Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
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!
In article
, Andre Jute wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-th...he%20queen.JPG If you want to look slim ... -- Michael Press |
#42
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 14, 6:05*pm, flipper wrote:
You took that witticism off a newly discovered ardipithecus carving, no doubt. Nah! Just observation of the obvious. No wit required. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#43
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 14, 6:04*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
P.S. *Please do not cross post into other newsgroups; that reflects poor Usenet manners, IMO. Something else you should learn, Jonesy. Your opinion doesn't matter to me. I'll do what I'm going to do regardless of whether you think it is good netiquette, and sooner or later my version will become the rule. So save your breath; I'm not in the least interested in conforming to your lowest common denominator view of how one should behave. Yes, of course. All must conform to the "Great Jute" - Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCC...eature=related Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
GZ34 worship!
On Nov 14, 1:22*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:21*am, Patrick Turner wrote: For each green minded person there might be 2 who don't care what happens and 3 who go by the FU2 idea and care only to own a 10 room house, and make lotsa money to pay for a grossly polluting lifestyle while cheering the boys with chain saws ripping down forests and causing mahem and mass extinctions. They will believe we are entitled to business as usual and God is on their side. Oh, I dunno. I expect that God is pretty much indifferent to this planet and its contents - it is all part of the bigger plan, after all. I agree on your points, that there is a God, that he, she or it is indifferent, and there is a bigger plan which we are only scratching at the surface to understand. As we look deeper into space we probably will find the known universe is teeming with lifeforms and some might be intelligent and we might really learn something. Then there are the teeming universes outside our own. And our dissection of the atom isn't over yet and much needs to be understood. Had I lived in 1500, and said such things I'd have been burnt at a stake somewhere. Life has a queerness alright. As to 'greeness' that is a moving target. Start with "things" - the range from houses to cloths: a) The greenest 'thing' is one that already exists. b) Any new "thing" requires resources to make it, care to keep it, and somewhere to put it when it is 'done'. This is called 'life-cycle cost'. c) Recycling has a cost - in many cases the cost is lower than the alternative. In very nearly equally many the cost is equivalent to the alternative. In very few, the alternative is both the wisest and most green decision. Metals are category 1. Plastics wood, vegetable matter and paper materials are category 2. Some are amenable to recycling as similar products, some may become biofuels by distillation, some may be burnt directly as fuel. Some chemicals (which likely should never had been made in the first place) are category 3. And one could say a whole pile of people shouldn't have been born. I should show more tolerance eh.... :-) d) No 'thing' may be viewed at a single moment. It must be viewed across its entire life-cycle. So, windmills are very good 'things' as they last a long time, don't cost very much and don't need much care and use simple technology. There have been a bunch of 50+ windmills erected 20km away on a hilly ridge where the wind blows strong. After awhile their ruination of the landscape becomes tolerable considering the power being generated. Yes, there is cost in mining and refining the materials going into them - but per category 1 above much may be from existing sources, and when 'done' may be readily recycled. Solar (photovoltaic) panels are very bad 'things' as they are costly to install, costly to make and refine the materials, cannot be recycled and have a limited life. Even with subsidies their so-called 'payback' period is anything from 10 - 15 years. Without subsidies, they never pay back due to those nasty life-cycle costs. Indeed the volatge cells are a bit sus but all their metal is recyclable. If they become dead at some point then the actual panels don't contain a huge amount of noxious chemistry. So they seem benign to me. A company here has been selling panels which conatin vacuum sealed glass tubes with metal pipes within to heat water. They are amazingly more efficient at collecting solar heat and saving fossil heating of water. Every parent of a teenage daughter knows just how much time there little dearie spends in the shower until the big tank of water runs cold. e) Similarly early-version hybrid vehicles. Making and disposing of those batteries is a nasty process. It is getting better - but that is a lagging technology. Better than gasoline - but not yet perfect. There's a heap of progerss to be made. So, as we look towards acquiring 'things' for the good life - we need to make some choices. Do we buy our living 'thing' in a new development (very likely on farmland) made with new materials (however efficient)? Or do we buy an existing 'thing' that has never been on farmland but may not be as efficient as that new 'thing'? The existing 'thing' is far greener than any new 'thing' in this case by any measure. Even if bigger/smaller/whatever than the alternative new 'thing'. Follow that logic through all the rest of the 'things' we use in our daily lives. Do we restrict our life-style based on not wanting to use 'things' that we feel are not so green, or do we do what we wish but with care and acknowlegement of the footprints we leave? The former may (but not necessarily will) lead to bitterness, resentment, provincialism, self- righteousness and ignorance. The latter may be less 'green', but might (not necessarily will) make us happier (and therefore better) people. All our choices on 'things' have implications. And all that is required is that when we make such choices we understand them. "Thingism" is a fetid persuit. Otherwise known as "Stuffitis", or rampant consumerism, or putting on the agony and putting on the style. It could literally cost the earth. But take your typical HT audio-visual system. The amoung of stuff to make a big flat screen and 7.1 sound system is about the same as what used to be used to make a pair of ESL57 and a pair of Quad-II plus a control unit. In time the stuff needed will diminish further. One can have a 700 watt amp with 7 channels using very little if is done with PWM amps, ie, class D which are 96% efficient. Such huge advances in efficiency allow a tiny weeny % of ppl to own a tubed stereo system with class A amps weighing 120Kg. The vast majority of ppl will go for the lightweight class D amps in a lightweight box and a huge flat screen, and the cost is remarkably low. The sound of class D is at least as good as the poorer class AB amps which class D is replacing, and it suits a majority. Patrick Turner. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote:
You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged. d I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2 induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better. Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless, it's anomalous. When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your assertions, you've really lost the game. d |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 14, 9:28*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:53 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:15:14 -0600, flipper wrote: On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:49 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: On Nov 12, 3:51*pm, Andre Jute wrote: There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming. Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry. Some people really need a lot of help to *put their minds in gear. I admit that there is a possibility of a range of probabilities coming true about greenhouse warming. There is, currently, not even a working hypothesis for man induced CO2 'global warming', much less a theory, and speculation is not science. You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged. d I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2 induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better. Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless, it's anomalous. It all depends on how you construct the trend lines but if cherry picked well enough, and 'anomalies corrected', they manage to claim a 'slight' (worst case flat) warming not as much as the previous but 'probably' (wave arms) just a 'pause' till it resumes even worse than before despite there being not one shred of evidence to support the speculation. However, even if it did 'resume' we're no where near planetary 'highs' for either temperature OR C02 and the only reason AGW pinheads imagine so is because they actually think 150 years of measurements, 35 or so if you only count satellites, coming out of a mini ice age means something in a freaking 120,000 year glacial cycle. But despite our best efforts at pumping CO2 into the air this interglacial is no where near the last temperature peak 120,000 years ago, or the previous interglacial cycle peak 240,000 years ago, or the interglacial peak before that one as well as the one before that. All of which occurred without the help, thank you, of Exxon, Mobile, Shell, BP and SUVs. Hell, we're not even at the peak of THIS puny interglacial. That occurred some 8000 years ago, give or take a few centuries. And ALL of that is below the geological average as we're still in the current 55 million year long (so far) glacial period with the last honest to goodness 'warm' period being circa 75 million years ago; and the preceding glacial period wasn't near as cold as this one. You've got to go 3 glacial periods back some 450 million years to find weather this chilly. Oh, btw, CO2 levels were at a massive 4,500 ppm during that 450 million year ago COLD glacial period and 2,000 ppm during the 'not as cold' glacial period 150 million years ago. Colder glacial period with MORE, twice as much, CO2? And if CO2 drove temperature the entire planet should have been a burned cinder instead of in deep glacial periods. Calling CO2 driven AGW 'science' is a farce.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Among the readers of r.a.t there would be a lot of doubters about greenhouse warming. Perhaps the high CO2 levels in the distant past were caused by volcanic activity. Just hope and prey Yellowstone doesn't start up bigtime any time soon. You could have high CO2 and cold if there was a lotta smoke. An asteroid hit could have "interesting effects" not able to be modelled easily. There may have been a big one that took out the dinosaurs, but there also may have been smaller ones from time to time whose impact left little evidence except what we see in the fossil records. Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. Patrick Turner. |
#47
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 15, 5:58*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 14, 1:26*pm, Andre Jute wrote: Pretty much a bunch of self-serving crap. Andre, it is nice to see that you are doing your duty to the universe and also serving as such an excellent example of why it needs be done. To repeat: The human race, as you so fully prove has reached an evolutionary dead end. I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious superstitions. Lingering further simply impedes its replacement from gaining its rightful place. So, our duty is to wipe ourselves out as completely and quickly as is conceivably possible. Failing that, to do nothing to impede the process. As to damaging the planet in that process - again, repeating: all we are doing is messing about around the edges and shifting a few oxides around here and there. As the earth measures things our pernanent effect is nil and our present value negative. But that we are rendering it useless for ourselves is only a good thing. That we are fouling both our own nest and that of many other planetary shareholders is also of no import, again in a couple of million years all will be forgotten. I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say. We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into. We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate suicide. If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2 million years time. Patrick Turner Keep on as you are - a ranting, brain-damaged little pipsqueak howling from an Irish backwater. You are serving the highest and best use you are able, after all. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps? d |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote: You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged. d I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2 induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better. Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless, it's anomalous. When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your assertions, you've really lost the game. Just who is the "you" you're speaking of? The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling. There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year since 1998 has been cooler than the one before. This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow "wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is more than somewhat desperate. d |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote:
Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim. The best available scientific experimentation and observation (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature. Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily causes an atmospheric increase. Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature sets the CO2 level, not the other way round. d |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:35:42 -0600, flipper wrote:
This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. I don't know which models you're referring to but GCMs generally 'model', not curve fit. No, they do contain modules for the major known variables, but they don't use theory, they juggle coefficients until things seem to fit. And then of course there are the usual fiddle factors. The BBC had a Met Office screen saver you could use for distributed calculation of a climate model attempting to find a fit. The whole thing was utterly ludicrous. d |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:56:14 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim. The best available scientific experimentation and observation (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature. Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily causes an atmospheric increase. Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature sets the CO2 level, not the other way round. I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said "implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with proxies. Sorry, I'm busy and not reading closely. Although Post Hoc doesn't necessarily imply Propter Hoc, we can be sure that Pre Hoc precludes Propter Hoc. AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback" scenario). Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a conforming 'explanation'. Exactly, a classic begged question. It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the rest. The whole thing is arm waving. Al Gore was interviewed on the BBC news a couple of years back, and his entire talk consisted of debating trade tricks. Very unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was the interviewer who failed to call him on his chicanery. d |
#53
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 15, 3:37*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious superstitions. Actually, if you think on it for a bit. genetic engineering - human- engineered humans if you will - is an absolute dead-end. And as we really haven't more than the smallest clue of the consequences of such engineering it could wind up being the quite literal kiss of death. That engineered individual will hardly be the product of evolution, but the product of a committee decision on what is 'best'. An elephant is a mouse made to government specifications, a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Both are useful, but both are unintended consequences. I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say. They cannot help but do so. The single variable is the amount of time it takes. As it appears now we are pretty much doing everything within our powers to move the process along short of deliberate self- immolation. And that still remains a possibility. We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into. We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate suicide. No, few do. That particular behavior on this planet belongs only to humans. If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2 million years time. Charles Addams had a cartoon in the New Yorker - two amoeba are at the bottom of the last ocean after nuclear destruction, and they are deciding whether they want to start over. The caption is: OK, only this time, no brains. No human capacity has ever been supressed, and no weapon of destruction has never been used. Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#54
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
Peter Wieck wrote:
Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'. Eh, yes and no. You're correct that medical science can allow people to live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." We also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. However, it still is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong, coordinated, and able to socialize well with others. The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent, successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while those less qualified have kids with abandon... nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#55
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 13, 5:28*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:08*pm, landotter wrote: On Nov 13, 3:54*pm, Andre Jute wrote: Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists, designed carbon credits as a bigger bonanza for the ruling classes than Prohibition. Fat Boy is the Joe Kennedy of our generation, a "respectable" criminal. Evidence for this claim? Or is it so important for lunatics like yourself to emotionally coalesce around lies that you'll just fix the facts afterward? You get all insulting because I say Fat Al Gore is FAT? Sheet, Maxine, you must be blind as well as impressionable: Let's give you an eyetest. In this piccy, which FATTY is Greedyguts Al Gore? *http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-th...20and%20the%20.... And once more, is the FAT guy on the left "Steal Big" Al Gore or is he Fat Hanging Chad? *http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/image...%20ROBERT%20DE.... Everybody's been laughing at Fat Al and his Church of Global Warming Impressionables: "Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman "Gore's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al Gore?'" "And you can tell Gore's serious when he talks about the world ending because he eats everything in sight." --Jimmy Kimmel "If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president's seeming largeness ... Here's an inconvenient truth: cake isn't a food group" --Jon Stewart Enjoy, Maxine, enjoy! Andre Jute *Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing elegantly Don't know about Al Gore, but Queen Latifah is a godess |
#56
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 15, 3:51*pm, " wrote:
On Nov 13, 5:28*pm, Andre Jute wrote: On Nov 13, 10:08*pm, landotter wrote: On Nov 13, 3:54*pm, Andre Jute wrote: Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists, designed carbon credits as a bigger bonanza for the ruling classes than Prohibition. Fat Boy is the Joe Kennedy of our generation, a "respectable" criminal. Evidence for this claim? Or is it so important for lunatics like yourself to emotionally coalesce around lies that you'll just fix the facts afterward? You get all insulting because I say Fat Al Gore is FAT? Sheet, Maxine, you must be blind as well as impressionable: Let's give you an eyetest. In this piccy, which FATTY is Greedyguts Al Gore? *http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-th...20and%20the%20... And once more, is the FAT guy on the left "Steal Big" Al Gore or is he Fat Hanging Chad? *http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/image...%20ROBERT%20DE... Everybody's been laughing at Fat Al and his Church of Global Warming Impressionables: "Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman "Gore's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al Gore?'" "And you can tell Gore's serious when he talks about the world ending because he eats everything in sight." --Jimmy Kimmel "If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president's seeming largeness ... Here's an inconvenient truth: cake isn't a food group" --Jon Stewart Enjoy, Maxine, enjoy! Andre Jute *Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing elegantly Don't know about Al Gore, but Queen Latifah is a godess I wonder how much Fat Al had to pay to be photographed with her. British ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair charges 170 pounds sterling to take a photo op with him. You can see Her Majesty Queen Latifah is looking at Gore with the slightest tinge of distaste. Maybe she's a closet Republican... What's she a queen of anyhow, and why should Gore believe that she casts credibility on her? Save me googling her, there's a good chap, and tell me why she's enjoying the fifteen minutes Andy Warhol promised us all. Andre Jute Not an impressionable. Not a trendy. Not even fashionable. Merely right. |
#57
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 15, 7:47 am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote: Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'. Eh, yes and no. You're correct that medical science can allow people to live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." We also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. However, it still is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong, coordinated, and able to socialize well with others. .... You're gonna set me off again, man... ;-) The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent, successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while those less qualified have kids with abandon... |
#58
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Why cyclists should encourage growth: fewer people, fewer cars
The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while those less qualified have kids with abandon... That's an economic trend. Even the people who now have children with abandon, as you say, will have fewer when they rise into the middle classes. Back in the 1960s when I first came to Ireland, it was a society of the best educated peasants in the world whose young people had to emigrate to find a living; families were large. When I came to live here a generation ago, Ireland had joined the European Union (whatever its name was then) and the family size was down to 3.8, i.e. already below replacement. A couple of years ago Ireland reached the fourth highest per capita GDP in the world, and the birth rate was falling so fast, it was just quietly assumed in the chattering/ governing classes that to keep up the workforce we would have to look towards immigration; hence Ireland's very open policy to immigrants. Cyclists of the luddite religion should learn a lesson from this and start encouraging growth because it means fewer people and fewer people man fewer cars, and fewer cars mean emptier roads, and emptier roads means increased safety for cyclists. Some people just don't know what is good for them. Andre Jute Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko |
#59
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 15, 1:45*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:56:14 -0600, flipper wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim. The best available scientific experimentation and observation (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature. Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily causes an atmospheric increase. Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature sets the CO2 level, not the other way round. I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said "implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with proxies. Sorry, I'm busy and not reading closely. Although Post Hoc doesn't necessarily imply Propter Hoc, we can be sure that Pre Hoc precludes Propter Hoc. AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback" scenario). Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a conforming 'explanation'. Exactly, a classic begged question. It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the rest. The whole thing is arm waving. Al Gore was interviewed on the BBC news a couple of years back, and his entire talk consisted of debating trade tricks. Very unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was the interviewer who failed to call him on his chicanery. You do understand, don't you, Don, that the BBC made a *policy decision* that they would "support" global warming? It was announced about the time the IPCC told news media that the "debate is over" and "global warming is the consensus of the scientific community". Their gullibility in this damaging public hysteria has undermined a trust in their unbiased reporting it took the BBC three quarters of a century to establish. Now there are small signs of the BBC returning to sanity and balanced reporting, but it is too late, their credibility is gone, and the World Service television arm has a vested interest in global warming scares because they're in part financed by those who have an interest in keeping the hysteria alive. For instance, one of their biggest advertisers is the Maldives, whose previous president closed down a radio station rather than let the distinguished Swedish climatologist who he appointed to study supposedly rising sea levels report that there is no evidence sea levels are rising or will rise this century. The current president of the Maldives held a stunt, faithfully reported by the World Service, by holding a cabinet meeting underwater. The BBC didn't, as far as I know, report the open letter of the distinguished Swedish academician, appointed by the government of the Maldives to study these matters, when he wrote to say there is no danger to the Maldives of rising sea level. Less science in global warming than in scientology, less honesty in BBC reporting on global warming than in the sermons of redneck fundamentalists. Andre Jute Reformed petrol head Car-free since 1992 Greener than thou! |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
More no-nonsense analysis of the scientific shortfall in global
warming from the excellent Flipper: On Nov 15, 12:56*pm, flipper wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim. The best available scientific experimentation and observation (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature. Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily causes an atmospheric increase. Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature sets the CO2 level, not the other way round. I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said "implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with proxies. AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback" scenario). Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a conforming 'explanation'. It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the rest. |
#61
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 15, 10:18*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote: You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged. d I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2 induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better. Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless, it's anomalous. When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your assertions, you've really lost the game. Just who is the "you" you're speaking of? The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling. There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year since 1998 has been cooler than the one before. This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow "wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is more than somewhat desperate. The analogy is with the Marxist Dialectic. If you decide what you will find because it is your religion and unalterable, and then try to fit the data to your preconceptions, you will always screw up. Every experienced statistician knows that, except those involved in climatology of the IPCC variety, who have gotten away with plain lies and statistical fraud and intimidation of dissenters for so long that they may think it a natural state of events. It is striking that the Marxists debated precisely as the self-styled climate "scientists" do: whenever the data absolutely and obviously contradicts the preconception they're claiming to prove, they declare it a "temporal anomaly" and pass on as if it didn't happen. One ****** on RBT, a certain William Asher, simply describes proof that there is no global warming, proof of lies from the IPCC, condemnation under oath by the National Academy of Science in the States -- all of it, as "boring, let's move on with what really matters, how global warming could happen". That it's "uncool" to argue facts about global warming is the modern version of the marxist "temporal anomaly". In short, false religions are as false religions do. Always more of the same. Andre Jute Visit Andre's recipes: http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/FOOD.html |
#62
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 15, 8:44*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps? Nah, it won't be necessary; they'll die off anyway. According to Meyers, a saint of the apocalyptics, half the species on earth will be extinct anyway in a decade. He's been forecasting that since the 1960s and every decade there are *more* species on earth than the decade before. Some people just don't want to see the truth. Andre Jute "The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo Ricart Medina |
#63
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 15, 8:27*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:28*pm, flipper wrote: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:53 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:15:14 -0600, flipper wrote: On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:49 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: On Nov 12, 3:51*pm, Andre Jute wrote: There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming. Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry. Some people really need a lot of help to *put their minds in gear. |
#64
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 15, 6:47*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent, successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while those less qualified have kids with abandon... Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/ suggests that blind alley. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#65
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 15, 10:29*pm, !Jones wrote:
Oh, well... I'm afraid that I don't have a great deal of emotional investment here; further, as would be obvious should I close to the debate, I'm only informed at a very low level. *Since I don't really find the topic involving, I'm likely to remain thus. On a cursory level, I find that the general conclusions are fairly convincing. *It's a tad bit like arguing safety helmets... the arguments against the idea of global warming are so utterly overwhelmed by the preponderance of evidence Where's this evidence, Jonesy. If it is so overwhelming, why don't you show it to us. Should be easy enough, being "overwhelming". to the contrary that I tend to accept those data supporting global warming, all the while acknowledging that other voices exist. *For that matter, smoking tobacco has never been scientifically proven to cause health problems... OK; however, I will accept what I see. *I'm not a medical doctor, so you may do as you please. Jones False analogies all round, Jonesy, but sure, you want to make a runner, don't let me detain you with reason or -- horrors! -- facts. Andre Jute Visit Andre's books at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html PS And you're poor white trash for renaming rec.audio.tube to rec.audio.boobs. No one there would try to denigrate your hobby. |
#66
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, Nate Nagel wrote: The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent, successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while those less qualified have kids with abandon... Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/ suggests that blind alley. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Whether genetics play a role or simply being raised in a house with well-educated, involved parents is the main factor, I do believe that some people are better qualified to have kids than others. That may be a not particularly PC opinion, but I do believe it to be true. Oh, and being something of an aficionado of "vintage" SF, I am in fact familiar with the story you mention... nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#67
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
MY GOODNESS! You are an idiot. Not to mention leaping to conclusions,
post hog (ergo) propter hoc and so forth. No wonder you are Andre's flavor-of-the-week. Please note the interpolations. On Nov 15, 7:23*pm, flipper wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:47:23 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'. Eh, yes and no. *You're correct that medical science can allow people to live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." *We also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. *However, it still is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong, coordinated, and able to socialize well with others. The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent, successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while those less qualified have kids with abandon... nate Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, Peter's conjecture has almost as many logic flaws as words with not the least being the arrogance to imagine he knows the 'proper', 'improper', and 'dead end' paths of evolution. Mpffff... don't know, don't care. Point being that the moment a species protect their defectives and give them preferential breeding status, it is doomed. Evolution is entirely merciless and evolution has one (and only one) goal in mind - making more. The moment a species interferes with or attempts to divert that goal, it is doomed. (Fallacy of leaping to conclusions). To wit, had the dinosaurs been given the gift of informed choice I doubt they would have picked small, warm, furry bodies as their 'next evolutionary step' but those 'inferior' creatures were the ones that survived nonetheless and while Peter is, no doubt, infinitely more intelligent than the dinosaurs he suffers, as do we all, from the same lack of future vision. The Dinosaurs had no choice in the matter. Warm, furry bodies just happened to be more efficient at that particular moment and therefore reached a (temporary) ascendency. We will no more choose our successors than the dinosaurs chose theirs. But we will be succeeded. Can't argue with several billion years of history, after all. (Fallacy of false premises, and the Pathetic Fallacy, of course). Now, while it may seem 'obvious' that 'defective' genes have no value there's no way anyone, not even Peter, can know 'defective' genes won't, either singly or in concert with other as of yet unknown gene combinations, mutate and evolve into the next 'great leap'. Not to mention some poor soul, despite suffering from a 'defective gene', might be carrying some other gene of galactic important unbeknownst to Peter. Of course not - and exactly why 'engineering' is such a stupid blind alley. We as a species haven't a clue of the consequences of our smallest actions, much less something as fundamental as messing with the genome. (Again, the fallacy of false premises). The same goes for his argument about "spreading disease." While that is certainly not 'good' for those affected the ones that survive might be more robust. Is a physically more robust body evolutionarily preferable to some other trait, or vice versa? Hell if I know and neither does Peter. There are several deseases out there that have neither a treatment, cure nor vaccine, and that are (to-date) 100% fatal. And the spread of these same diseases is entirely and 100% controllable - but that control is simply not taken. Again, the mark of a lack of will to preserve the species. Once that lack is not absolutely, paramount the species is doomed - and as with any other element of the Human Condition (in our case) - we are dickering over the time involved. Point also being that these same diseases are blind alleys both for the victims and the phages involved. No viable species will kill its host (and itself) and be successful. (The fallacy of circular reasoning). And a dominant species neither need be intelligent nor attractive. (False premises). I don't mean that as advocating, nor not, any particular policy but simply to illustrate there's no way anyone can make the broad sweeping declarations of clairvoyance Peter does. Clairvoyance? Not hardly. Just basic observations of basic human behavior. It ain't nohow rocket science. But when a species sends its best-and-brightest to war and into high-risk circumstances to be killed en-masse, leaving the inept, damaged, infirm and diseased home to breed - what do you think might be the inevitable results? One simple statistic to keep in mind: As of 1941, something like 21% of the US population over 40 needed corrective lenses. As of 1946, it was nearly 40%, as of today it is over 60%, perhaps as much as 75% (and that spread is based on the fact that such issues are much better diagnosed and corrected these days).Look at the statistics on diabetes, asthma, allergies, and quite a few others. (Fallacy of false premises, yet again). (To your example, learned behavior isn't genetic)- Hide quoted text - No. Lysenko is rather more discredited these days than not. Eugenics still kinda-sorta has some limited traction, sadly. (Once again, leaping to conclusions together with false premises). Flipper, when you learn to read for content rather than for your carefully crafted opinions based on received wisdom, go ahead argue. Otherwise, you are micturating in a windward direction and showing your silliness all and at the same time. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#68
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 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. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 15, 7:44*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps? d The Bacteria have been around for a long time. Their heating contribution may have lessened slightly due to man's efforts to reduce forest cover. Without bacteria we could not live. Fortunately for us, they have not suddenly developed into a threat by changing the CO2 % in air. But what is now changing rapidly is mankind's sudden conversion of underground carbon stores into carbon dioxide, and we threaten all living things including bacteria. Perhaps Bacteria sense the T rise and take action against us by developing some incurable Plague which they inflict on us to reduce our numbers. Patrick Turner. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Nov 15, 9:18*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote: You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged. d I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2 induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better. Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless, it's anomalous. When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your assertions, you've really lost the game. Just who is the "you" you're speaking of? The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling. There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year since 1998 has been cooler than the one before. Depends where you make your measurements. We have had many days now of over 30C even though its only springtime and such T were never seen until Christmas. 37C is predicted for next thursday. If you think the planet is cooling, you are mistaken. This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow "wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is more than somewhat desperate. Modelling doesn't matter any more. Climate change is happening. And we look like the cause. Patrick Turner. d- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#71
Posted to 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 00:39:33 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote: On Nov 15, 9:18*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper wrote: You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged. d I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2 induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better. Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless, it's anomalous. When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your assertions, you've really lost the game. Just who is the "you" you're speaking of? The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling. There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year since 1998 has been cooler than the one before. Depends where you make your measurements. We have had many days now of over 30C even though its only springtime and such T were never seen until Christmas. 37C is predicted for next thursday. If you think the planet is cooling, you are mistaken. This is a joke right? Or do you seriously believe you can extrapolate to the entire planet from your neighbourhood.? You remind me a bit of the political pundit during an election. The first result was in, and because the Conservatives had won the seat his model predicted that the Conservatives would end up with 100% of the seats. This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow "wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is more than somewhat desperate. Modelling doesn't matter any more. Climate change is happening. Climate change has always happened. That is what climate does. A static climate is almost unheard of in the history of the Earth. And we look like the cause. If you look really serious as you say it, it will be true. d |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
Perhaps the high CO2 levels in the distant past were caused by volcanic activity. Doesn't make any difference 'where' the CO2 comes from. CO2 is CO2 and the conjecture is that the CO2 'greenhouse effect' increases linearly with atmospheric CO2 concentration. But the empirical observation is that for the vast majority of the earth's existence that has not been the case. And I have said it depends on smoke. It's only in the last some million years, or less, that CO2 appears to correlate with temperature but even then it LAGS temperature, which implies temperature (or something else) drives CO2 and not the other way around. Just hope and prey Yellowstone doesn't start up bigtime any time soon. You could have high CO2 and cold if there was a lotta smoke. And where is your scientific experimentation and observational validation for that speculation? Smoke reflects heat that would otherwise pass through air and heat it. That was the conjecture when temperature was falling and the anti-technology freaks were screaming "another ice age is coming." That speculation didn't pan out either. Neither that nor current AGW hysteria is 'science'. It's doomsday nuts looking at a weather 'blip' and then hysterically looking for "how man caused it" when even the most casual observer can see "climate change" is the blooming norm and has been for roughly 4.5 billion years. Of course climate changes. It appears to be changing fast now. And the change appears to be caused by mankind's CO2 emissions. This is inconvenient because much effort has been put into buildings that will be flooded when sea levels rise, or they will need to be retro fitted with greener technology for heating or cooling. Whole countries full of people won't be able to move to northern latitudes or to southern latitudes to escape heating and more tropical hurricanes. Btw, the 'smoke and aerosols' conjecture was used to predict a 'catastrophic' climate impact from the Gulf War Kuwait oil fires and that turned out to be a big fat dud as well. Those fires were not a big deal compared to the rest of mankind's effects. The Victorian Bushfires of 2008 also released millions of tonnes of CO2. But California is also getting more fires. In asia vast tracts of rain forest are leveled in slash and burn agriculture. The smoke haze lingers for months during a burn season. Just about all of what mankind does now has a lot wrong with it. You see, in science, when predictions turn out wrong we say the conjecture is falsified but AGW just ignores it, claims "the science is settled" despite nothing working, and trots right on along. Temp is going up up and away. Meanwhile nobody wants to suffer the huge increase in cost of living to avoid climate change. Maybe its already too late to do anything useful. An asteroid hit could have "interesting effects" not able to be modelled easily. There may have been a big one that took out the dinosaurs, but there also may have been smaller ones from time to time whose impact left little evidence except what we see in the fossil records. We could speculate that space aliens stuck a giant sun screen in orbit too but speculation isn't science either. Its more likely that some rogue nation wil start a nuclear war. Space aliens might sound unlikely but it's probably not any more extraordinary than your speculation the universe decided to rain unusually large climate altering meteors on the planet just coincidentally with two glacial periods, continuously for some 50-80 million years a stretch, but convenient turned off the barrage during the intervening warm periods, and then hid all geological evidence of them just to **** off AGW fanatics. The real aliens are us. We think we can do any ****en thing and nothing bad will happen. I'll tell you what the 'experts' say. After expected speculations they end with no one has much of a clue. There is a mass of consensus amoung experts about greenhouse warming. You are behind the times. AGW proponents, on the other hand, simply ignore anything that doesn't conform to their dogma, deny it exists, or wave it off as "something to figure out later." But that isn't science, it's 'religion'. However, you missed the main point; which is that AGW proponents are, at best, misleading or, at worst, flat out lying because current CO2 levels are *not* 'unusual' nor 'high' nor 'unprecedented and global temperatures are *not* 'unusual' nor are they 'hot' nor are they 'unprecedented' nor any of the other hysterical claims made. The Mann 'hockey stick' temperature graph is an example of flat out fraud but the IPCC still uses it. All AGW mythologists have done is exchange the ashes and sack cloth "The end is near, sinner repent" billboard with "global warming, sinner repent." Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim. Feel free to ignore the evidence. Lemme see now, 6 billion x 10Kg CO2 per day 24 x 365 days per year. That's a lotta gas. When the Earth had a population of only 1bill, CO2 per head per day was more like 1Kg. Not much T rise occurred as a result. But we bred up and then got hooked on a king's way to live, and we are heating the atmosphere. Other species of life altered CO2 before now but not as quickly as we are nor with any awareness of what it was doing. Our awareness gives us a choice about how we want the future. The best available scientific experimentation and observation (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature. Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily causes an atmospheric increase. I think you may find CO2 emissions have never declined over any of the last 100 years. But there is a hell of a lotta hot air being said about greenhouse heating. Meanwhile the heating continues and I expect to see many more days of over 35C during summers here. Its as if the interior climate of Oz with its 40C + day peaks is extending over the coastal regions where I live. This means fiercer bushfires more often and gradual desertifcation of farming and forested lands and a huge reduction in dam water storages and food production. I think mankind will do too little too late to alter the temperature rise. Patrick Turner. |
#73
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, 2:38*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:37*am, Patrick Turner wrote: I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious superstitions. Actually, if you think on it for a bit. genetic engineering - human- engineered humans if you will - is an absolute dead-end. But at first we are cautious about "Playing God". Then we start cloning plants and animals and now we are into plant species genetic engineering to put more food on the table at lower cost. Sooner or later genetics will be applied to mums and dads thinking about starting a family. For starters, there are many genes that should be removed so they don't become part of any new human. Companies will spring up to arrange the genetics you want in a child. All for a nice old price. But things will get cheaper in 20 generations time..... And as we really haven't more than the smallest clue of the consequences of such engineering it could wind up being the quite literal kiss of death. The invention of atom bombs looked like the kiss of death. Nuclear power also looked like another. So did DDT. But we LEARN about the pitfalls of our inventions or ideas and at the moment nuclear power seems like a good option without pollution, and when well managed DDT in Africa is saving more lives than losing them. That engineered individual will hardly be the product of evolution, but the product of a committee decision on what is 'best'. Evolution is where nature decides what is best in a given set of environmental circumstances and incorporating random mutations. We can emulate Nature and make mutations allowing better survival chances. An elephant is a mouse made to government specifications, a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Both are useful, but both are unintended consequences. You are far too simplistic and unimaginative about the possibilities of the future IMHO. Go back 200 years to 1809. Did anyone forsee our way of life we have now? If you asked Isac Newton about the future you may have got an imaginative answer. But from some peasant full of superstitions and bull****, and not from you today. Go back and bring Leonardo Da Vinci to our time now. He'd marvel at what we have, especially at what doctors and dentists can do, and when he saw an aeroplane he'd just say "Yeah, took ya a damn long time to make big silver birds.." So Leo would be surprised, but not over awed. He was bright sort of man and would feel happy to work amoung us to bring a different future to the now we know, and the past we so happily leave behind. I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say. They cannot help but do so. The single variable is the amount of time it takes. As it appears now we are pretty much doing everything within our powers to move the process along short of deliberate self- immolation. And that still remains a possibility. I agree we don't appear to be on a good course, but our story ain't over yet. While we heat the planet much change is still possible. We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into. We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate suicide. No, few do. That particular behavior on this planet belongs only to humans. Kinda depressing to think intelligence leads to slow suicide. Women in Oz have been having more kids. The rate of chidren per woman has risen from 1.7 to 2.0 over several years. Do we dare disagree with any woman? Maybe they just don't see non-survival as an option, or if they sense coming difficulties subconsciously, they think the obvious thing to do is breed more people if more are set to die, burn, or starve. Unfortunately, we only have a MALE PERSPECTIVE about the future of our species and global warming. If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2 million years time. Charles Addams had a cartoon in the New Yorker - two amoeba are at the bottom of the last ocean after nuclear destruction, and they are deciding whether they want to start over. The caption is: OK, only this time, no brains. No human capacity has ever been supressed, and no weapon of destruction has never been used. Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'. Well on this I'd agree. The American and Australian solution to global warming = buy a bigger air conditioner. Good grief, any other solution is going to ruin us all. Patrick Turner. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#74
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, 2:47*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote: Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'. Eh, yes and no. *You're correct that medical science can allow people to live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." *We also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. *However, it still is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong, coordinated, and able to socialize well with others. The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent, successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while those less qualified have kids with abandon... But the proportion of intelligent people born stays about the same overall. And we can have an easy but extremely high energy reliant way of life even if the average intelligence is very low because it only takes a very few smart arses to show the rest of us morons how to live better than yesterday. It takes less than 10% of all people to grow and process the food we consume. Cream rises to the top, and real intelligence takes in the ability to survive well overall rather than to be a nerdy maths expert who never has time to find a wife. But that nerd will inseminate the minds with his ideas that could lead to useful advances. The nerd does not need to have any children; his ideas have far more effect, eg, Bill Gates? In any 100 people chosen at random, you will find some with a lotta brains from big families who were poor. The advances dreamed up by the brightest allow the prolific breeding habits of the dumb and the weak. Patrick Turner. |
#75
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!
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 |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim. The best available scientific experimentation and observation (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature. Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily causes an atmospheric increase. Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature sets the CO2 level, not the other way round. **********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby, does not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it can clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now, we are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise: -394ky -353ky -333ky -304ky -295ky -258ky -183ky -85ky -18ky now You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures are following. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim. The best available scientific experimentation and observation (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature. Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily causes an atmospheric increase. Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature sets the CO2 level, not the other way round. **********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby, does not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it can clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now, we are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise: -394ky -353ky -333ky -304ky -295ky -258ky -183ky -85ky -18ky now You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures are following. Let me quote that article "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation." And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2 concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees. d |
#78
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, 3:42*pm, !Jones wrote:
Perhaps you might want to save your breath, buddy; I'm not in the least interested in conforming to your lowest common denominator view of how one should behave... and, if you don't like it, just remember: you wrote it. Jones, didn't you know?? Andre conforms to the Golden Rule - thems what is the gold makes the rules. As he is the gold standard for all he surveys and his domain is infinite - less only to that of the Creator, resistance is futile. (And actual discussion will leave you spinning. In the immortal words of Gertrude Stein: "There is no There there.") Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, so let's stick to GZ34 worship!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper wrote: Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke, so the atmosphere is heating up. There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim. The best available scientific experimentation and observation (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature. Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily causes an atmospheric increase. Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature sets the CO2 level, not the other way round. **********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby, does not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it can clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now, we are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise: -394ky -353ky -333ky -304ky -295ky -258ky -183ky -85ky -18ky now You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures are following. Let me quote that article "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation." And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2 concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees. **CO2 is not the SOLE driver of temperature and climate on this planet. It is ONE driver. In the last 150 years we have witnessed a rise in temperature that has been more rapid than at any time in the last 600,000 years. It has coincided with a similarly rapid rise in CO2 levels. Solar output, volcano activity and other factors have not been able to explain the rise in temperatures. The only factor left is C)2 levels. Given that we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that CO2 is a potent GHG, then it is reasonable to accept the fact that humans are altering the climate of this planet. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming, solet's stick to GZ34 worship!
Mpfffff.... All of you. Invincible Ignorance is just that. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
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 |