thermionic emission and electron flow in
avacuum between cathode and anode.

And you're absolutely sure you know, for a 'fact', what an electron
is, are you?

Reminds me of a story of a physics student at an interview for a
university. The learned professor asked "And tell me, what is an
electron?" The student stuttered a bit and said, "sorry I've
forgotten". "Oh dear", said the professor, "only two beings in the
whole of creation knew the answer to that question, and now one of
them has forgotten".

d

ROTFLOL

Speaking of funny lines, although not quite that funny, as I posted I
thought of Men in Black where Edwards has just learned there are space
aliens on earth and questioning why 'the people' aren't told. Not
Jay's comment: "People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you
know it," but the next part.

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody 'knew' the Earth was the center
of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody 'knew' the Earth
was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you 'knew' that humans were alone
on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Pithy and humorous yet still worthy of thought.

Great movie. I love the 'reality inversion'. Tabloids have the 'truth'
and the New York times gets lucky sometimes.


Quite. Not about the flat earth bit though.

Hey, why ruin a perfectly good fantasy movie with historical fact
(sic)? The historical movies don't worry about it. hehe


Facts will always ruin a good story, I suppose. I've always found them
more interesting and fun than the other stuff, though.

Just another thing he 'knew' he 'knew'

Not only has it been known
since antiquity that the earth was spheroid, but the first really
accurate measurement of its diameter was made in the third century BC
by Eratosthenes. And of course sailors never believed they might sail
over the edge; they knew better than anyone on land that it was round.

d

Depends on who you mean. 'Flat' was accepted in China till the 17'th
century. Seems odd in light of the History Channel's recent barrage
telling us they invented just about everything while Europe was still
scribbling on cave walls (colorful exaggeration).

But I figure you're referring to the popular western view of the, so
called, 'dark ages' in Europe and the myth they thought the earth was
flat so, yep.


The dark ages - one of the great myths of our time.

I kind of suspect the myth began the same way it's used today: as a
general hurl to claim someone, or group, or time, or whatever the
target, is/was 'stupid' and/or ignorant while we smart, educated,
folks know about things like this.


I'm sure you are absolutely right.

d

[Henry[_3_]]

On Dec 1, 5:58*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 30, 3:49*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg *politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

1. The Medieval Warm Period was several centuries of weather warmer by
several degrees around the globe than today. There was no industry or
automobiles, in short, very little manmade CO2. It was a time of
plenty when our present agriculture was established.

2. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, with coalfired
foundries belching smoke and very high CO2, there was the Little Ice
Age.

3. CO2 has been at about ten times present levels. The earth survived
very well, thank you.

4. In the perspective of the MWP we live in a cool period. If the IPCC
were to give up cutting off the graphs to favour only their preferred
interpretation, everyone would easily see that we are on the upslope
of recovery from the LIA towards, we hope, the balmier climes of a neo-
MWP. Such an uptrend is perfectly natural, as is short-term variations
within it. The recent hullabaloo about the 1990 supposedly being
symptomatic of global warming was just such a natural short-term
variation.

5. There is a statistical time-correlation (historically repetitive
pattern) between CO2 emissions and the global temperature rise. CO2
emissions *follow* temperature increases by 800 years plus/minus 200
years. How can CO2 emissions then be said to cause global warming?

6. A closer correlation between natural global temperature swings
around any trend line exists with sunspot activity. For instance, the
LIA coincides with the Maunder Minimum of abnormally low sunspot
activity. The Sun is the largest heat source the Earth knows, but a
politically intractable object!

All the above facts, which enjoy broad cross-disciplinary scientific
agreement, are contrary to any argument (and that is all it can be in
the absence of proof, that there is global warming or, even if there
is global warming, that it is caused by CO2. Indeed, the facts, agreed
by everyone except politically-inspired climate "scientists" tied to
the discredited IPCC, indicate that no warming has ever or is likely
to be caused by CO2, natural or manmade.

7. A fact we should not forget. CO2 is not some kind of poison. It is
a naturally occurring gas, and it is the food of many green things
which together constitute the lungs of the planet. They breathe our
waste products and breathe theirs, which is oxygen.

To give Patrick a little more credit (for him to squander on
irrelevant diversions), we are in danger with this witchhunt on CO2 of
forgetting our place in the scheme of things, of letting our heads
swell. Patrick is right about our hubris, but he has the cause arse
about end.

8. A scientific consensus, buried deep in the IPCC reports but
rewritten to mean almost the opposite in the Summary for Policy
Makers, states that moderate global warming would be beneficial. This
warming would in fact bring us back up to MWP levels, but the IPCC,
having tried to lie the MWP out of existence (in fact to create it an
un-period in the same way the Soviets created inconveniently truthful
dissenters un-persons) no longer mentions the MWP...

9. These *are* the facts, and they are incontestable. Their
incontestability also accounts for the desperate efforts of the global
warming high priesthood (Mann, Jones, that lot of now discredited
criminals and thugs) to lie them out of existence with hockey sticks
and other despicable statistical "tricks", and to "hide the decline"
when their models inevitably failed to predict the next natural
variation, the current decline in global temperature they're trying to
hide.

Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

I think it's much easier to explain GW like this.
Doing what's right; or not.
You don't need the science. Science is a matter of OPINION, The
"facts" are not; there is no such thing.
You can't measure something without affecting [sic] it. It's been
proved (at least to me) that scientists can't be neutral, there is
always an agenda.
It is wrong to pollute. There you go. That was easy.
Being lazy, inconsiderate, selfish horny consumers is wrong.

Sorted

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:47:59 -0800 (PST), Henry
wrote:

I think it's much easier to explain GW like this.
Doing what's right; or not.
You don't need the science. Science is a matter of OPINION, The
"facts" are not; there is no such thing.
You can't measure something without affecting [sic] it. It's been
proved (at least to me) that scientists can't be neutral, there is
always an agenda.
It is wrong to pollute. There you go. That was easy.
Being lazy, inconsiderate, selfish horny consumers is wrong.

Sorted

ok, First up, why the [sic] after affecting? That is the correct word.
Unless you mean you can't measure something without causing it to
happen, where effecting would be the right one.

Second. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a vital component of the carbon
cycle.

d

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Patrick, to inform yourself with a little more science and a lot less
street corner gossip, try this to start.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
--Andre Jute


On Dec 2, 4:42*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:58*am, Andre Jute wrote:

On Nov 30, 3:49*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg *politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

1. The Medieval Warm Period was several centuries of weather warmer by
several degrees around the globe than today. There was no industry or
automobiles, in short, very little manmade CO2. It was a time of
plenty when our present agriculture was established.

How could anyone know if the warm period you say was a fact really was
a world wide fact?

I guess someone somewhere might have taken pollen, soil and ice
samples and done the analysis. I ain't an expert in the field of
forensic historical climatology though. I've never heard of your
factoid mentioned anywhere else except here, and I am averagely
educated, and keep an ear to the world and what is said.



2. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, with coalfired
foundries belching smoke and very high CO2, there was the Little Ice
Age.

Despite the beginning of CO2 emissions by industry, their effect could
not have ever been significant at all because they were so utterly
tiny compared to the last 50 years.



3. CO2 has been at about ten times present levels. The earth survived
very well, thank you.

Evidence?



4. In the perspective of the MWP we live in a cool period. If the IPCC
were to give up cutting off the graphs to favour only their preferred
interpretation, everyone would easily see that we are on the upslope
of recovery from the LIA towards, we hope, the balmier climes of a neo-
MWP. Such an uptrend is perfectly natural, as is short-term variations
within it. The recent hullabaloo about the 1990 supposedly being
symptomatic of global warming was just such a natural short-term
variation.

I still think we are ****ing up the environment and the atmosphere.
You've seen my figures on what estimates I have made about the amount
of CO2 per person is being sent skyward and such facts are widely
known.
Once excessive CO2 is up there it tends to stay up there.

There is overwhelming evidence gathered now by many research places
about changing species distributions which indicate only one trend -
that the world is warming up.



5. There is a statistical time-correlation (historically repetitive
pattern) between CO2 emissions and the global temperature rise. CO2
emissions *follow* temperature increases by 800 years plus/minus 200
years. How can CO2 emissions then be said to cause global warming?

I've only heard that T rise occurs after CO2 rise.

I've heard that most scientists agree that the Earth is warming. And
they agree mankind is causing the warming, or helping a natural
phenomena along like a man pouring gasoline on a natural bush fire.



6. A closer correlation between natural global temperature swings
around any trend line exists with sunspot activity. For instance, the
LIA coincides with the Maunder Minimum of abnormally low sunspot
activity. The Sun is the largest heat source the Earth knows, but a
politically intractable object!

All the above facts, which enjoy broad cross-disciplinary scientific
agreement, are contrary to any argument (and that is all it can be in
the absence of proof, that there is global warming or, even if there
is global warming, that it is caused by CO2. Indeed, the facts, agreed
by everyone except politically-inspired climate "scientists" tied to
the discredited IPCC, indicate that no warming has ever or is likely
to be caused by CO2, natural or manmade.

If there were no arguments, I'd agree that everyone had agreed about
the facts. But they don't agree, and the facts for one man can be
bull**** for another.

The Liberal Party of Oz just elected a new leader because 51% of the
party reckon the Labour Govt has got it all wrong about Emissions
Trading Schemes, and Carbon Pollution Reduction Schemes. As a result
of leadership change the Senate, which is controlled by the Liberals,
has refused to to pass the two bills which would otherwise have sent
the cost of living up which many people just don't wanna pay.
You'd be proud of of what the Liberals have done this week. The Govt
will have to go back to the drawing boards.

But the Govt cam force an election and if 75% of the people disagree
with the Liberals then they will be decimated. And ETS and CPRS will
become law regardless of whether you are right or whether the
inconvenient facts *you quote are right.

Its OK though. In the fullness of time the fullness of the most
factual facts become known and the bul**** facts become disproven.
Going off carbon for energy would be expensive but benign progress.
Maybe we need the passage of another generation or two before mankind
really can know how the complex Earth weather systems interact.

But mankind would not like to be in a position in 2059 with everyone
grumbling about the lazy argumentative generation of 2009 being such a
bunch of ignorant deniers when there was evidence about CO2 warming
caused by man, and there were measures which could have been taken to
counter the warming which is getting worse.



7. A fact we should not forget. CO2 is not some kind of poison. It is
a naturally occurring gas, and it is the food of many green things
which together constitute the lungs of the planet. They breathe our
waste products and breathe theirs, which is oxygen.

Too much CO2 like too much O2 or N2 or CH4 would be deadly.......

Present amounts of CO2 are not causing easily agreed on effects which
could be construed as being poisonous. If CO2 were to rise to say
4,500PPM, then we'd have a problems. Rain water and sea water would
have high levels of carbonic acid.



To give Patrick a little more credit (for him to squander on
irrelevant diversions), we are in danger with this witchhunt on CO2 of
forgetting our place in the scheme of things, of letting our heads
swell. Patrick is right about our hubris, but he has the cause arse
about end.

Well, the cause-effect order is exactly what concerns many
scientists.

I am only a simple man, and I can't know enough, and all I know is the
reported consensus amoung many scientists that CO2 warming is occuring
seems to outweigh those scientists saying whatever we do is OK and
business as usual is OK and CO2 levels don't matter and don't have any
effect on global T.

51% of a whole political party voted in by 45% of australians must
think that CO2 warming is a pile of "absolute crap" which is what the
new Liberal leader, Mr Tiny Abutt did recently once say.



8. A scientific consensus, buried deep in the IPCC reports but
rewritten to mean almost the opposite in the Summary for Policy
Makers, states that moderate global warming would be beneficial.

I'm sure whether this is true or not could occupy several books. None
of the authors would agree.

This
warming would in fact bring us back up to MWP levels, but the IPCC,
having tried to lie the MWP out of existence (in fact to create it an
un-period in the same way the Soviets created inconveniently truthful
dissenters un-persons) no longer mentions the MWP...

Now look 'ere mate, yer jist dazzlin me with smoke, mirrors and
bull**** :-)



9. These *are* the facts, and they are incontestable.

So why is everyone with half a good brain at least contesting
everything?

Their
incontestability also accounts for the desperate efforts of the global
warming high priesthood (Mann, Jones, that lot of now discredited
criminals and thugs) to lie them out of existence with hockey sticks
and other despicable statistical "tricks", and to "hide the decline"
when their models inevitably failed to predict the next natural
variation, the current decline in global temperature they're trying to
hide.

Andre Jute

The trouble with facts is that many of them are doubted.

*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

The outcomes of "relentless rigour" have often been rivers of blood
and uneccessary suffering. We are perhaps lucky *that since Caesar we
have evolved tolerance towards evidence which proves established facts
are plain wrong. It has led to much better doctors, dentists, and
bicycles.......IMHO of course.

Patrick Turner.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 2, 10:47*pm, Henry wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:58*am, Andre Jute wrote:





On Nov 30, 3:49*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.

I presume you mean anthropogenic. And I am sorry to tell you that
there are no known facts. All there is currently is speculation and
assertion.

Permitting Patrick to say "facts" when he means "scientific proofs", I
beg *politely to differ from you, Don. There are known facts, of which
I give a few headlines:

1. The Medieval Warm Period was several centuries of weather warmer by
several degrees around the globe than today. There was no industry or
automobiles, in short, very little manmade CO2. It was a time of
plenty when our present agriculture was established.

2. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, with coalfired
foundries belching smoke and very high CO2, there was the Little Ice
Age.

3. CO2 has been at about ten times present levels. The earth survived
very well, thank you.

4. In the perspective of the MWP we live in a cool period. If the IPCC
were to give up cutting off the graphs to favour only their preferred
interpretation, everyone would easily see that we are on the upslope
of recovery from the LIA towards, we hope, the balmier climes of a neo-
MWP. Such an uptrend is perfectly natural, as is short-term variations
within it. The recent hullabaloo about the 1990 supposedly being
symptomatic of global warming was just such a natural short-term
variation.

5. There is a statistical time-correlation (historically repetitive
pattern) between CO2 emissions and the global temperature rise. CO2
emissions *follow* temperature increases by 800 years plus/minus 200
years. How can CO2 emissions then be said to cause global warming?

6. A closer correlation between natural global temperature swings
around any trend line exists with sunspot activity. For instance, the
LIA coincides with the Maunder Minimum of abnormally low sunspot
activity. The Sun is the largest heat source the Earth knows, but a
politically intractable object!

All the above facts, which enjoy broad cross-disciplinary scientific
agreement, are contrary to any argument (and that is all it can be in
the absence of proof, that there is global warming or, even if there
is global warming, that it is caused by CO2. Indeed, the facts, agreed
by everyone except politically-inspired climate "scientists" tied to
the discredited IPCC, indicate that no warming has ever or is likely
to be caused by CO2, natural or manmade.

7. A fact we should not forget. CO2 is not some kind of poison. It is
a naturally occurring gas, and it is the food of many green things
which together constitute the lungs of the planet. They breathe our
waste products and breathe theirs, which is oxygen.

To give Patrick a little more credit (for him to squander on
irrelevant diversions), we are in danger with this witchhunt on CO2 of
forgetting our place in the scheme of things, of letting our heads
swell. Patrick is right about our hubris, but he has the cause arse
about end.

8. A scientific consensus, buried deep in the IPCC reports but
rewritten to mean almost the opposite in the Summary for Policy
Makers, states that moderate global warming would be beneficial. This
warming would in fact bring us back up to MWP levels, but the IPCC,
having tried to lie the MWP out of existence (in fact to create it an
un-period in the same way the Soviets created inconveniently truthful
dissenters un-persons) no longer mentions the MWP...

9. These *are* the facts, and they are incontestable. Their
incontestability also accounts for the desperate efforts of the global
warming high priesthood (Mann, Jones, that lot of now discredited
criminals and thugs) to lie them out of existence with hockey sticks
and other despicable statistical "tricks", and to "hide the decline"
when their models inevitably failed to predict the next natural
variation, the current decline in global temperature they're trying to
hide.

Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

I think it's much easier to explain GW like this.
Doing what's right; or not.

You mean "global warming" is just an excuse for forcing us to do what
some campaigner thinks is "right"?

There was and is no global warming, nor is there likely to be any.
Global warming was manmade inside a computer by Michael Mann, Phil
Jones, Keith Briffa and others. Smart people have known for years that
they lied about the science. Now the Climategate papers reveal their
signed confessions.

Since global warming didn't happen, nothing could have caused it. It
is therefore not necessary to scapegoat CO2.

Thus there is no logical or rational path to the condemnation of CO2,
or action against it. Assaulting CO2 is thus NOT "doing what's right".

You don't need the science.

I see.

Science is a matter of OPINION,

Okay, if you insist. But then, as an opinion-former and -consumer, I
reserve the right not to accept the opinions of statistical crooks
like Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wang and the rest of those clowns.

The
"facts" are not; there is no such thing.

So when the "facts" underlying a policy are revealed as invented to
justify the policy, in short as lies, the policy must still continue?
Neat.

You can't measure something without affecting [sic] it.

You can't mean... No, you really can't! I don't believe you can mean
that when I put my watch on a scale to weigh it, it suddenly gets very
emotionally involved in its weight and starts wondering how a watch
goes about dieting.

It's been
proved (at least to me) that scientists can't be neutral, there is
always an agenda.

It usually isn't as blatant as in the case of the climatologists, who
invented "global warming" to order for the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, in order to justify its bureaucratic existence and
budget, and of course as a power-grab. There are dispassionate
scientist even in climatology: they are known as "deniers".

It is wrong to pollute.

Of course it is. But CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the food of the
trees whose exhalation of oxygen we in turn breathe.

There you go.

Quite. Global warming and the hysteria about CO2 were bandwagons on
which the mentally challenged jumped.

That was easy.

The mob is always easy to manipulate with lies.

Being lazy, inconsiderate, selfish horny consumers is wrong.

"Global Warming" and the demon CO2 were created specifically to permit
you to wallow in the most affecting (and effective) of human emotions,
guilt.

Sorted

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat,
plausible and wrong.” -- H. L. Mencken

HTH.

Andre Jute
Unsorted

[KeithR]

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:27:10 +1100, keithr
wrote:

flipper wrote:

You can only get a Nobel prize if you are familiar with science which
is evidence based, ie, based on facts which can be proven. No proof =
no facts = no Nobel prize.
Oh, please. Obama got the Nobel prize and he not only doesn't know
squat about science but got it without having done anything but
blather.
Umm, I don't think that a knowledge of science is a requirement for the
Nobel Peace prize.

When the process is nuts then the process is nuts.

Duh! why should an understanding of science be a necessity to make a
contribution to peace?

[Henry[_3_]]

On Dec 3, 11:52*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:47:59 -0800 (PST), Henry

wrote:
I think it's much easier to explain GW like this.
Doing what's right; or not.
You don't need the science. Science is a matter of OPINION, The
"facts" are not; there is no such thing.
You can't measure something without affecting [sic] it. It's been
proved (at least to me) that scientists can't be neutral, there is
always an agenda.
It is wrong to pollute. There you go. That was easy.
Being lazy, inconsiderate, selfish horny consumers is wrong.

Sorted

ok, First up, why the [sic] after affecting? That is the correct word.
Unless you mean you can't measure something without causing it to
happen, where effecting would be the right one.

Second. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a vital component of the carbon
cycle.

d

I didn't say C02 was bad; I don't believe in GW, I just think we
should be kinder to the planet; and each other.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:40:56 -0800 (PST), Henry
wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:52*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:47:59 -0800 (PST), Henry

wrote:
I think it's much easier to explain GW like this.
Doing what's right; or not.
You don't need the science. Science is a matter of OPINION, The
"facts" are not; there is no such thing.
You can't measure something without affecting [sic] it. It's been
proved (at least to me) that scientists can't be neutral, there is
always an agenda.
It is wrong to pollute. There you go. That was easy.
Being lazy, inconsiderate, selfish horny consumers is wrong.

Sorted

ok, First up, why the [sic] after affecting? That is the correct word.
Unless you mean you can't measure something without causing it to
happen, where effecting would be the right one.

Second. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a vital component of the carbon
cycle.

d

I didn't say C02 was bad; I don't believe in GW, I just think we
should be kinder to the planet; and each other.

But what on earth does kinder to the planet mean? The planet couldn't
give a stuff what we do to it. It will be here, alive and well long
after we are gone.

d

[Henry[_3_]]

On Dec 4, 10:37*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:40:56 -0800 (PST), Henry



wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:52 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:47:59 -0800 (PST), Henry

wrote:
I think it's much easier to explain GW like this.
Doing what's right; or not.
You don't need the science. Science is a matter of OPINION, The
"facts" are not; there is no such thing.
You can't measure something without affecting [sic] it. It's been
proved (at least to me) that scientists can't be neutral, there is
always an agenda.
It is wrong to pollute. There you go. That was easy.
Being lazy, inconsiderate, selfish horny consumers is wrong.

Sorted

ok, First up, why the [sic] after affecting? That is the correct word.
Unless you mean you can't measure something without causing it to
happen, where effecting would be the right one.

Second. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a vital component of the carbon
cycle.

d

I didn't say C02 was bad; I don't believe in GW, I just think we
should be kinder to the planet; and each other.

But what on earth does kinder to the planet mean? The planet couldn't
give a stuff what we do to it. It will be here, alive and well long
after we are gone.

d

is this the room for an argument ?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:34:42 -0800 (PST), Henry
wrote:

On Dec 4, 10:37*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:40:56 -0800 (PST), Henry



wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:52 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:47:59 -0800 (PST), Henry

wrote:
I think it's much easier to explain GW like this.
Doing what's right; or not.
You don't need the science. Science is a matter of OPINION, The
"facts" are not; there is no such thing.
You can't measure something without affecting [sic] it. It's been
proved (at least to me) that scientists can't be neutral, there is
always an agenda.
It is wrong to pollute. There you go. That was easy.
Being lazy, inconsiderate, selfish horny consumers is wrong.

Sorted

ok, First up, why the [sic] after affecting? That is the correct word.
Unless you mean you can't measure something without causing it to
happen, where effecting would be the right one.

Second. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a vital component of the carbon
cycle.

d

I didn't say C02 was bad; I don't believe in GW, I just think we
should be kinder to the planet; and each other.

But what on earth does kinder to the planet mean? The planet couldn't
give a stuff what we do to it. It will be here, alive and well long
after we are gone.

d

is this the room for an argument ?

Depends what you want - a five minute argument or the full half hour.

d

[RickH]

On Nov 30, 9:44*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
I am at a loss to take in all the known facts about anthropocentric
global warming.
Most other people are, so I ain't alone, and many facts remain to
become known.

Basically people want CO2 emissions lowered, but are only prepared to
pay a small amount to achieve that. A cooler world is pie in the sky
for many ppl.

At present, Australia's Labour govt is trying desperately to get ETS
and CPRS passed into law but the Senate is controlled by the Liberal
Party and Greens etc and Labour does not have a senate majority.

If the Liberals fail to allow the passage of the proposed laws there
might be an early election next year and unfortunately it'd be too
early for everyone to feel the results of ETS and CPRS laws.

The leadership of the Liberals is in turmoil, and all because so few
people can agree about so much that is at stake for the immediate
future. I think some politicians don't really mind if they get voted
out over ETS and CPRS.

But the people voted for everyone in the senate, and the two house
system ensures that one political party rarely ever gets everything it
wants when it wants. Establishing a dictatorship in Oz would be
difficult under our system.

Here we have had a tradition of democracy and it should become clear
by 2013 if the CO2 emissions are going down, and people will have
begun to realise how much they are having to pay for them to go down.

They'll pay in higher electricity, food and transport bills directly.
The cost of living will just rise. They'll also pay indirectly through
taxes spent to compensate the big end of town including major
polluters.
Basically, as a result of ETS and CPRS, the standard of living will
fall. No politician will ever say such words.
But its not all gloomy. If Oz does OK while continuing to sell mining
products to China and elsewhere we may well afford to be able to
convert to a luxury of an economy based on low CO2 emissions, and the
COL may not rise much.

So I really don't have to worry if political parties destroy
themselves, or if many people talk themselves to death over
greenhouse. *Sooner or later, we all get to vote here. It'd be nice if
there was yearly votes for the public to allow them to vote on major
issues of the year. But I don't know why the politicians should be
worried either. Even if they think their **** don't stink, the people
have a habit of smelling it and voting accordingly. So they should
realise their job is only a temporary job.

I doubt enough will ever be done worldwide to seriously lower CO2
emissions.
Ordinary people here are trying to buy houses twice the size of the
houses they grew up in and they just want more and ****ing more and
more. You see it in their waist lines. The whole world is heading that
way.

So I see that democracy has rather a lot of inertia and its difficult
to get ppl to change their basic greedy habits. Better communications
world wide are spreading greed-hope amoung have-not billions that they
too might have apple pie like the rich people. So as change to low
carbon happens in some parts of the globe there is change to increased
consumption and population in other parts.

I might ask what happens when Oz and other well meaning countries
addopt expensive low CO2 energy measures while the rest of the world
fails because of consumption expansion and population increase. People
here might ask "Well why the **** did we bother?"
Many are asking the question right now.

Patrick Turner.


You're in a democracy, that complicates things. But China, being a
communist country, is in a position to simply dictate people reduce
CO2 emissions. But they wont, they know a boondoggle when they see
it, even though Bejing looks kinda smoggy. Western democracies and
Australia are way cleaner than China. China needs to catch up to us,
cleanliness-wise, only then will I vote for everyone to proceed
together.