GZ34 worship! [Archive] - AudioBanter.com

Engineer[_2_]

November 5th 09, 02:29 AM

On Nov 3, 6:58*pm, flipper > wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:36:11 -0800 (PST), Engineer
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 3, 9:08*am, Fu Knee > wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 7:33 am, Peter Wieck > wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 2, 3:21 pm, Engineer > wrote:
>
> >> > > Some people are totally nuts!
>
> >> > >http://cgi.ebay.ca/Mullard-GZ34-metal-base-tube_W0QQitemZ180425852151...
>
> >> > > US$47 at this time with 5 bids.
>
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > > Roger
>
> >> > An NIB Dynaco-labeled tube sold for nearly US$200 some little bit ago.
> >> > That $47 ain't nothing yet. Funny to think I have a semester's tuition
> >> > to our local state college sitting in my spares box.
>
> >> > And the solid-state replacements sell in the US$30s or so including
> >> > the slow-start characteristics.
>
> >> > Peter Wieck
> >> > Melrose Park, PA
>
> >> Hi RATs!
>
> >> These days, many feel emboldened to publicly insult every one they
> >> don't like.
>
> >> No matter how petty their deep, personal sense of outrage.
>
> >> It is possible you are truly doing God's will, I guess.
>
> >> Just seems like you are being a self righteous moron, to me.
>
> >> But, hey, you started this thread.
>
> >> Dig it or frig it.
>
> >> It is a free country. No matter how low you wish to take it.
>
> >> Happy Ears!
> >> Al
>
> >> PS An undercover agent in a nearby city was able to purchase sexual
> >> access to a twelve year old girl. The price was $200.00. Some of us
> >> know true outrage. The rest of you worry about the price. Ain't
> >> freedom a bitch?
>
> >It's up to $66 at this time with 6 bids.
> >Al, I don't know the would-be buyers so cannot claim to like or
> >dislike them but, as a group, I do think they are nuts... and, as you
> >will agree, freedom brings the right to be one!
>
> How do you determine 'nuts'?
>
> A cursory google indicates those prices are not at the 'nut' stage, at
> least as compared to the 'going price' on most places.
>
> >The good news is that I have a couple of GZ34's in my tube inventory.
> >At this rate I can't afford to keep them... the opportunity cost is
> >getting too high!
>
> If they're Mullards with a metal base.
>
> If you want 'nuts', take a gander at this site's prices.
>
> https://www.tubeworld.com/5ar4.htm
>
> 1 tube $795) GZ34 Philips Miniwatt Holland NOS (rS1-55B=1955) SMOOTH
> SPOT WELDED PLATES - double D getter halos - original box
>
> They've got some GEs for a mere $60, though.
>
> Athttp://www.tubedepot.com/5ar4.htmlthe 'whatever NOS we have' is
> $139 each.
>
> Oh, no. When I went to check I just discovered my favorite tube
> source, radiodaze, is out of the tube business. Nuts.
>
> >Cheers,
> >Roger

Holy cathodes, Batman!

Alex

November 5th 09, 05:14 AM

And the solid-state replacements sell in the US$30s or so including
the slow-start characteristics.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Alex:
Never thought that someone would be imitating slow start. How do they do it?

MOSFET in series controlled via an optocoupler from an RC circuit powered
from an additional rectifier of the heater voltage?

Peter Wieck

November 5th 09, 12:05 PM

On Nov 5, 11:03*pm, "Alex" > wrote:
> "François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in messagenews:g3v3f5tpf6aeuscpqdv2rmgeb1b8r1jhbk@4ax .com...
>
> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:14:44 -0800, "Alex" > wrote:
>
> > >Never thought that someone would be imitating slow start. How do they do
> it?
>
> > A couple of NTC thermistors in series. High initial resistance decreasing
> > with temperature. Plus power R's if you need valve-like source R.
>
> I see... Cheating... It might not start-up at all if the load is light,
> e.g., output tube pulled out of the radio. However for typical applications
> this thermistor solution is smart enough.

There are those who would suggest that using tubes is 'cheating'.

In any case the (a) resistor in the diode circuit could provide heat
if necessary. Further to this, the 15V +/- voltage drop across the two
diodes would be about right as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Alex

November 6th 09, 04:03 AM

"François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:14:44 -0800, "Alex" > wrote:
>
> >Never thought that someone would be imitating slow start. How do they do
it?
>
> A couple of NTC thermistors in series. High initial resistance decreasing
> with temperature. Plus power R's if you need valve-like source R.

I see... Cheating... It might not start-up at all if the load is light,
e.g., output tube pulled out of the radio. However for typical applications
this thermistor solution is smart enough.

Patrick Turner

November 7th 09, 10:55 AM

On Nov 5, 11:05*pm, Peter Wieck > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:03*pm, "Alex" > wrote:
>
> > "François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in messagenews:g3v3f5tpf6aeuscpqdv2rmgeb1b8r1jhbk@4ax .com...
>
> > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:14:44 -0800, "Alex" > wrote:
>
> > > >Never thought that someone would be imitating slow start. How do they do
> > it?
>
> > > A couple of NTC thermistors in series. High initial resistance decreasing
> > > with temperature. Plus power R's if you need valve-like source R.
>
> > I see... Cheating... It might not start-up at all if the load is light,
> > e.g., output tube pulled out of the radio. However for typical applications
> > this thermistor solution is smart enough.
>
> There are those who would suggest that using tubes is 'cheating'.
>
> In any case the (a) resistor in the diode circuit could provide heat
> if necessary. Further to this, the 15V +/- voltage drop across the two
> diodes would be about right as well.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Probably the issue of delayed B+ or slowed B+ turn on has been
discussed a thousand times during my last 9 years at this group.
I've forgotten much of what was said.

In my latest amp project I have a remote PSU for 2 x 60W SE amps with
6 x 6550 in each.
The anode supply is +484V at 700mA and there is a screen/driver/input
supply of +430V at 150mA.

I don't use GZ34 for the B+ supply because I would need about 5 of
them.

I do have some two pairs of 6A rated Si diodes in series on each side
of the 410V-0-410V HT winding.
Why would anyone use GZ34, ever?

For the 700mA anode supply there is a 4 ohm resistance in series with
the diodes before they charge two 60uF motor start caps in series
which gives 30uF. Then I have a 2.5H choke feeding 705uF made up of 6
x 470uF 350V caps.
Then there are two 36 ohm 20W R from the 705uF feeding two lots of
470uF made up from 4 in series/parallel and this gives a fairly
resonance free supply to each 60W channel.
I also have a 1uF +100 ohm R series network across the choke which
makes it have a damped parallel resonance at 100Hz and thus reduces
100Hz ripple after C2 by about 15dB; ie, it makes the L act as though
is was 10H not 2.5H.
The choke has 18 ohms dcr.
The only delay I have is a 25 ohm R in series with the 240V mains
input to the 1.1kVA power tranny I have. After 4 seconds when the B+
has risen to about 70% of its final initial value of 550V the relay
closes and another slight surge with inrush current happens when the B
+ goes to 550V.
After about 12 seconds the 6550 cathodes begin emission and the the B+
gracefully sags to the wanted 484V.

The ripple voltage at the 30uF of C1 is about 50Vrms. But for the time
the initial charge up is occuring the dc outflow from C1 is large even
with the 25 ohms and so the ripple voltage is also quite high. The
peak charge current is somewhat low because of this arrangement. I
could have had a large value cap for C1 and allowed the C1 voltage to
stay at about +550V then I'd have needed a dropping resistance to get
my wanted +484V, and that would have produced 46W of wasted heat so it
was far better to just use C1 caps that have high reactance values,
53ohms in this case, and allow the rectifier output Vdc to be a bit
low. Reactances don't dissipate heat. My supply runs nice and cool.
There is a small amount of transformer noise.
Should a tube decide to conduct far more Idc than it should, the amp
will turn off, but if the protect circuit fails then the extra Idc
could go to 1.2A with just one 6550 becoming saturated. The ripple
voltage would go much higher and B+ would sag, and the there is a 4A
fuse between HTwinding CT and 0V. Plus a mains fuse of 4A. Both a fast
blow types.
About all I needed was the delay R of 25 ohms which also restricts the
large currents when you have to heat up cold cathode filaments when
the dcr is low.

I don't see any reason to have a greater inrush delay than I do.

In a Quad-II amp with GZ34 or GZ32, the B+ surges up to about +440V
well before the output KT66 turn themselves on.
So the tube rectifier does not delay B+ at all.

I tried using a GZ34 in series with B+ to make a slow turn on series
diode after using Si diodes into 100uF with a further RC following
filter. It was pointless because the B+ still went way up before the
OP tubes pulled it down to about 380V at the OPT CT.

The simplest way to have adelay if you must is to uses voltage
doubler supply where one might have a 200Vac HT winding which can be
controlled by an easy to get 240V rated mains relay. Then the delay
can be made for 20 seconds, and you have hot tubes and there is a
considerable inrush to charge up a bunch of caps as well as the
initial flow of Ia in the tubes with wobbles and surges as the whole
driver/input amp comes alive as well. So one might need to have some
series R to slow this process and avoid excessive peak charge currents
to allow a useful fuse value.
Its not too hard to have two resistances in series with the 200Vac HT
winding and shunt one at 10 seconds and the other 6 seconds later.
This allows two fairly slow step ups of the B+.

I hate mains thermistors after seeing so many of them fail dismally in
amps. If you turn off an amp while the thermistor is hot and then on
again soon afterwards, the purpose of the thermistor is lost, as the
extra current can make them overheat, maybe explode.

After building SE amps with 6 x 6550in each I realised that one MIGHT
get nice sound with a single 6550 but when you use 6 of them you
vanquish all doubt.

Patrick Turner.

Peter Wieck

November 8th 09, 01:18 AM

On Nov 7, 3:24*pm, François Yves Le Gal > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 02:55:05 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> > wrote:
> >Why would anyone use GZ34, ever?
>
> Go mercury...
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercury_Arc_Valve%...
>
> 125KV, thusands of amps...

Yabbut.... REALLY noisy!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Alex

November 8th 09, 05:27 AM

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
news:2b72ca40-867f-4017-afc4-

In my latest amp project I have a remote PSU for 2 x 60W SE amps with
6 x 6550 in each.
The anode supply is +484V at 700mA and there is a screen/driver/input
supply of +430V at 150mA.

Alex:
In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design, possession, sale
and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall be made illegal...

Patrick Turner

November 8th 09, 08:51 AM

On Nov 8, 7:24*am, François Yves Le Gal > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 02:55:05 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> > wrote:
> >Why would anyone use GZ34, ever?
>
> Go mercury...
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercury_Arc_Valve%...
>
> 125KV, thusands of amps...

So when you have a choke input supply with two of those 125KV
thingies, what size is the choke?

And after the choke, would i have to use electrolytics or would
polypropylene caps souind better?

Patrick Turner.

Ian Bell[_2_]

November 8th 09, 01:27 PM

Patrick Turner wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:24 am, François Yves Le Gal > wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 02:55:05 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Why would anyone use GZ34, ever?
>> Go mercury...
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercury_Arc_Valve%...
>>
>> 125KV, thusands of amps...
>
> So when you have a choke input supply with two of those 125KV
> thingies, what size is the choke?
>
> And after the choke, would i have to use electrolytics or would
> polypropylene caps souind better?
>
> Patrick Turner.
>

I would recommend two 8ft by 4ft sheets of 20 gauge aluminium separated
by an oil cloth.

Cheers

Ian

Patrick Turner

November 8th 09, 03:23 PM

On Nov 8, 7:21*am, François Yves Le Gal > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:27:13 -0800, "Alex" > wrote:
> >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design, possession, sale
> >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall be made illegal....
>
> Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the LAW.
> :-)
>
> BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W incandescent light bulbs....

If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse heating of
the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are already well
into the danger zone.

We are a species that fouls its own nest, and does too little too late
to avoid a problem that is slow to affect us.

Anyway, the amps I have just made consume about 500W when used. But
the switch many ppl are making towards "digital" amplifiers, class D,
which are 96% efficient is offsetting the effect steam engines that I
am still making in tiny numbers. I didn't have any children which is
the worst thing anyone could do to a planet. There are too many ppl
doing too many things that are destructive here already. If we all
just didn't breed for 25 years and spent the time instead fixing the
major problems we'd be OK but it ain't never gonna happen. Most of the
young are driven uncontrolably to ****.
I liked to **** when I was young but I wasn't going to breed unless
everything looked like it would work out. It never did for me. Much of
the time I wondered what on earth was the point of breeding. Everyone
who doesn't breed leaves more in the world for those who do. So If I
make a few tube amps, so what?

People are buying houses here which are twice the size of those their
parents bought 30 years ago. The way ppl live generally even though
they don't have any interest in hi-fi seems to consume much more
energy than 30 years ago and in fact each succeeding generation seems
to want more and more than the last which helps prove that the more
they get, the more they want and the less satisfied they become.

Lightbulbs are about to be completely outlawed here. But ligthing is
only 10% of the problem. The real problem is hot water and air
conditioning and travelling and farming and all the other things.
If we had 6 billion people living like they did 100 years ago their
energy per head might have been 50W/hr.
But now everyone wants to have access to 2kW/hr to sustain a modern
western way of life.

What goes up must come down, and if we dig up vast amounts of carbon
which took millions of years to be buried underground and send it
skyward in a couple of centuries then the temperature will rise, and
our cleverness will backfire us down.

I think things will get increasingly unstable with oscillations in
temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much warmer
climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years because the
earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another 1/2 billion
years. Our species will get a kick or two in the butt before then
though, and from the boot we made ourselves.

Patrick Turner.

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 8th 09, 03:31 PM

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 07:23:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
> wrote:

>On Nov 8, 7:21*am, François Yves Le Gal > wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:27:13 -0800, "Alex" > wrote:
>> >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design, possession, sale
>> >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall be made illegal...
>>
>> Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the LAW.
>> :-)
>>
>> BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W incandescent light bulbs...
>
>If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse heating of
>the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are already well
>into the danger zone.
>
>We are a species that fouls its own nest, and does too little too late
>to avoid a problem that is slow to affect us.
>
>Anyway, the amps I have just made consume about 500W when used. But
>the switch many ppl are making towards "digital" amplifiers, class D,
>which are 96% efficient is offsetting the effect steam engines that I
>am still making in tiny numbers. I didn't have any children which is
>the worst thing anyone could do to a planet. There are too many ppl
>doing too many things that are destructive here already. If we all
>just didn't breed for 25 years and spent the time instead fixing the
>major problems we'd be OK but it ain't never gonna happen. Most of the
>young are driven uncontrolably to ****.
>I liked to **** when I was young but I wasn't going to breed unless
>everything looked like it would work out. It never did for me. Much of
>the time I wondered what on earth was the point of breeding. Everyone
>who doesn't breed leaves more in the world for those who do. So If I
>make a few tube amps, so what?
>
>People are buying houses here which are twice the size of those their
>parents bought 30 years ago. The way ppl live generally even though
>they don't have any interest in hi-fi seems to consume much more
>energy than 30 years ago and in fact each succeeding generation seems
>to want more and more than the last which helps prove that the more
>they get, the more they want and the less satisfied they become.
>
>Lightbulbs are about to be completely outlawed here. But ligthing is
>only 10% of the problem. The real problem is hot water and air
>conditioning and travelling and farming and all the other things.
>If we had 6 billion people living like they did 100 years ago their
>energy per head might have been 50W/hr.
>But now everyone wants to have access to 2kW/hr to sustain a modern
>western way of life.
>
>What goes up must come down, and if we dig up vast amounts of carbon
>which took millions of years to be buried underground and send it
>skyward in a couple of centuries then the temperature will rise, and
>our cleverness will backfire us down.
>
>I think things will get increasingly unstable with oscillations in
>temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much warmer
>climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years because the
>earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another 1/2 billion
>years. Our species will get a kick or two in the butt before then
>though, and from the boot we made ourselves.
>
>Patrick Turner.

You are talking about global cooling? You appear to be suggesting that
it would be a good idea to make it happen even quicker than it is
right now.

d

Patrick Turner

November 8th 09, 10:57 PM

On Nov 9, 2:29*am, François Yves Le Gal > wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:51:51 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> > wrote:
> >So when you have a choke input supply with two of those 125KV
> >thingies, what size is the choke?
>
> Here is the choke room at a secret US facility:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hoover_Dam%27s_gen...
>
> Eight chokes in wells with a secondary water cooling system. They want you
> to believe that they are generators, but they are chokes for the ultimate
> single ended amplifier... Two megawatts from a single Eimac bottle !

Class C?
>
> http://www.triodeel.com/cemco.jpg
>
> >And after the choke, would i have to use electrolytics or would
> >polypropylene caps souind better?
>
> Paper in oil is the only way to go.
> :-)

And I guess the girl's name is Harmonic Desirabelle, no?

But is it not becomming a trend to send power long distance along
transmission lines with DC currents?

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner

November 9th 09, 12:38 AM

On Nov 9, 2:31*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 07:23:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 8, 7:21*am, François Yves Le Gal > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:27:13 -0800, "Alex" > wrote:
> >> >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design, possession, sale
> >> >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall be made illegal...
>
> >> Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the LAW.
> >> :-)
>
> >> BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W incandescent light bulbs...
>
> >If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse heating of
> >the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are already well
> >into the danger zone.
>
> >We are a species that fouls its own nest, and does too little too late
> >to avoid a problem that is slow to affect us.
>
> >Anyway, the amps I have just made consume about 500W when used. But
> >the switch many ppl are making towards "digital" amplifiers, class D,
> >which are 96% efficient is offsetting the effect steam engines that I
> >am still making in tiny numbers. I didn't have any children which is
> >the worst thing anyone could do to a planet. There are too many ppl
> >doing too many things that are destructive here already. If we all
> >just didn't breed for 25 years and spent the time instead fixing the
> >major problems we'd be OK but it ain't never gonna happen. Most of the
> >young are driven uncontrolably to ****.
> >I liked to **** when I was young but I wasn't going to breed unless
> >everything looked like it would work out. It never did for me. Much of
> >the time I wondered what on earth was the point of breeding. Everyone
> >who doesn't breed leaves more in the world for those who do. So If I
> >make a few tube amps, so what?
>
> >People are buying houses here which are twice the size of those their
> >parents bought 30 years ago. The way ppl live generally even though
> >they don't have any interest in hi-fi seems to consume much more
> >energy than 30 years ago and in fact each succeeding generation seems
> >to want more and more than the last which helps prove that the more
> >they get, the more they want and the less satisfied they become.
>
> >Lightbulbs are about to be completely outlawed here. But ligthing is
> >only 10% of the problem. The real problem is hot water and air
> >conditioning and travelling and farming and all the other things.
> >If we had 6 billion people living like they did 100 years ago their
> >energy per head might have been 50W/hr.
> >But now everyone wants to have access to 2kW/hr to sustain a modern
> >western way of life.
>
> >What goes up must come down, and if we dig up vast amounts of carbon
> >which took millions of years to be buried underground and send it
> >skyward in a couple of centuries then the temperature will rise, and
> >our cleverness will backfire us down.
>
> >I think things will get increasingly unstable with oscillations in
> >temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much warmer
> >climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years because the
> >earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another 1/2 billion
> >years. Our species will get a kick or two in the butt before then
> >though, and from the boot we made ourselves.
>
> >Patrick Turner.
>
> You are talking about global cooling? You appear to be suggesting that
> it would be a good idea to make it happen even quicker than it is
> right now.
>
> d- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Global cooling may be appear to be happening.

What I suggested was that there will be instability with the climate
as it progresses to a settled state of being hotter.
The instability will be periods of years where we think its trending
hotter, and then cooler, before finally settling on being a lot
hotter. In 1976 I recall many said that the global pollution we are
spewing skywards would cause an ice age. To some extent the
particulate matter that is circulating in the air as a result of
mankind's activities is causing cooling, or a reduction of the rate of
heating. Although many might say we are on a cooling trend now I think
the records will show that arctic ice and antarctic ice is undergoing
a net depletion and only if the ice caps were undergoing a substantial
net increase could we say there is real cooling. If you look at
glacial retreat around the world, there is further evidence of gradual
warming.
If the average T rises 0.05 degrees a year, it takes 100 years to go 5
degrees average warmer. The amount of yearly increase seems trifling,
and to not even be happening. But 100 years is a tiny amount of time
compared to say when the last ice age occurred, or to when the last
hot age where there was no ice caps and sea levels were 100M higher.
Because the changes to the CO2 % levels look set to trend up for 50
years despite the slow addoption of alternatives like nuclear power
and solar power with collectors the size of Texas, ppl will have to
get used to hotter weather. Many ppl now like it hot, and thrive in
hot climates; older folks retire to Miami, or from southern cool
cities like Melbourne to Brisbane. But in 50 years Brisbane may have
weather like Jakata, and with major cyclones each year. And the
coastal cities and towns which cost so much for previous generations
to build will be subject to major flooding. There isn't much evidence
of sea level rise yet. But once that process gets underway it will
panick a lot of people.
I have lived here in Canberra since 1972, and have seen an overall
trend to many more days where C max goes over 30C, and to warmer
winters. Its been 15 years since I saw my swimming pool get an
overnight layer if ice. Before that I got it at least several nights a
year.

100 years is time enough for 4 generations of people to get used to
things getting hotter.
Large tracts of land will become available in the northern hemisphere
for development.
But methinks living in the tropics could get so wild during cyclone
seasons that many areas will be unviable.
Gradually many people will vote with their feet, and move away north
or south. This mainly means hordes of little brown people going where
they ain't welcome. If there are mas starvations, so be it; its just
Nature's way of dealing with a problem species. The Bible says the
Lord said go forth and multiply, and subjugate all of Nature to the
glory of God. This of course is utter BS, because God doesn't exist as
believers imagine he does. God is there all right but He, She, or It
don't give a **** about any of us. And we have gone forth, and we have
bred like rabbits, and the paddock is now full of rabbits, and it is
still nearly every marrying couple's dream to have children, and they
complain bitterly about the cost of living, ie, the cost of living
like a king and queen. They expect everyone else to do something about
the environment. They think they are doing their bit to stop using
light bulbs and stop using plastic shopping bags and even stop buying
tube amps. They prefer a massive TV set to play movies where the
sirens and police and explosions reign supreme. They buy a Toyota
Prious for $39,000 instead of something costing less to replace but
which is still fairly efficient. They will not buy a bicycle. Those
billions scraping along in 3rd world countries on motorcycles dream of
a car. But when you do the total picture of carbon accounting, all
the little people of the world in both rich and poor countries are
wanting ****en this and ****en that are net INCREASING CO2 emissions.
They are addicted to dreaming of a materially well off future, and
addicted to consumerism, and the more they get, the more insecure and
anxious they become so the more junk food they eat so national
waistline measurements are trending up like C02.

We are an extremely flawed species. We are like the farmer who comes
to his land, and leaves it in far worse condition then when he came.

Planet Earth is feeling sick and is getting a temperature. She might
have a good spew to get rid of us.

Patrick Turner.

John Byrns

November 9th 09, 01:37 AM

In article
>,
Patrick Turner > wrote:

> I think things will get increasingly unstable with oscillations in
> temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much warmer
> climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years because the
> earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another 1/2 billion
> years.

There is always the chance that earth will be wiped out by a collision
with a giant space rock long before it is consumed by an expanding sun.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

John Byrns

November 9th 09, 04:58 AM

In article
>,
Patrick Turner > wrote:

> On Nov 9, 2:29*am, François Yves Le Gal > wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:51:51 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >So when you have a choke input supply with two of those 125KV
> > >thingies, what size is the choke?
> >
> > Here is the choke room at a secret US
> > facility:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hoover_Dam%27s_g
> > en...
> >
> > Eight chokes in wells with a secondary water cooling system. They want you
> > to believe that they are generators, but they are chokes for the ultimate
> > single ended amplifier... Two megawatts from a single Eimac bottle !

I would bet that it takes two of those Eimac bottles to make Two
megawatts, actually in excess of 8 megawatts peak power.

> Class C?
> >
> > http://www.triodeel.com/cemco.jpg

Do you remember the type number on that "bottle"? If it is a triode I
would bet that they are connected as a Doherty linear amplifier, not
class C. If it is a tetrode they are probably connected as a screen
modulated Doherty amplifier, again not really class C.

IIRC these tubes were used in a high power AM broadcast transmitter
built by Continental Electronics, I think I have the Continental catalog
sheet for this transmitter somewhere around here, or am I totally
confused about where this tube was used, having a senior moment?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Ian Iveson

November 10th 09, 08:39 AM

Patrick Turner wrote:

> >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design,
> >possession, sale
> >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall
> >be made illegal...
>
> Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the
> LAW.
> :-)
>
> BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W
> incandescent light bulbs...

If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse
heating of
the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are
already well
into the danger zone.

**Only if you believe he knows the truth. Are you sure he
said we are, rather than possibly, or probably? It's hardly
an exact science. It is not good propoganda to say that we
are already beyond some point of no return, obviously, coz
ppl will give up and redouble their profligacy. May as well
die happy.

We are a species that fouls its own nest, and does too
little too late
to avoid a problem that is slow to affect us.

**Everything fouls its own nest. We had a nice caustic
atmosphere until it was trashed by a previous bunch of
witless organisms.

Anyway, the amps I have just made consume about 500W when
used. But
the switch many ppl are making towards "digital" amplifiers,
class D,
which are 96% efficient is offsetting the effect steam
engines that I
am still making in tiny numbers. I didn't have any children
which is
the worst thing anyone could do to a planet.

**LOL, which is rare here, for me. Ask not what our children
can do for our planet, but what our planet can do for our
children. Having none, perhaps you have missed the point?

There are too many ppl
doing too many things that are destructive here already. If
we all
just didn't breed for 25 years and spent the time instead
fixing the
major problems we'd be OK but it ain't never gonna happen.
Most of the
young are driven uncontrolably to ****.

**So they don't starve when they get old. The calculus of
****ing continues to confound even the most advanced
societies. Pensions in capitalist states have weakened its
fundamental dynamic but kids are still socially necessary,
so the state jiggles the costs. The delay in this feedback
loop, together with the hysteresis arising from religion and
other forces of tradition, lead to overshoots and
oscillations. Increasingly, migration is globalising the
issues (er..as it were). The maths, as with most social and
environmental problems, gets too big and complicated for
analysis to grasp. China knew that but went ahead and
grappled with it anyway. Basically successful but very
problematic.

**All those years ago, when China had embarked on its
population control programme, my Branch received a
delegation sent by the CPC to explain what they were up to.
They were engagingly earnest and optimistic, calculating and
humane, and very disciplined. Something had to be done, and
that was the best plan they could think of. They predicted
all the problems we have seen since, but couldn't quantify
many of them. Better than mass starvation or civil war, or
both, they said, as far as it seemed to them possible to
know such things. Better red than dead, they said, more or
less; with considerable trepidation because they were
conscious of making the biggest decision in the history of
the world.

I liked to **** when I was young but I wasn't going to breed
unless
everything looked like it would work out. It never did for
me. Much of
the time I wondered what on earth was the point of breeding.
Everyone
who doesn't breed leaves more in the world for those who do.
So If I
make a few tube amps, so what?

**Best to keep a low profile. Open defiance rankles with
regulators.

People are buying houses here which are twice the size of
those their
parents bought 30 years ago. The way ppl live generally even
though
they don't have any interest in hi-fi seems to consume much
more
energy than 30 years ago and in fact each succeeding
generation seems
to want more and more than the last which helps prove that
the more
they get, the more they want and the less satisfied they
become.

Lightbulbs are about to be completely outlawed here. But
ligthing is
only 10% of the problem. The real problem is hot water and
air
conditioning and travelling and farming and all the other
things.
If we had 6 billion people living like they did 100 years
ago their
energy per head might have been 50W/hr.
But now everyone wants to have access to 2kW/hr to sustain a
modern
western way of life.

What goes up must come down, and if we dig up vast amounts
of carbon
which took millions of years to be buried underground and
send it
skyward in a couple of centuries then the temperature will
rise, and
our cleverness will backfire us down.

**Capitalism entails and depends upon economic growth, as do
all preceeding forms of social organisation. That's the
fundamental issue that Communism addresses. In Socialist
states managed by Communist Parties, growth may not be
necessary but it is still desirable. No system has a good
record of using resources efficiently. However, China seems
to me to be the most likely, perhaps the only, state able to
take the bull by the horns. Elsewhere, politicians have
visions but can't implement decisions.

I think things will get increasingly unstable with
oscillations in
temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much
warmer
climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years
because the
earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another
1/2 billion
years. Our species will get a kick or two in the butt before
then
though, and from the boot we made ourselves.

**Any number of things might happen. Life, albeit not us,
may survive a supernova. I don't think we know a great deal
about them. Your conclusion is simplistic, of course:
climate is much more than temperature, and the environment
is much more than climate.

**At the root of all this is a basic question of philosophy,
about the relationship between quality and quantity of life.
Given the choice, what kind of things should we consider
when trading one for the other? We could decide to have no
children, stuff ourselves stupid with all the earth's
resources, and use our valve amps to the end. Or we could be
miserly and miserable ****ers for eons.

**Ian

Peter Wieck

November 10th 09, 12:22 PM

On Nov 10, 3:39*am, "Ian Iveson" >
wrote:

> At the root of all this is a basic question of philosophy,
> about the relationship between quality and quantity of life.
> Given the choice, what kind of things should we consider
> when trading one for the other? We could decide to have no
> children, stuff ourselves stupid with all the earth's
> resources, and use our valve amps to the end. Or we could be
> miserly and miserable ****ers for eons.

Mpffff... Not hardly the way it works. The purpose of any given
species is to prepare the way for the next species just a little
better at competing for that particular ecological niche. At present
we are preparing for a species that will survive a high-carbon
atmosphere with a high relative humidity, higher sea-levels - but
slightly less salt concentration, a greater amount of sulphur and
various other gaseous products-of-combustion around as well as various
analogous solids - mercury, cadmium and similar.

The planet has gone from primarily soft life, to exoskeletons to
backbones, from cold blooded to warm blooded, from copper-based blood
to iron-based, and each form of life got pretty complicated before it
was displaced as the dominant form. And each form of life tried
different approaches - size, quantity, speed, only relatively recently
brains. All humans are doing is accelerating the process very
slightly. And all we are doing is relocating the various elements from
one form and location to another, discounting the miniscule amounts
being shot into space of course.

So, we best serve our purpose by behaving exactly as we do - and
pretty much as every other species does - reproduce like mad, use it
up and stop adapting, stop changing, stop evolving. Once that happens
as a species we are doomed - after which it is only a matter of time.
And as one would put down a beloved pet when it is clear that it is in
pain and cannot be made better - we should more-or-less treat
ourselves the same way. And make way for our replacements in the next
several million years or so - a tiny fraction of time as the earth
measures things anyway. Keeping always in mind that nature does not
particularly care about intelligence except as a way for a species to
dominate its niche a little bit better. But the right virus at the
right moment proves how little brains really mean in the scheme of
things.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

PeterD

November 10th 09, 01:36 PM

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:39:56 -0000, "Ian Iveson"
> wrote:

>Patrick Turner wrote:
>
>> >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design,
>> >possession, sale
>> >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall
>> >be made illegal...
>>
>> Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the
>> LAW.
>> :-)
>>
>> BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W
>> incandescent light bulbs...
>
>If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse
>heating of
>the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are
>already well
>into the danger zone.

Just because he said something doesn't make it true, or a valid
conclusion.

>...

Peter Wieck

November 10th 09, 01:57 PM

On Nov 10, 8:36*am, PeterD > wrote:

> Just because he said something doesn't make it true, or a valid
> conclusion.

Of course not. In any case the quicker we hasten our departure the
quicker the next dominant species evolves. That it will do so is an
historical absolute, all we are doing is dickering over the timing.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Patrick Turner

November 11th 09, 11:04 AM

On Nov 9, 12:37*pm, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
> > I think things will get increasingly unstable with oscillations in
> > temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much warmer
> > climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years because the
> > earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another 1/2 billion
> > years.
>
> There is always the chance that earth will be wiped out by a collision
> with a giant space rock long before it is consumed by an expanding sun.

Well indeed.
OK, so a rock wipes out most life in only 5 million years time, like
the one 65mill ago.
So another 50million years drifts by, and some life form evolves
again.....and all this maybe several times before Earth is finally
fried.

The future and the unknown worries so many people that some of them
invented BS about the Rapture, and Judgement Day, and God and so on.

But be good while your'e alive. Hell might just exist.

Patrick Turner.

>
> --
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

Patrick Turner

November 11th 09, 11:31 AM

On Nov 10, 7:39*pm, "Ian Iveson" >
wrote:
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > >In our days of carbon emissions reduction frenzy design,
> > >possession, sale
> > >and operation of 120W class A (!) tube amplifiers shall
> > >be made illegal...
>
> > Go class D, use headphones, not just good ideas, that the
> > LAW.
> > :-)
>
> > BTW, our eurocrats have already outlawed >100W
> > incandescent light bulbs...
>
> If you read what James Lovelock has to say about greenhouse
> heating of
> the Planet in his latest book, you will see that we are
> already well
> into the danger zone.
>
> **Only if you believe he knows the truth. Are you sure he
> said we are, rather than possibly, or probably? It's hardly
> an exact science. It is not good propoganda to say that we
> are already beyond some point of no return, obviously, coz
> ppl will give up and redouble their profligacy. May as well
> die happy.

I cannot know all the truth.

All the truth is an infinite amount of information and I have only a
finite brain which cannot understand infinite knowledge.

But Lovelock seems to be fairly right to me.

If in 50 years time there are 12 billion people all needing 2kWH to
have a life, and most of that is via fossil burning, then mankind's
gross activity is like a huge volcano that just won't give up spewing
****e into the air.

They'll be dire consequences.
>
> We are a species that fouls its own nest, and does too
> little too late
> to avoid a problem that is slow to affect us.
>
> **Everything fouls its own nest. We had a nice caustic
> atmosphere until it was trashed by a previous bunch of
> witless organisms.
>
> Anyway, the amps I have just made consume about 500W when
> used. But
> the switch many ppl are making towards "digital" amplifiers,
> class D,
> which are 96% efficient is offsetting the effect steam
> engines that I
> am still making in tiny numbers. I didn't have any children
> which is
> the worst thing anyone could do to a planet.
>
> **LOL, which is rare here, for me. Ask not what our children
> can do for our planet, but what our planet can do for our
> children. Having none, perhaps you have missed the point?
>
> There are too many ppl
> doing too many things that are destructive here already. If
> we all
> just didn't breed for 25 years and spent the time instead
> fixing the
> major problems we'd be OK but it ain't never gonna happen.
> Most of the
> young are driven uncontrolably to ****.
>
> **So they don't starve when they get old.

In well educated societies, people don't need to breed much to not
starve in old age. Only a small % of ppl are required for food
production, and even if you lost your sons and daughters the system
would feed you.
We don't breed because we need to any more; we breed because we like
to see our genes flourish; its supposedly a challenge that's
irrestistable, groovy in fact, and cool, awesome, etc, when your'e
young of course. But at present the slice of the world each person
gets is becoming smaller and smaller.

The calculus of
> ****ing continues to confound even the most advanced
> societies. Pensions in capitalist states have weakened its
> fundamental dynamic but kids are still socially necessary,
> so the state jiggles the costs. The delay in this feedback
> loop, together with the hysteresis arising from religion and
> other forces of tradition, lead to overshoots and
> oscillations.

Indeed.

>Increasingly, migration is globalising the
> issues (er..as it were). The maths, as with most social and
> environmental problems, gets too big and complicated for
> analysis to grasp. China knew that but went ahead and
> grappled with it anyway. Basically successful but very
> problematic.
>
> **All those years ago, when China had embarked on its
> population control programme, my Branch received a
> delegation sent by the CPC to explain what they were up to.
> They were engagingly earnest and optimistic, calculating and
> humane, and very disciplined. Something had to be done, and
> that was the best plan they could think of. They predicted
> all the problems we have seen since, but couldn't quantify
> many of them. Better than mass starvation or civil war, or
> both, they said, as far as it seemed to them possible to
> know such things. Better red than dead, they said, more or
> less; with considerable trepidation because they were
> conscious of making the biggest decision in the history of
> the world.

Well we ought to thank the CPC for their stern limitations on
breeding.

That left more world for everyone else "on our side" to exploit.

But someone said "To become rich is glorious", and now China is hell
bent on materialism and 2kWH per person of energy use.

>
> I liked to **** when I was young but I wasn't going to breed
> unless
> everything looked like it would work out. It never did for
> me. Much of
> the time I wondered what on earth was the point of breeding.
> Everyone
> who doesn't breed leaves more in the world for those who do.
> So If I
> make a few tube amps, so what?
>
> **Best to keep a low profile. Open defiance rankles with
> regulators.
>
> People are buying houses here which are twice the size of
> those their
> parents bought 30 years ago. The way ppl live generally even
> though
> they don't have any interest in hi-fi seems to consume much
> more
> energy than 30 years ago and in fact each succeeding
> generation seems
> to want more and more than the last which helps prove that
> the more
> they get, the more they want and the less satisfied they
> become.
>
> Lightbulbs are about to be completely outlawed here. But
> ligthing is
> only 10% of the problem. The real problem is hot water and
> air
> conditioning and travelling and farming and all the other
> things.
> If we had 6 billion people living like they did 100 years
> ago their
> energy per head might have been 50W/hr.
> But now everyone wants to have access to 2kW/hr to sustain a
> modern
> western way of life.
>
> What goes up must come down, and if we dig up vast amounts
> of carbon
> which took millions of years to be buried underground and
> send it
> skyward in a couple of centuries then the temperature will
> rise, and
> our cleverness will backfire us down.
>
> **Capitalism entails and depends upon economic growth, as do
> all preceeding forms of social organisation. That's the
> fundamental issue that Communism addresses. In Socialist
> states managed by Communist Parties, growth may not be
> necessary but it is still desirable. No system has a good
> record of using resources efficiently. However, China seems
> to me to be the most likely, perhaps the only, state able to
> take the bull by the horns. Elsewhere, politicians have
> visions but can't implement decisions.
>
> I think things will get increasingly unstable with
> oscillations in
> temperatures and weather until finally settling at a much
> warmer
> climate. Life will of course go on for millions of years
> because the
> earth will not be consumed by an expanding sun for another
> 1/2 billion
> years. Our species will get a kick or two in the butt before
> then
> though, and from the boot we made ourselves.
>
> **Any number of things might happen. Life, albeit not us,
> may survive a supernova. I don't think we know a great deal
> about them. Your conclusion is simplistic, of course:
> climate is much more than temperature, and the environment
> is much more than climate.

Indeed.

But we are getting mid summer day temps now although its springtime.
11 degrees C above average.

>
> **At the root of all this is a basic question of philosophy,
> about the relationship between quality and quantity of life.
> Given the choice, what kind of things should we consider
> when trading one for the other? We could decide to have no
> children, stuff ourselves stupid with all the earth's
> resources, and use our valve amps to the end. Or we could be
> miserly and miserable ****ers for eons.

Or we could get busy with changing from fossils to nuclear and all
forms of "green" alternatives like solar and wind power.

Then we could be a stuffin, and a muckin and a fukkin, and have our
tube amps.

But so many hate the change required. They cry out like they always
have,
"We'll be rooned".....

Change always costs money.

I might have to pay $5,000 per year for electricity instead of the
present $1,600.

That is a big increase in costs for me when I am on low wages.

But average weekly earnings in Oz right now is $50,000 per year and so
the change is quite affordable for those on average wages; they just
give up some small luxury.

But some folks would like to machine gun anyone who raises costs and
foists a change on them.

Some of these horrid folks will have kids who resent they were born
and they'll carry on the arsole traditions.

Patrick Turner.

fs
>
> **Ian

Patrick Turner

November 11th 09, 11:46 AM

On Nov 10, 11:22*pm, Peter Wieck > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 3:39*am, "Ian Iveson" >
> wrote:
>
> > At the root of all this is a basic question of philosophy,
> > about the relationship between quality and quantity of life.
> > Given the choice, what kind of things should we consider
> > when trading one for the other? We could decide to have no
> > children, stuff ourselves stupid with all the earth's
> > resources, and use our valve amps to the end. Or we could be
> > miserly and miserable ****ers for eons.
>
> Mpffff... Not hardly the way it works. The purpose of any given
> species is to prepare the way for the next species just a little
> better at competing for that particular ecological niche. At present
> we are preparing for a species that will survive a high-carbon
> atmosphere with a high relative humidity, higher sea-levels - but
> slightly less salt concentration, a greater amount of sulphur and
> various other gaseous products-of-combustion around as well as various
> analogous solids - mercury, cadmium and similar.
>
> The planet has gone from primarily soft life, to exoskeletons to
> backbones, from cold blooded to warm blooded, from copper-based blood
> to iron-based, and each form of life got pretty complicated before it
> was displaced as the dominant form. And each form of life tried
> different approaches - size, quantity, speed, only relatively recently
> brains. All humans are doing is accelerating the process very
> slightly. And all we are doing is relocating the various elements from
> one form and location to another, discounting the miniscule amounts
> being shot into space of course.
>
> So, we best serve our purpose by behaving exactly as we do - and
> pretty much as every other species does - reproduce like mad, use it
> up and stop adapting, stop changing, stop evolving. Once that happens
> as a species we are doomed - after which it is only a matter of time.
> And as one would put down a beloved pet when it is clear that it is in
> pain and cannot be made better - we should more-or-less treat
> ourselves the same way. And make way for our replacements in the next
> several million years or so - a tiny fraction of time as the earth
> measures things anyway. Keeping always in mind that nature does not
> particularly care about intelligence except as a way for a species to
> dominate its niche a little bit better. But the right virus at the
> right moment proves how little brains really mean in the scheme of
> things.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Indeed history teaches us a lot.

Most folks don't want to see our species having to be put down because
its unviable or in serious pain.
But death has to faced by all of us.
The polititions can only offer a side show really, temporary amusement
and higher electricity bills. So many people will just do business as
usual because the cost of change is worse that status quo. Polititians
cannot overcome the FU2 philosophy which so many believe in.

I think genetic engineering could allow a huge increase in speed of
evolution which would enable us to counter the anthropocentric effect
we are having on climate. Rich people will be able to afford it. One
could have a world with only 10% of present bio-diversity.
It seems to me we are changing the world much faster than any species
can evolve to addapt to the changes.
Intelligence has led us here and it seems stupid.

I can't stop any of it.

Patrick Turner.

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 12th 09, 04:51 AM

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.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Peter Wieck

November 12th 09, 12:08 PM

On Nov 11, 11:51*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:

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

Yes, Andre, they do. And you most definitely are the first and best
example of that need as it applies to this group anyway. What passes
for your mind is well-and-truly made up. No need to confuse you with
any facts.

However, you also very much make my point - which is as you so aptly
demonstrate - that humans have reached an evolutionary dead-end. And
every species that has reached that point has the responsibility to
eliminate itself from the planet as quickly and efficiently as
possible. There is no such thing as "harm" in that process as its
replacement will simply evolve to meet the prevailing conditions.
Expedience and speed are the requirements. You are contributing to
that very nicely, thank you!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Patrick Turner

November 13th 09, 05:21 AM

Patrick Turner

November 13th 09, 05:49 AM

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.

I recall the doomsayers of the 1960s saying that by now there would be
mass starvations caused by limited food supplies. But the green
revolution occurred and rice yields doubled per hectare. As the world
continues getting richer and wealthier and as more energy is used by
mechanised farming, more food should get produced and more ppl will
eat meat. GM crops will boost food values. But perhaps there is a
limit to such progress. There is talk of having 50million ppl in Oz
within 50 years. Maybe we then could not export any food. We may have
to rely on desalination for water.
I would prefer to see alternatives to fossil fuel burning. Nuclear
looks well to me. If we had Thorium based fission reactors or we
eventually got fusion reactors to work then farewell and good riddance
to the coal industry IMHO.

But vested interests in the current status quo are screaming like
stuck pigs when ppl say let's do away with the coal industry and the
oil industry. Carbon trading looks set to be a huge swindle. CO2
sequestration looks unlikely to be successful.

Adelaide has just had 5 spring days with over 35C which has set a
record since records began in about 1880.

And we don't eve have an Elnino drought condition. Its been a very
nice spring here with nice rainfall which I have not seen for about 9
years at least.

There is a line across the map of Sth Oz called the Goyder Line which
denotes where farming north of the line is unviable, and south is OK.
I expect to see the line move south.

I am discussing the use of SMPS for tube amps with a friend again.
Maybe the discussions bear fruit. Almost anything is better than a
GZ34. So while some might adore GZ34, others like myself would think
they kneel at a fool's altar.

If I could cram a SMPS into a steel box about 220mm W x 140mm H x
120mm L, then that would replace the heavy costly PT I currently use
and I would have something more desirable to own and use. Halcro amps
which arguably are the best solid state class AB amps available have
SMPS and they are not noisy. If every tube amp dumped the GZ34
technology out of their design it would make tube amps easier to own
and not degrade the sound.

Patrick Turner.

Peter Wieck

November 13th 09, 02:22 PM

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.

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.
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. 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.
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.

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.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 13th 09, 09:54 PM

On Nov 13, 5:49*am, 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.

The main one being that it is a lie and always was a lie/

For many centuries during the Medieval Warm Period, the earth was much
warmer than it is now.

For two and a half centuries during the Little Ice Age the earth was
much colder than it is now. The earth hasn't recovered from the Litle
Ice Age yet.

The Global Warmies tried to lie these historical facts out of
existence with statistical tricks, now exposed; this is the notorious
Hockey Stick Scam which by statistical incompetence and trickey
flattened the peak of the MWP and the trough of the LIA in an attempt
to make the 1990s look very warm.

The models built with those lies failed retrospectively to fit the
temperature data. How can anyone expect such incompetent models to
predict anything.

The models built with those lies failed to predict the cooling period
in the very next decade. How can anyone believe that such incompetent
models can predict a hundred or three hundred years ahead?

Note that I'm not just jumping on a bandwagon and kicking a dog that's
already down, as you are, Patrick; I've sent these climate alarmists,
including the global warmies, up rotten since I was a precocious
teenager with a column in the Sunday Times and they were screeching
first about the hole in the ozone layer (where is it?) and then about
the imminent ice age (missed that one too!), and then changed course
and tried to pretend Hell burns on earth.

> I recall the doomsayers of the 1960s saying that by now there would be
> mass starvations caused by limited food supplies. But the green
> revolution occurred and rice yields doubled per hectare. As the world
> continues getting richer and wealthier and as more energy is used by
> mechanised farming, more food should get produced and more ppl will
> eat meat. GM crops will boost food values. But perhaps there is a
> limit to such progress. There is talk of having 50million ppl in Oz
> within 50 years. Maybe we then could not export any food. We may have
> to rely on desalination for water.

"Perhaps". Perhaps isn't science. "There is talk of..." Among idiots
who want to sound clever there is always talk. That isn't science
either. 50m people in Oz wouldn't affect food exports one once, man.
You live in Canberra, you can go ask the figures and read them for
yourself, instead of wasting your time on the net looking like the
victim of every passing apocalyptic fad.

> I would prefer to see alternatives to fossil fuel burning. Nuclear
> looks well to me. If we had Thorium based fission reactors or we
> eventually got fusion reactors to work then farewell and good riddance
> to the coal industry IMHO.

Hallelujah!

> But vested interests in the current status quo are screaming like
> stuck pigs when ppl say let's do away with the coal industry and the
> oil industry.

They will be the first to invest in nuclear energy.

>Carbon trading looks set to be a huge swindle.

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

>CO2
> sequestration looks unlikely to be successful.

And you couldn't forecast that? Besides, it was unnecessary and
probably counterproductive.

> Adelaide has just had 5 spring days with over 35C which has set a
> record since records began in about 1880.

After all these years mostly in the green and beloved isle, I hate it
in Adelaide, my other home, when it gets that hot. I like the winter
in Adelaide; feels warm to me, and more even-tempered than the South
of France.

> And we don't eve have an Elnino drought condition. Its been a very
> nice spring here with nice rainfall which I have not seen for about 9
> years at least.
>
> There is a line across the map of Sth Oz called the Goyder Line which
> denotes where farming north of the line is unviable, and south is OK.
> I expect to see the line move south.

Here we go again. Everything gets better and better, year by year.
Despite a hugely larger population, there are 300m fewer hungry people
in the world, but the usual clowns are rubbing ashes on their heads
and, global warming being dead, finding something else to whine about.

> I am discussing the use of SMPS for tube amps with a friend again.
> Maybe the discussions bear fruit. Almost anything is better than a
> GZ34. So while some might adore GZ34, others like myself would think
> they kneel at a fool's altar.

Switch mode power supplies for hi-fi... Excuse me while I vomit.
Pinkostinko will crawl out the grave to kiss you on the lips, my man.
The GZ34 is the rectifier of reference for people with culture. The
only thing that comes close is the Svetlana (blessed be her memory)
6D22S and you need to set up two of those, which is rough on real
estate on your amp and on the pocket for the exta filament supply.
GZ32 is also super but now far too pricey.

> If I could cram a SMPS into a steel box about 220mm W x 140mm H x
> 120mm L, then that would replace the heavy costly PT I currently use
> and I would have something more desirable to own and use. Halcro amps
> which arguably are the best solid state class AB amps available have
> SMPS and they are not noisy. *If every tube amp dumped the GZ34
> technology out of their design it would make tube amps easier to own
> and not degrade the sound.

You're nuts. This is the old, old story of excessive negative feedback
chopping up the sound all over again, but this time starting in the
power supply, which -- as I keep saying -- is part of the sonic
transfer function. A whole amp full of fractional artifacts of
fractional artifacts piggybacking on each other, necessitating more
NFB, which creates more fractionak residuals which piggyback yet more
fractional residuals until the sound is entirely articial.

A punctiliously built poor idea is always a poor idea, like NFB was
all along; that it has triumphed in the market place does not improve
a bad idea.

You done good by hi-fi electronics, Patrick. If you're bored with what
you've achieved, give hi-fi a rest, find something else to do to
recharge the batteries.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

landotter

November 13th 09, 10:08 PM

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

> Of course it is. Fat Al Gore, pinup boy of the environmentalists,
> designed it 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?

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 14th 09, 12:28 AM

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-the-press/the%20veep%20and%20the%20queen..JPG

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/images/2007/11/AL%20GORE%20ROBERT%20DE%20NIRO.JPG

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 Pearce[_3_]

November 14th 09, 07:28 AM

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

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 14th 09, 06:26 PM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Flipper says, "Calling CO2 driven AGW 'science' is
a farce."

Andre Jute:
> >The main one being that global warming is a lie and always was a lie/

!Jones:
> Apparently, the world's scientists disagree with the world's
> bicyclists... and visa versa.

Jute:
Here are a couple of engineers making a longer-view contribution to
the posts by me and Patrick Turner that set this off:

*****
FROM flipper >:

Jute:
> >>>> 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.

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

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

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

Flipper:
> 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.

****

Jute:
Yup. Looks like Flipper agrees with me, there's more science in
Scientology than in global warming.

For the innocant, Scientology is a religion (i.e. a tax dodge) of
green bug-eyed monsters though up by L Ron Hubbard, a sci-fi writer.

Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
"Oh, I've seen the loonies do that for half a century. Asher's problem
is that he has such a poor grasp of history, he thinks the New
Apocalypse of Global Warming is brand spanking new and exciting." --
Andre Jute

Peter Wieck

November 14th 09, 06:58 PM

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. 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.

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

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 14th 09, 11:04 PM

On Nov 14, 7:36*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> Well, Jute... when you fling the terms "liar" and "lies" about, I read
> it as you're trying to evoke my emotion as opposed to informing or
> persuading me.

Nah, Jonesy, I'm too old and too wily to try and persuade sheep of
anything. I just lay out the facts for those who want them and
eventually there's a tax revolt and the powers that be call me a
revolutionary (a travesty, if you ask me; my dinner jacket fits better
than theirs) and send assassins after me.

I have laid out the evidence that Michael Mann, the lead writer of a
key IPCC report, lied. On this conference. Google up "Hockey Stick"
and you will find the evidence given by leading members of the US
National Academy of Science before the US Senate. I'm surprised you
speak out before gathering facts, Jonesy; it's a very unprofessional
thing for a university professor to do.

> The world's scientists are (sort of) coming to a consensus that
> contradicts your position. *

Science is not about consensus, it's about proof. Global warming, as
Flipper says, doesn't even have a hypothesis, never mind proof. All it
has is scare stories and computer models that don't forecast ****.

>There are certainly a few voices of
> dissention. *

You mean "dissent". Or "a few dissenting voices".

>My point is that an intelligent reader would not be
> convinced by your use of loaded language (i.e.: "liars") that the
> scientific community has it all wrong.

Who says the "scientific community" has it all wrong? You? Certainly
not me! In fact, my proofs that the bureaucrats at the IPCC and some
climatologists have lied, are lying, and intend to go on lying,
depends primarily on a cross-displinary analysis of contrary data.
Look up the thread in which Ben Wiener, on this conference, tried to
lie to me that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are
only "eurocentric", at which point I published 37 peer-reviewed
references from a double handful of sciences that gave that bull****
the lie and proved, and still proves, that the MWP and the LIA circled
the globa.

> I'm not a climatologist, so I don't know.

This isn't about climatology. This is about lies so-called scientists
make proxy statistics perform at the behest of IPCC bureaucrats.

I'm a statistician (economists and psychologists are just
statisticians with a spot more class and imagination than mere
technicians) who was once paid a seven-figure sum (before bonuses of
several times that) every year for being a very, very smart boy with
numbers. What I can make numbers do, I can also spot crooks who call
themselves scientists doing. So can other first-class statisticians,
among them McIntyre & McKittrick, who for exposing the Hockey Stick as
a sham should have had the Nobel Prize given to that clown Al Gore.

>*I do know that a vast
> majority of the climatologists disagree with you...

Ah, here we go: consensus! Actually, there isn't consensus, merely a
meretricious claim by bureaucrats at the IPCC that there is consensus.
And consensus isn't science, Jonesy, it is bought by money and power.
Read a little scientific history. Lysenko is a good place to start. He
killed tens of millions of people by starvation.

In a couple of decades, I'm going to label you a genocide for
supporting this global warming scare, same as I labelled Rachel Carson
and all her followers, including some by name on RBT, genocides for
the pointless banning of DDT, which too was done on the basis of
hysteria without an iota of scientific proof. (Look up DDT on this
conference if you want to see how I made that point stick.)

>and you're
> shrieking about it! *That's not likely to convince anyone.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just having fun tweaking the
noses of the global warming faithful, same way I tweak the noses of
the anti-evolutionist fundies.

When I want to convince you, you won't even know you've been
convinced. You're talking to a premium-grade hidden persauder. Those
statistics I mentioned above as so valuable, I did them in
advertising.

> Let's say that I were persuaded; what, exactly, do you want me to
> *do*? *

Gee, and they let you teach unformed minds! Yo, Jonesy, there's sure
to be a Politics 101 somewhere in your college. Go sit in. When you've
got the point, then write to your Congressman as follows:

"I am not convinced that global warming is a real and present danger.
The cost of Kyoto alone is in the trillions already. For that much we
can raise the poor of the world out of their misery by giving them
food, clean water, basic health care and primary education. If instead
we spend the money on a hubristic attempt to control a natural force,
in a very short time sharp intellectuals will call us genocidal fools.
If you vote for such a waste of money, I shall no longer be able to
vote for you. Yours sincerely, Jonesy."

>Is reducing our use of fossil fuels a *bad* thing? *

Not at all. But common economy or even prudence doesn't make it an
imperative. What is bad, what is indeed racist, is for us to insist
that brown and black peoples trying to industrialize must stay poor
forever so that they do not produce carbon. This is very hard for
Americans to understand but is the official position of the Chinese
and the Indians and others. Did you know that your government is
racist, Jonesy?

>Should I
> drive more? *

Of course you should: you might learn to drive better and be less of a
danger to cyclists. (BTW, I haven't owned a car since 1992. I'm a very
great deal greener than you will ever be.)

>Will that help the situation? *

Of course not. Your question merely illustrates your ignorance. Carbon
is a natural gas, a very small fraction of the greenhouse gases that
so upset the doom-mongers. Without carbon, plants will die, then
humans and other oxygen-breathers will die. The human-created CO2 is
the tiniest fraction of a subfraction. Even if we controlled it, and
we can't, it would make no difference whatsoever. As Flipper pointed
out, as I have pointed out on this conference many times, there is no
scientific proof that CO2 is linked to global temperature. In fact, in
the ice core record, rising temperature precedes CO2 increase. You
might equally, with more visible proof, say that temperature rise
causes CO2 increases.

If you were actually to look into the correlation of global
temperature rise, you would discover it is statistically closely
linked to sunspot activity. But sunspot activity doesn't have any
guilt button to press, and automobiles and consumption already carry
that burden of aeons of Christian guilt inculcation for the would-be
controllers of our lives, the environmentalists, to work on.

>Why are you trying so hard
> to convince me? *

I've told you, I'm just pushing the buttons of the global warming
fundies. It just seems hard to you because you haven't grasped yet
that I don't take prisoners.

>If you're right, then what difference does it make
> whether or not I choose to reduce my carbon footprint?

None. However, if I'm wrong, and global warming is caused by your CO2
emissions, you should produce a bigger carbon footprint so that the
temperature can rise two degrees, which would increase agricultural
output and thus feed the world's hungry. That too is in an IPCC
report. (It appears that I'm the only one who has actually read the
literature. The rest of these clowns, and you apparently, take their
"facts" from television.)

>*Is carbon
> dioxide accumulation a good thing?

The Earth is very good at carbon accumulation. What do you think oil
and coal is, what do you think fuels the trees and plants that provide
our oxygen?

> Jones
>
> 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.

In any event, this part of this thread, which I merely gave the name
of an RBT thread, *originated on RAT*, and I crossposted it to RBT
because many cyclists are interested in global warming and might have
informative input.

>*I trimmed the headers for a reason...

Whatever quivers your wick, pal.

>I
> don't know squat about audio tubes and don't want to pester those nice
> people with our off-topic discussion.

Eh? Wakey, wakey, Jonesy; this discussion originated on
rec.audio.tubes. And now you arrogantly want to assume the right to
deprive them of it? Bit dictatorial, aren't you, Jonesy? Sounds like
you've taught college too long, sport.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Michael Press

November 15th 09, 12:28 AM

In article
>,
Andre Jute > wrote:

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/the%20veep%20and%20the%20queen.JPG

If you want to look slim ...

--
Michael Press

Peter Wieck

November 15th 09, 12:30 AM

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

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

Nah!

Just observation of the obvious. No wit required.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Peter Wieck

November 15th 09, 02:12 AM

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=YWyCCJ6B2WE&feature=related

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Patrick Turner

November 15th 09, 05:41 AM

On Nov 14, 1:22*am, Peter Wieck > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 12:21*am, Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
> > For each green minded person there might be 2 who don't care what
> > happens and 3 who go by the FU2 idea and care only to own a 10 room
> > house, and make lotsa money to pay for a grossly polluting lifestyle
> > while cheering the boys with chain saws ripping down forests and
> > causing mahem and mass extinctions. They will believe we are entitled
> > to business as usual and God is on their side.
>
> Oh, I dunno. I expect that God is pretty much indifferent to this
> planet and its contents - it is all part of the bigger plan, after
> all.

I agree on your points, that there is a God, that he, she or it is
indifferent, and there is a bigger plan which we are only scratching
at the surface to understand. As we look deeper into space we probably
will find the known universe is teeming with lifeforms and some might
be intelligent and we might really learn something. Then there are the
teeming universes outside our own. And our dissection of the atom
isn't over yet and much needs to be understood.
Had I lived in 1500, and said such things I'd have been burnt at a
stake somewhere.
Life has a queerness alright.
>
> As to 'greeness' that is a moving target. Start with "things" - the
> range from houses to cloths:
> a) The greenest 'thing' is one that already exists.
> b) Any new "thing" requires resources to make it, care to keep it, and
> somewhere to put it when it is 'done'. This is called 'life-cycle
> cost'.
> c) Recycling has a cost - in many cases the cost is lower than the
> alternative. In very nearly equally many the cost is equivalent to the
> alternative. In very few, the alternative is both the wisest and most
> green decision. Metals are category 1. Plastics wood, vegetable matter
> and paper materials are category 2. Some are amenable to recycling as
> similar products, some may become biofuels by distillation, some may
> be burnt directly as fuel. Some chemicals (which likely should never
> had been made in the first place) are category 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a heap of progerss to be made.
>
> So, as we look towards acquiring 'things' for the good life - we need
> to make some choices. Do we buy our living 'thing' in a new
> development (very likely on farmland) made with new materials (however
> efficient)? Or do we buy an existing 'thing' that has never been on
> farmland but may not be as efficient as that new 'thing'? The existing
> 'thing' is far greener than any new 'thing' in this case by any
> measure. Even if bigger/smaller/whatever than the alternative new
> 'thing'. Follow that logic through all the rest of the 'things' we use
> in our daily lives.
>
> Do we restrict our life-style based on not wanting to use 'things'
> that we feel are not so green, or do we do what we wish but with care
> and acknowlegement of the footprints we leave? The former may (but not
> necessarily will) lead to bitterness, resentment, provincialism, self-
> righteousness and ignorance. The latter may be less 'green', but might
> (not necessarily will) make us happier (and therefore better) people.
>
> All our choices on 'things' have implications. And all that is
> required is that when we make such choices we understand them.

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

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

Patrick Turner.

>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 15th 09, 08:22 AM

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

>>You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
>>cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>>
>>d
>
>I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
>doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
>induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
>Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
>1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
>using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
>it's anomalous.

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

d

Patrick Turner

November 15th 09, 08:27 AM

On Nov 14, 9:28*pm, flipper > wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:53 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:15:14 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:49 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
> > wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 12, 3:51*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> >>>> There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.
>
> >>>> Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
> >>>> on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
> >>>> happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
> >>>> be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.
>
> >>>> Some people really need a lot of help to *put their minds in gear.
>
> >>>I admit that there is a possibility of a range of probabilities coming
> >>>true about greenhouse warming.
>
> >>There is, currently, not even a working hypothesis for man induced CO2
> >>'global warming', much less a theory, and speculation is not science.
>
> >You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
> >cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>
> >d
>
> I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
> doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
> induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
> Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
> 1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
> using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
> it's anomalous.
>
> It all depends on how you construct the trend lines but if cherry
> picked well enough, and 'anomalies corrected', they manage to claim a
> 'slight' (worst case flat) warming not as much as the previous but
> 'probably' (wave arms) just a 'pause' till it resumes even worse than
> before despite there being not one shred of evidence to support the
> speculation.
>
> However, even if it did 'resume' we're no where near planetary 'highs'
> for either temperature OR C02 and the only reason AGW pinheads imagine
> so is because they actually think 150 years of measurements, 35 or so
> if you only count satellites, coming out of a mini ice age means
> something in a freaking 120,000 year glacial cycle. But despite our
> best efforts at pumping CO2 into the air this interglacial is no where
> near the last temperature peak 120,000 years ago, or the previous
> interglacial cycle peak 240,000 years ago, or the interglacial peak
> before that one as well as the one before that. All of which occurred
> without the help, thank you, of Exxon, Mobile, Shell, BP and SUVs.
>
> Hell, we're not even at the peak of THIS puny interglacial. That
> occurred some 8000 years ago, give or take a few centuries.
>
> And ALL of that is below the geological average as we're still in the
> current 55 million year long (so far) glacial period with the last
> honest to goodness 'warm' period being circa 75 million years ago; and
> the preceding glacial period wasn't near as cold as this one. You've
> got to go 3 glacial periods back some 450 million years to find
> weather this chilly.
>
> Oh, btw, CO2 levels were at a massive 4,500 ppm during that 450
> million year ago COLD glacial period and 2,000 ppm during the 'not as
> cold' glacial period 150 million years ago. Colder glacial period with
> MORE, twice as much, CO2? And if CO2 drove temperature the entire
> planet should have been a burned cinder instead of in deep glacial
> periods.
>
> Calling CO2 driven AGW 'science' is a farce.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

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

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner

November 15th 09, 08:37 AM

On Nov 15, 5:58*am, Peter Wieck > wrote:
> On Nov 14, 1:26*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > Pretty much a bunch of self-serving crap.
>
> Andre, it is nice to see that you are doing your duty to the universe
> and also serving as such an excellent example of why it needs be done.
>
> To repeat: The human race, as you so fully prove has reached an
> evolutionary dead end.

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Turner
>
> Keep on as you are - a ranting, brain-damaged little pipsqueak howling
> from an Irish backwater. You are serving the highest and best use you
> are able, after all.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 15th 09, 08:44 AM

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

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

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

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 15th 09, 10:18 AM

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

>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>>
>>>>You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
>>>>cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>>>>
>>>>d
>>>
>>>I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
>>>doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
>>>induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>>>
>>>Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
>>>1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
>>>using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
>>>it's anomalous.
>>
>>When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
>>assertions, you've really lost the game.
>
>Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?
>

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

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

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 15th 09, 12:20 PM

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

>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>
>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
>causes an atmospheric increase.

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

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 15th 09, 12:50 PM

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

>>This is the problem with models that use curve fitting.
>
>I don't know which models you're referring to but GCMs generally
>'model', not curve fit.

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

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 15th 09, 01:45 PM

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

>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>>
>>>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
>>>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>>>
>>>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>>>
>>>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
>>>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
>>>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
>>>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>>>
>>>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
>>>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
>>>causes an atmospheric increase.
>>
>>Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
>>historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
>>the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
>>sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
>
>I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said
>"implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the
>data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with
>proxies.
>
Sorry, I'm busy and not reading closely. Although Post Hoc doesn't
necessarily imply Propter Hoc, we can be sure that Pre Hoc precludes
Propter Hoc.

>AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off
>with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the
>temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but
>then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused
>it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback"
>scenario).
>
>Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their
>unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a
>conforming 'explanation'.
>

Exactly, a classic begged question.

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

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

d

Peter Wieck

November 15th 09, 03:38 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Nate Nagel

November 15th 09, 03:47 PM

Peter Wieck wrote:

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

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

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

nate

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

[email protected]

November 15th 09, 03:51 PM

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-the-press/the%20veep%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/images/2007/11/AL%20GORE%20ROBERT%20DE....
>
> Everybody's been laughing at Fat Al and his Church of Global Warming
> Impressionables:
>
> "Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he
> is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the
> election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every
> time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the
> scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman
>
> "Gore's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David
> Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al
> Gore?'"
>
> "And you can tell Gore's serious when he talks about the world ending
> because he eats everything in sight." --Jimmy Kimmel
>
> "If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president's
> seeming largeness ... Here's an inconvenient truth: cake isn't a food
> group" --Jon Stewart
>
> Enjoy, Maxine, enjoy!
>
> Andre Jute
> *Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
> elegantly

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

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 15th 09, 06:44 PM

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-the-press/the%20veep%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/images/2007/11/AL%20GORE%20ROBERT%20DE...
>
> > Everybody's been laughing at Fat Al and his Church of Global Warming
> > Impressionables:
>
> > "Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he
> > is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the
> > election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every
> > time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the
> > scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman
>
> > "Gore's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David
> > Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al
> > Gore?'"
>
> > "And you can tell Gore's serious when he talks about the world ending
> > because he eats everything in sight." --Jimmy Kimmel
>
> > "If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president's
> > seeming largeness ... Here's an inconvenient truth: cake isn't a food
> > group" --Jon Stewart
>
> > Enjoy, Maxine, enjoy!
>
> > Andre Jute
> > *Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
> > elegantly
>
> Don't know about Al Gore, but Queen Latifah is a godess

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

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

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

Dan O

November 15th 09, 06:56 PM

On Nov 15, 7:47 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Peter Wieck wrote:
> > Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
> > the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
> > destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
> > science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.
>
> Eh, yes and no. You're correct that medical science can allow people to
> live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." We
> also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. However, it still
> is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
> coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.
>

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

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

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 15th 09, 07:00 PM

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

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

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

Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 15th 09, 07:16 PM

On Nov 15, 1:45*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:56:14 -0600, flipper > wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> >>>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >>>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> >>>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>
> >>>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
> >>>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
> >>>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
> >>>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
> >>>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
> >>>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
> >>>causes an atmospheric increase.
>
> >>Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
> >>historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
> >>the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
> >>sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
>
> >I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said
> >"implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the
> >data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with
> >proxies.
>
> Sorry, I'm busy and not reading closely. Although Post Hoc doesn't
> necessarily imply Propter Hoc, we can be sure that Pre Hoc precludes
> Propter Hoc.
>
> >AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off
> >with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the
> >temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but
> >then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused
> >it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback"
> >scenario).
>
> >Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their
> >unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a
> >conforming 'explanation'.
>
> Exactly, a classic begged question.
>
> >It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the
> >first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the
> >rest.
>
> The whole thing is arm waving. Al Gore was interviewed on the BBC news
> a couple of years back, and his entire talk consisted of debating
> trade tricks. Very unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was the
> interviewer who failed to call him on his chicanery.

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

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

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

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

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 15th 09, 07:18 PM

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

On Nov 15, 12:56*pm, flipper > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:20:56 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> >>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> >>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>
> >>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
> >>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
> >>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
> >>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
> >>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
> >>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
> >>causes an atmospheric increase.
>
> >Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
> >historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
> >the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
> >sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
>
> I said as much in the parts you did not include except I said
> "implied" because making it definitive would require presuming the
> data is flawless and that's overly optimistic, especially with
> proxies.
>
> AGW alarmists used to simply ignore that lead/lag but now write it off
> with something akin to "well, we don't know what 'started' the
> temperature rise, and that may have 'started' the CO2 increase, but
> then CO2 took over and caused the rest." Or, at the very least, caused
> it to rise more than it otherwise would have (the "positive feedback"
> scenario).
>
> Of course, that's simply speculation predicated on demanding their
> unproven conjecture is true in the first place and then seeking a
> conforming 'explanation'.
>
> It's mostly arm waving because if you can't explain what caused the
> first part then you can't, with any validity, rule it out for the
> rest.

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 15th 09, 07:27 PM

On Nov 15, 10:18*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper > wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> >>>>You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
> >>>>cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>
> >>>>d
>
> >>>I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
> >>>doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
> >>>induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
> >>>Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
> >>>1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
> >>>using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
> >>>it's anomalous.
>
> >>When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
> >>assertions, you've really lost the game.
>
> >Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?
>
> The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
> There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
> that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
> since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.
>
> This is the problem with models that use curve fitting. Unless you
> really understand the underlying mechanisms, they lose their
> applicability as soon as they run out of data. In other words they
> can't be used to predict. Pretending that the new data is somehow
> "wrong" because it doesn't follow the predictions of a flawed model is
> more than somewhat desperate.

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

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

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

Always more of the same.

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

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 15th 09, 07:32 PM

On Nov 15, 8:44*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> > wrote:
> >Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart
> from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we
> are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps?

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

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

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

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 15th 09, 07:38 PM

On Nov 15, 8:27*am, Patrick Turner > wrote:
> On Nov 14, 9:28*pm, flipper > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:53 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> > >On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:15:14 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> > >>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:49 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>>On Nov 12, 3:51*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > >>>> There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.
>
> > >>>> Tha adoration of the GZ34 is a better use of our time than wittering
> > >>>> on about global warming, something that didn't happen, isn't
> > >>>> happening, and very likely will not happen, and if it did happen would
> > >>>> be entirely beneficial in feeding the world's hungry.
>
> > >>>> Some people really need a lot of help to *put their minds in gear.

Peter Wieck

November 15th 09, 10:55 PM

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

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

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 16th 09, 12:52 AM

On Nov 15, 10:29*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> Oh, well... I'm afraid that I don't have a great deal of emotional
> investment here; further, as would be obvious should I close to the
> debate, I'm only informed at a very low level. *Since I don't really
> find the topic involving, I'm likely to remain thus.
>
> On a cursory level, I find that the general conclusions are fairly
> convincing. *It's a tad bit like arguing safety helmets... the
> arguments against the idea of global warming are so utterly
> overwhelmed by the preponderance of evidence

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

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

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

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

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

Nate Nagel

November 16th 09, 01:17 AM

Peter Wieck wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>> The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
>> successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
>> altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
>> those less qualified have kids with abandon...
>
> Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
> evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
> imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
> species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
> Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
> need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
> these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
> would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
> suggests that blind alley.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

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

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

nate

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

Peter Wieck

November 16th 09, 02:06 AM

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

On Nov 15, 7:23*pm, flipper > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:47:23 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Peter Wieck wrote:
>
> >> Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
> >> the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
> >> destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
> >> science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.
>
> >Eh, yes and no. *You're correct that medical science can allow people to
> >live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." *We
> >also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. *However, it still
> >is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
> >coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.
>
> >The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
> >successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
> >altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
> >those less qualified have kids with abandon...
>
> >nate
>
> Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view,
> Peter's conjecture has almost as many logic flaws as words with not
> the least being the arrogance to imagine he knows the 'proper',
> 'improper', and 'dead end' paths of evolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Dan O

November 16th 09, 02:50 AM

On Nov 15, 5:17 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Peter Wieck wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> >> The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
> >> successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
> >> altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
> >> those less qualified have kids with abandon...
>
> > Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
> > evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
> > imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
> > species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
> > Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
> > need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
> > these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
> > would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
> > suggests that blind alley.
>

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

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

Patrick Turner

November 16th 09, 08:35 AM

On Nov 15, 7:44*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:27:09 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
>
> > wrote:
> >Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> You do understand that mankind is part of nature, not somehow apart
> from it. Bacteria are heating the world much more effectively than we
> are. Shall we start a campaign against them, perhaps?
>
> d

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

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

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

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

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner

November 16th 09, 08:39 AM

On Nov 15, 9:18*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper > wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> >>>>You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
> >>>>cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>
> >>>>d
>
> >>>I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
> >>>doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
> >>>induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>
> >>>Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
> >>>1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
> >>>using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
> >>>it's anomalous.
>
> >>When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
> >>assertions, you've really lost the game.
>
> >Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?
>
> The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
> There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
> that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
> since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.

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

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

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

Modelling doesn't matter any more.

Climate change is happening.

And we look like the cause.

Patrick Turner.
>
> d- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 16th 09, 08:55 AM

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

>On Nov 15, 9:18*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:36 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:22:03 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>
>> >>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:50 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>You really should keep up with the news. Since 1998 it is global
>> >>>>cooling. So all the so-called models are being massaged.
>>
>> >>>>d
>>
>> >>>I have kept up with the news and whether the models are changed or not
>> >>>doesn't alter the fact there is no working hypothesis for man made CO2
>> >>>induced "climate change" if that makes you feel better.
>>
>> >>>Btw, the 'official' line is there has NOT been a 'cooling' because the
>> >>>1998 hi is anomalous or a 'false' hi. Which didn't stop them from
>> >>>using it as 'evidence' of global warming back then but, nonetheless,
>> >>>it's anomalous.
>>
>> >>When you start trying to massage the measurements to fit your
>> >>assertions, you've really lost the game.
>>
>> >Just who is the "you" you're speaking of?
>>
>> The ones who give the official line there has not been a cooling.
>> There has - that is what the measurements show. And it is not simply
>> that 1998 was an outlier and warming has continued since. Every year
>> since 1998 has been cooler than the one before.
>
>Depends where you make your measurements.
>We have had many days now of over 30C even though its only springtime
>and such T were never seen until Christmas.
>37C is predicted for next thursday.
>
>If you think the planet is cooling, you are mistaken.
>

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

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

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

>And we look like the cause.
>

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

d

Patrick Turner

November 16th 09, 09:08 AM

> >Perhaps the high CO2 levels in the distant past were caused by
> >volcanic activity.
>
> Doesn't make any difference 'where' the CO2 comes from. CO2 is CO2 and
> the conjecture is that the CO2 'greenhouse effect' increases linearly
> with atmospheric CO2 concentration. But the empirical observation is
> that for the vast majority of the earth's existence that has not been
> the case.

And I have said it depends on smoke.
>
> It's only in the last some million years, or less, that CO2 appears to
> correlate with temperature but even then it LAGS temperature, which
> implies temperature (or something else) drives CO2 and not the other
> way around.
>
> > Just hope and prey Yellowstone doesn't start up
> >bigtime any time soon. You could have high CO2 and cold if there was a
> >lotta smoke.
>
> And where is your scientific experimentation and observational
> validation for that speculation?

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

>
> That was the conjecture when temperature was falling and the
> anti-technology freaks were screaming "another ice age is coming."
> That speculation didn't pan out either.
>
> Neither that nor current AGW hysteria is 'science'. It's doomsday nuts
> looking at a weather 'blip' and then hysterically looking for "how man
> caused it" when even the most casual observer can see "climate change"
> is the blooming norm and has been for roughly 4.5 billion years.

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

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

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

Just about all of what mankind does now has a lot wrong with it.
>
> You see, in science, when predictions turn out wrong we say the
> conjecture is falsified but AGW just ignores it, claims "the science
> is settled" despite nothing working, and trots right on along.

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

Maybe its already too late to do anything useful.

>
> > An asteroid hit could have "interesting effects" not able
> >to be modelled easily. There may have been a big one that took out the
> >dinosaurs, but there also may have been smaller ones from time to time
> >whose impact left little evidence except what we see in the fossil
> >records.
>
> We could speculate that space aliens stuck a giant sun screen in orbit
> too but speculation isn't science either.

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

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

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

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

You are behind the times.

> AGW proponents, on the other hand,
> simply ignore anything that doesn't conform to their dogma, deny it
> exists, or wave it off as "something to figure out later." But that
> isn't science, it's 'religion'.
>
> However, you missed the main point; which is that AGW proponents are,
> at best, misleading or, at worst, flat out lying because current CO2
> levels are *not* 'unusual' nor 'high' nor 'unprecedented and global
> temperatures are *not* 'unusual' nor are they 'hot' nor are they
> 'unprecedented' nor any of the other hysterical claims made.
>
> The Mann 'hockey stick' temperature graph is an example of flat out
> fraud but the IPCC still uses it.
>
> All AGW mythologists have done is exchange the ashes and sack cloth
> "The end is near, sinner repent" billboard with "global warming,
> sinner repent."
>
> >Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.

Feel free to ignore the evidence.

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

That's a lotta gas.

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

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

>
> The best available scientific experimentation and observation
> (specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
> predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
> increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
> Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
> has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
> causes an atmospheric increase.

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

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

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

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

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner

November 16th 09, 09:34 AM

On Nov 16, 2:38*am, Peter Wieck > wrote:
> On Nov 15, 3:37*am, Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
> > I think humanity is evolving at an enormous speed right now. It will
> > continue to evolve speedily and increase speed as scientists present
> > ever more ways of doing things and perhaps including much genetic
> > engineering of people themselves once we overcome religious
> > superstitions.
>
> Actually, if you think on it for a bit. genetic engineering - human-
> engineered humans if you will - is an absolute dead-end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> > I doubt all of your wishes for the future will turn out as you say.
>
> They cannot help but do so. The single variable is the amount of time
> it takes. As it appears now we are pretty much doing everything within
> our powers to move the process along short of deliberate self-
> immolation. And that still remains a possibility.

I agree we don't appear to be on a good course, but our story ain't
over yet. While we heat the planet much change is still possible.
>
> > We may go down like fools no matter what we evolve ourselves into.
> > We won't have wanted to go down. Few species commits deliberate
> > suicide.
>
> No, few do. That particular behavior on this planet belongs only to
> humans.

Kinda depressing to think intelligence leads to slow suicide.

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

Unfortunately, we only have a MALE PERSPECTIVE about the future of our
species and global warming.
>
> > If we ALL perished within 100 years then not much evidence would be
> > left in 2 million years. But methinks Earth won't see total human
> > elimination and we might re-evolve many times between now and 2
> > million years time.
>
> Charles Addams had a cartoon in the New Yorker - two amoeba are at the
> bottom of the last ocean after nuclear destruction, and they are
> deciding whether they want to start over. The caption is: OK, only
> this time, no brains. No human capacity has ever been supressed, and
> no weapon of destruction has never been used.
>
> Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
> the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
> destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
> science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.

Well on this I'd agree.

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

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

Patrick Turner.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Patrick Turner

November 16th 09, 09:47 AM

On Nov 16, 2:47*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Peter Wieck wrote:
> > Our daily human behavior selects for unfitness, protects and supports
> > the distribution of disease throughout the species and rewards
> > destruction of the most important parts of -our- ecological niche. All
> > science can do in the face of that is make it 'more so'.
>
> Eh, yes and no. *You're correct that medical science can allow people to
> live and reproduce that might not be able to do so "in the wild." *We
> also do lots to protect people who do stupid things. *However, it still
> is the case that the most desirable mates are intelligent, strong,
> coordinated, and able to socialize well with others.
>
> The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
> successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
> altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
> those less qualified have kids with abandon...

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

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

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

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

Patrick Turner.

!Jones

November 16th 09, 08:42 PM

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

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

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

Then, in your next posting, you write:

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

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

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

Jones

Trevor Wilson

November 16th 09, 09:06 PM

"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/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:

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

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

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 16th 09, 09:26 PM

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/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>
>Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:
>
>-394ky
>-353ky
>-333ky
>-304ky
>-295ky
>-258ky
>-183ky
>-85ky
>-18ky
>now
>
>You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and CO2
>levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the
>fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures are
>following.

Let me quote that article

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

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

d

Peter Wieck

November 16th 09, 09:32 PM

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

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

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

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Trevor Wilson

November 16th 09, 09:55 PM

"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/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>>
>>Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:
>>
>>-394ky
>>-353ky
>>-333ky
>>-304ky
>>-295ky
>>-258ky
>>-183ky
>>-85ky
>>-18ky
>>now
>>
>>You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and
>>CO2
>>levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the
>>fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures
>>are
>>following.
>
> Let me quote that article
>
> "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and
> water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration
> increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or
> whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of
> the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much
> has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or
> perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."
>
> And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2
> concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees.

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

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Peter Wieck

November 16th 09, 10:23 PM

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 12:02 AM

On Nov 16, 8:42*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> Let's see if I have this right... in one posting, we get:
>
> >> P.S. *Please do not cross post into other newsgroups; that reflects
> >> poor Usenet manners, IMO.
> >Something else you should learn, Jonesy. Your opinion doesn't matter
> >to me. I'll do what I'm going to do regardless of whether you think it
> >is good netiquette, and sooner or later my version will become the
> >rule. So save your breath; I'm not in the least interested in
> >conforming to your lowest common denominator view of how one should
> >behave.
>
> Then, in your next posting, you write:
>
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:52:19 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
>
> Jute > wrote:
> >And you're poor white trash for renaming rec.audio.tube to
> >rec.audio.boobs. No one there would try to denigrate your hobby.
>
> Perhaps you might want to save your breath, buddy; I'm not in the
> least interested in conforming to your lowest common denominator view
> of how one should behave... and, if you don't like it, just remember:
> you wrote it.
>
> Jones

There's a difference, Jonesy. You told me what I could and couldn't
do. I didn't tell you to do anything at all, I merely observed that
doing what you did makes you trailer park trash. I trust this note
enhances your grasp of simple English; it would be too much to ask it
to improve your morality.

Andre Jute
No human corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wiecky. I made him by stuffing a cow's bladder with pig offal. -- CE
Statement of Conformity

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 12:09 AM

On Nov 16, 9:55*pm, "Trevor Wilson" >
wrote:
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> >>>>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >>>>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> >>>>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>
> >>>>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
> >>>>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
> >>>>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
> >>>>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
> >>>>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
> >>>>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
> >>>>causes an atmospheric increase.
>
> >>> Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
> >>> historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
> >>> the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
> >>> sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
>
> >>**********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby, does
> >>not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it
> >>can
> >>clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now,
> >>we
> >>are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See:
>
> >>http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>
> >>Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:
>
> >>-394ky
> >>-353ky
> >>-333ky
> >>-304ky
> >>-295ky
> >>-258ky
> >>-183ky
> >>-85ky
> >>-18ky
> >>now
>
> >>You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and
> >>CO2
> >>levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing the
> >>fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures
> >>are
> >>following.
>
> > Let me quote that article
>
> > "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and
> > water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration
> > increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or
> > whether they increase synchronously. *It's also unknown how much of
> > the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much
> > has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or
> > perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."
>
> > And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2
> > concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees.
>
> **CO2 is not the SOLE driver of temperature and climate on this planet. It
> is ONE driver.

>***In the last 150 years we have witnessed a rise in temperature
> that has been more rapid than at any time in the last 600,000 years.***

Prove it, Trevor.

> It has
> coincided with a similarly rapid rise in CO2 levels. Solar output, volcano
> activity and other factors have not been able to explain the rise in
> temperatures. The only factor left is C)2 levels. Given that we know, beyond
> a shadow of doubt, that CO2 is a potent GHG, then it is reasonable to accept
> the fact that humans are altering the climate of this planet.

Since when did you go into the rotten lace business, Trevor? Or is
that argument full of holes supposed to be a smelly Swiss cheese?

> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here.

Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 12:17 AM

On Nov 16, 2:50*am, Dan O > wrote:
> On Nov 15, 5:17 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter Wieck wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> > >> The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
> > >> successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
> > >> altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
> > >> those less qualified have kids with abandon...
>
> > > Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
> > > evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
> > > imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
> > > species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
> > > Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
> > > need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
> > > these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
> > > would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
> > > suggests that blind alley.
>
> > Whether genetics play a role or simply being raised in a house with
> > well-educated, involved parents is the main factor, I do believe that
> > some people are better qualified to have kids than others. *That may be
> > a not particularly PC opinion, but I do believe it to be true.
>
> We know: *You're awesome; everybody else sucks.

Maybe you two guys should get a room, let it all hang out. -- AJ

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 12:18 AM

Nate Nagel

November 17th 09, 12:29 AM

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:50 am, Dan O > wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 5:17 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Peter Wieck wrote:
>>>> On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>>>> The really scary thing is, though, the tendency of intelligent,
>>>>> successful people to have fewer children, or put off childbearing
>>>>> altogether, because they "can't afford to properly raise kids" while
>>>>> those less qualified have kids with abandon...
>>>> Mpfffff... not hardly. It is further proof that we are at an
>>>> evolutionary dead-end. When so-called 'intelligence' sees no
>>>> imperative to reproduce then it is no longer viable as a dominant
>>>> species. Cyril Kornbluth wrote a nice little cautionary tale - The
>>>> Marching Morons. Worth reading. But, while you are on the subject, you
>>>> need to consult with Andre on the game of eugenics - a bit discredited
>>>> these days but if there ever was the need for an advocate of it, Andre
>>>> would be the critter for it. It is the term "qualified" that leads to/
>>>> suggests that blind alley.
>>> Whether genetics play a role or simply being raised in a house with
>>> well-educated, involved parents is the main factor, I do believe that
>>> some people are better qualified to have kids than others. That may be
>>> a not particularly PC opinion, but I do believe it to be true.
>> We know: You're awesome; everybody else sucks.
>
> Maybe you two guys should get a room, let it all hang out. -- AJ

Why would I get a room with someone whose posts I only see when you
reply to them?

nate

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

Trevor Wilson

November 17th 09, 12:40 AM

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, "Trevor Wilson" >
wrote:
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> >>>>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> >>>>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> >>>>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>
> >>>>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
> >>>>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
> >>>>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
> >>>>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
> >>>>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
> >>>>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
> >>>>causes an atmospheric increase.
>
> >>> Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
> >>> historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
> >>> the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
> >>> sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
>
> >>**********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby,
> >>does
> >>not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it
> >>can
> >>clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now,
> >>we
> >>are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See:
>
> >>http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>
> >>Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:
>
> >>-394ky
> >>-353ky
> >>-333ky
> >>-304ky
> >>-295ky
> >>-258ky
> >>-183ky
> >>-85ky
> >>-18ky
> >>now
>
> >>You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and
> >>CO2
> >>levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing
> >>the
> >>fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures
> >>are
> >>following.
>
> > Let me quote that article
>
> > "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and
> > water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration
> > increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or
> > whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of
> > the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much
> > has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or
> > perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."
>
> > And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2
> > concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees.
>
> **CO2 is not the SOLE driver of temperature and climate on this planet. It
> is ONE driver.

>***In the last 150 years we have witnessed a rise in temperature
> that has been more rapid than at any time in the last 600,000 years.***

Prove it, Trevor.

**Certainly. Examine the ice core data:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

> It has
> coincided with a similarly rapid rise in CO2 levels. Solar output, volcano
> activity and other factors have not been able to explain the rise in
> temperatures. The only factor left is C)2 levels. Given that we know,
> beyond
> a shadow of doubt, that CO2 is a potent GHG, then it is reasonable to
> accept
> the fact that humans are altering the climate of this planet.

Since when did you go into the rotten lace business, Trevor? Or is
that argument full of holes supposed to be a smelly Swiss cheese?

> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here.

**We all are. The planet is warming precipitously and some stupid people are
disregarding the science, in preference for charlatans, liars and those who
have an agenda.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 12:42 AM

On Nov 17, 12:29*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2:50 am, Dan O > wrote:
> >> On Nov 15, 5:17 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:

> >>> Whether genetics play a role or simply being raised in a house with
> >>> well-educated, involved parents is the main factor, I do believe that
> >>> some people are better qualified to have kids than others. *That may be
> >>> a not particularly PC opinion, but I do believe it to be true.
> >> We know: *You're awesome; everybody else sucks.
>
> > Maybe you two guys should get a room, let it all hang out. -- AJ
>
> Why would I get a room with someone whose posts I only see when you
> reply to them?

Because only one of you will come out of that room, and I'm betting on
you.

I see the posts of Worthless Wiecky only when some newbie responds to
him, so we're square.

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

Peter Wieck

November 17th 09, 12:46 AM

Hey, Andre....

No killfile after all?

What a whining, puling, silly excuse of a jackass you have become in
your latter years. You do really need your meds adjusted - you are
playing well out of your depth, old thing!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 12:50 AM

On Nov 16, 12:44*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:59:02 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Pat"
>
> > wrote:
> >Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. *That
> >"has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
> >habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat
> >it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta
> >unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst.
>
> Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. *To do that, you'd have to
> start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign
> them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for
> three decades while the other does not smoke. *Differences could then
> be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis.
>
> Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there
> will never be one. *

Er, Jonesy, didn't they teach you any logic? If there is no proof that
smoking tobacco is dangerous, why would it be "highly unethical" to
conduct a corntrolled test to observe its effect?

Leaving aside the fact that an act is either unethical or it is
ethical, with no gradations, no "highly".

>For this reason, all we can do is point to
> correlation. *I'm not saying that smoking does *not* cause health
> problems... that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr.
>
> Jute writes:

I'll take up this crap in a separate post.

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

Trevor Wilson

November 17th 09, 01:21 AM

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:55:39 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
>>>>>>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
>>>>>>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
>>>>>>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
>>>>>>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
>>>>>>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
>>>>>>causes an atmospheric increase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
>>>>> historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
>>>>> the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
>>>>> sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
>>>>
>>>>**********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby,
>>>>does
>>>>not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it
>>>>can
>>>>clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now,
>>>>we
>>>>are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>>>>
>>>>Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:
>>>>
>>>>-394ky
>>>>-353ky
>>>>-333ky
>>>>-304ky
>>>>-295ky
>>>>-258ky
>>>>-183ky
>>>>-85ky
>>>>-18ky
>>>>now
>>>>
>>>>You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and
>>>>CO2
>>>>levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing
>>>>the
>>>>fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures
>>>>are
>>>>following.
>>>
>>> Let me quote that article
>>>
>>> "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and
>>> water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration
>>> increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or
>>> whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of
>>> the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much
>>> has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or
>>> perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."
>>>
>>> And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2
>>> concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees.
>>
>>**CO2 is not the SOLE driver of temperature and climate on this planet. It
>>is ONE driver.
>
> Whether it's a 'driver', and if it is to what magnitude, remains to be
> seen.

**We already know that CO2 provides Solar forcing equivalent to between 9% ~
26%. This is not an insignificant range.

>
>> In the last 150 years we have witnessed a rise in temperature
>>that has been more rapid than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
>
> False.
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

**It would seem that the Greenland data does not agree entirely with the
Antarctic data. Perhaps the Greenland data reflects more localised
conditions?

>
>
>> It has
>>coincided with a similarly rapid rise in CO2 levels.
>
> Coincidence is not cause and effect.

**When examining the data, you should note that correlation is VERY close.
Without far more study, it is impossible to cite cause and effect. The data,
however, is compelling.

>
>> Solar output, volcano
>>activity and other factors have not been able to explain the rise in
>>temperatures.
>
> Partly because they've been summarily dismissed with little research
> done in those areas in deference to the 'presumed' conjecture.

**********. Read ALL these reports:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

All the known contributors to climate change are carefully examined.

>
> AGW is also riddled with things they "have not been able to explain"
> but AGW simply ignores them because, contrary to all scientific
> methodology, the conjecture is presumed true.

**Nope. Just the science. Read these reports:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

>
>> The only factor left is C)2 levels.
>
> Oh? Prove it.

**We know that CO2 acts as a potent, long lasting GHG. Experimental data
stretching back more than 100 years confirms this.

>
> Hint, that's a trap because you can't prove a negative. Which also
> means the claim cannot be made.

**Then you may care to provide your suggestion as to why we are in the
middle of a warming trend. Solar variability only explains 20% of the
warming. The other 80% must be accounted for. Since CO2 is a known GHG and
has increased by more than 30% over the period of the warming, it would seem
that it is the likely culprit. I will, however, await you alternate
explanation.

>
>> Given that we know,
>
> You cannot know what you don't know.

**We know that CO2 is a potent, long lasting GHG. A GHG that acts with
around 9% ~ 26%.

>
> The argument that 'this is the only thing left that we know of" is
> fallacious because ignorance is not proof. E.g. Let us go back a few
> thousand years and speculate on the makeup of things.
>
> "All things must be made of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire because we
> know of nothing else that can explain it."
>
> Do you think that proves all things are made of Earth, Water, Air, and
> Fire or do you suspect there were a few things they didn't know?

**That would depend on your definition of "Earth" and "air". The periodic
table of elements can be found in "Earth", save a handful of manufactured
elements.

>
> Btw, this logic fallacy is one of the things the scientific method is
> designed to address. I.E. Something is not presumed valid simply
> because it's currently your favorite speculation.

**Indeed. CO2 is, however, the elephant in the room.

>
>> beyond
>>a shadow of doubt,
>
> A statement of religious fervor.

**A statement of fact. CO2 is a known GHG.

>
> Nothing in science is "beyond a shadow of doubt" and the last time,
> before AGW that is, 'scientists' fell into that fallacious trap was
> the late 19'th century when it was lamented everything of significant
> had already been discovered. Oops.
>
>> that CO2 is a potent GHG,
>
> Even if the conjecture is correct it's a weak GHG. Water vapor is, by
> far, the major one. At least, as far as we currently know.

**So? What's your point here? That a (low end) figure of 9% is, somehow,
irrelevant? Sorry. 9% is significant. 26% is moreso. Moreover, water vapour
is very short lived in the atmosphere. CO2 is not. Water vapour has a much
lesser effect in certain areas (Central Australia, the Atacama, the Sahara,
et al) and CO2 acts as a much more significant driver. And, more importantly
still, there is nothing we can do about water vapour. We CAN do something
about CO2 levels.

>
>> then it is reasonable to accept
>>the fact that humans are altering the climate of this planet.
>
> Well, if one simply assumes unproven things then anything can seem
> 'reasonable' after that.

**Here's the stuff we know:

* CO2 is a significant GHG.
* Methane is a more potent, but less significant GHG.
* Water vapour is a much weaker, but more significant GHG (due to the very
large quantities in the atmosphere).
* Over the period of time that the planet's temperature has risen
significantly (over the last 15 years), we have noted a dramatic rise in CO2
concentration.
* Humans are directly responsible for the majority of the increase in CO2
levels.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 01:49 AM

On Nov 16, 12:44*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr.
>
> Jute writes:
>
> < QUOTE >>Where's this evidence [of global warming], Jonesy. If it is so overwhelming, why don't you
> >show it to us. Should be easy enough, being "overwhelming".
>
> < /QUOTE >

I'm still waiting for the evidence, Jonesy. All you've given us so far
is a demonstration of your gullibility, in the form, "Scientists
say..." In fact they don't, not as a group, and the few who do have
been reprimanded for it by their betters speaking under oath before
the US Senate -- and, as you will expect by now, I've quoted
academicians North and Wegman and several other members of their
panels, right here on RBT. (It is one of the reasons the local global
warmies, who get their "facts" from television, no longer argue with
me but limit themselves to name-calling: I go to the source and get
the true facts, every time.)

> just remember that there is no experimentally based, scientific
> evidence. *

So you're in agreement with me, Jonesy! Then why are you indulging in
this juvenile dickswinging?

>Some things we cannot prove.
>
> E.g.:
> Parallel lines don't intersect - unproven.

Quite the contrary. It is well known to artists that parallel lines
intersect at the horizon.

> Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
> our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.

Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
by 1 and zero.

(If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof"
without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be
impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look
up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in
India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book
near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point,
the latter being *incapable* of proof.)

> Gravity, for that matter... *

Nope, not gravity either. The fact that you cannot see gravity isn't
in science a reason for denying its existence; it is observed by
proxies and direct effects. For modern mathematical proof, with
diagrams, see Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804. Same article
without the diagrams, go to http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
In general, gravity had been measured and fully described and measured
since in 1749 the Marquise du Châtelet (Voltaire's lover), knowing
that she was likely to die in childbirth, hurried to finish her
definitive paper on gravity later consulted by no less than Einstein.

>OK, I'll quit. *Gotta run, it's Monday.

You should have quit before you exposed your ignorance four times in
one short post.

> Jones

Yours in scholarship,

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

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 02:53 AM

On Nov 17, 12:40*am, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, "Trevor Wilson" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:06:12 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:11:28 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Anyway, mankind is becoming like a giant volcano, but not much smoke,
> > >>>>>so the atmosphere is heating up.
>
> > >>>>There is no working scientific hypothesis to support that claim.
>
> > >>>>The best available scientific experimentation and observation
> > >>>>(specifically the monitoring of atmospheric temperature for the
> > >>>>predicted temperature distribution) falsifies the conjecture that
> > >>>>increased atmospheric CO2 'causes' an increase in global temperature.
>
> > >>>>Not only that but, even with increasing CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2
> > >>>>has leveled off so you can't even say that emitting CO2 necessarily
> > >>>>causes an atmospheric increase.
>
> > >>> Looking at ll the graphs showing both CO2 levels and temperature
> > >>> historically, it is clear that the temperature curve has always led
> > >>> the CO2 curve. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the temperature
> > >>> sets the CO2 level, not the other way round.
>
> > >>**********. Regurtitating a lie promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby,
> > >>does
> > >>not make it a truth. A lie is just a lie. In the last 600,000 years, it
> > >>can
> > >>clearly be seen that CO2 has led and lagged temperature rise. Right now,
> > >>we
> > >>are experiencing a period where CO2 leads temperature rise. See:
>
> > >>http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>
> > >>Note the following dates, where CO2 leads temperature rise:
>
> > >>-394ky
> > >>-353ky
> > >>-333ky
> > >>-304ky
> > >>-295ky
> > >>-258ky
> > >>-183ky
> > >>-85ky
> > >>-18ky
> > >>now
>
> > >>You should also note the VERY CLOSE correlation between temperatures and
> > >>CO2
> > >>levels. When one rises, the other follows. We are presently witnessing
> > >>the
> > >>fastest rise in CO2 levels noted in the last 600,000 years.Temperatures
> > >>are
> > >>following.
>
> > > Let me quote that article
>
> > > "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and
> > > water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration
> > > increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or
> > > whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of
> > > the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much
> > > has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or
> > > perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."
>
> > > And in that graph, between 130,000 and 100,000 years, CO2
> > > concentration is constant. Yet the temperature drops by 10 degrees.
>
> > **CO2 is not the SOLE driver of temperature and climate on this planet. It
> > is ONE driver.
> >***In the last 150 years we have witnessed a rise in temperature
> > that has been more rapid than at any time in the last 600,000 years.***
>
> Prove it, Trevor.
>
> **Certainly. Examine the ice core data:
>
> http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

The long term graph shows it has been much warmer -- and the earth
didn't burn up. But I'm glad you show the cherry-picked graph of the
last two hundred years at
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
which shows CO2 rising and temperature all over the place in regular
swinging cycles.

If you were to open your mind, Trevor, you would discover that those
regular short term cycles of temperature change happening about every
11 years coincide both sunspot activity.

> > It has
> > coincided with a similarly rapid rise in CO2 levels. Solar output, volcano
> > activity and other factors have not been able to explain the rise in
> > temperatures. The only factor left is C)2 levels. Given that we know,
> > beyond
> > a shadow of doubt, that CO2 is a potent GHG, then it is reasonable to
> > accept
> > the fact that humans are altering the climate of this planet.

Huh? You, and the "scientists" you quote, don't know what's causing
temperature swings, so you want your ignorance to be proof that your
faith should taken as the gospel? Bull**** to that! Science proceeds
by proof, not by special pleading, no matter how hysterical.

> Nice to see you again, even if you're on a pretty sticky wicket here.
>
> **We all are.

Your pet alarmist, whom you cite above, doesn't know ****, and admits
it by throwing out variant hypotheses in every paragraph, claiming
something could happen because he believes in global warming. That's
the cart before the horse. First the little ******, and you, must
prove there's a correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise,
then he must prove it is worldwide, then he must prove it is connected
through more than coincidence or unrelated effect, then he gets shot
down because the correlative fit with sunspots is better and it defies
common sense that the largest heat source in our system shouldn't be
the controlling one.

>The planet is warming precipitously

Crap. The planet has been cooling for ten years now and the alarmists
silly models failed to forecast the cooling. If they can't even
forecast the next decade, why should we believe they can forecast the
temperature a century hence.

And, if they ever get their act together, they will grasp that we're
recovering from the little ice age towards the temperatures reigning
during the medieval warm period, and that the earth must be two to
three degrees warmer, and rising, for several centuries before it is
even necessary to investigate, never mind to panic like hysterical old
women.

>and some stupid people are
> disregarding the science,

There is no science in global warming. It is a religion, a scam, a big
lie. And you bought it as a substitute for the guilt of Christianity
that drove your early years, and as a substitute for the marxism that
drove your youth. That's why your source, quoted above, talks in the
most unscientific terms of the Earth as an "angry beast". Never heard
such crap from you before, Trevor, even when you trailed around
Pinkostinko's smelly coattails.

>in preference for charlatans, liars and those who
> have an agenda.

I'm not a charlatan, nor am I a liar, nor do I have an agenda, nor do
I have the slightest connection with an oil company; I haven't even
owned a car since 1992, going everywhere by bicycle; I'm a hell of a
lot greener than anyone else on these two conferences. I just insist
on reading the statistics for myself. Global warming is,
statistically, a scam. Your utterances are the Profession of Faith of
the Disillusioned Middle Class. They are a statement of religious
faith and it has nothing to do with science.

> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 03:42 AM

On Nov 17, 1:21*am, "Trevor Wilson" >
wrote:

> **Here's the stuff we know:
>
> * CO2 is a significant GHG.
> * Methane is a more potent, but less significant GHG.
> * Water vapour is a much weaker, but more significant GHG (due to the very
> large quantities in the atmosphere).
> * Over the period of time that the planet's temperature has risen
> significantly (over the last 15 years), we have noted a dramatic rise in CO2
> concentration.
> * Humans are directly responsible for the majority of the increase in CO2
> levels.

A good deal of this is either outright false or very misleading. But
let's assume, just for the sake of argument, Trevor, that you have all
these ducks lined up and you can prove them -- than you *still* don't
have a case because you have no proof of a causal connection, merely a
suspicion so strong as to amount to a religious belief. That chain
that you posit, even if true (and, as I say, the elements aren't even
provably true), does not make a scientific case for anything at all.
At the very best it might point to a weak hypothesis to investigate.

But those who aren't already hysterically committed to global warming
have a far, far stronger hypothesis on the table already.

And then there is a growing movement that considers global warming a
good thing and interference with climate recovery to say the level of
the Medieval Warm Period to be damaging hubris and dangerous planet-
engineering, far, far worse than the social engineering of the Stalin-
Mao-Pol Pot axis of evil.

Speculation isn't science, pal. You need proof, and you haven't got
any. And the self-styled "scientists" who tried to lie proof into
existence (among other lies the "Hockey Stick" of which you yesterday
showed us a variant) have been caught and exposed as fraudsters.
That's another proof that global warming is a religion, not a science,
that its proponents are willing to lie for it.

I were you, I'd leave this here. I have no desire to offend a techie I
might need again, and you're simply not qualified or well-enough
informed to carry on this sort of argument. It's starting to look like
the rationalists are beating up on some poor Baptist fundie, and
that's not nice.

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

Bill Sornson[_2_]

November 17th 09, 06:36 AM

Michael Press wrote:

> Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
> cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
> man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
> CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
> that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
> proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
> higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
> atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
> grow faster.

Oh, man. The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to like
seeing you express this.

Bill "just a tad stunned" S.

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 06:58 AM

On Nov 17, 6:36*am, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
> > cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
> > man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
> > CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
> > that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
> > proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
> > higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
> > atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
> > grow faster.
>
> Oh, man. *The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to like
> seeing you express this.
>
> Bill "just a tad stunned" S.

Man, you take the words right out of my mouth. Whatever moved Michael
to "betray the cause" by telling the truth? Hell, this looks like the
boy is a scientist after all and I've been traducing him.

What a good way for me to be proved wrong! That's a stunning summary,
Michael.

But you know, Sorni, the "cool kids", the global warming fundies and
faithful, coulda found out what Michael says by reading their own
bible instead of depending on TV misinformation soundbites. By way of
example, one of the most striking lines in any IPCC report (and I've
read them all, of course) says quite bluntly that up to 2% of global
warming will be good for us economically and agriculturally.

But the "cool kids", who think the revolution is smoking pot and
listening to some dead Jamaican gangster, already heard on television
that *any* temperature increase is *evil*.

Andre Jute
I've met luddites with more mechanical aptitude than Maxine Ott

Bill Sornson[_2_]

November 17th 09, 08:33 AM

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Nov 17, 6:36 am, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:

>>> Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
>>> cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
>>> man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
>>> CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
>>> that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
>>> proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
>>> higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
>>> atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
>>> grow faster.

>> Oh, man. The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to
>> like seeing you express this.
>>
>> Bill "just a tad stunned" S.

> Man, you take the words right out of my mouth. Whatever moved Michael
> to "betray the cause" by telling the truth? Hell, this looks like the
> boy is a scientist after all and I've been traducing him.
>
> What a good way for me to be proved wrong! That's a stunning summary,
> Michael.
>
> But you know, Sorni, the "cool kids", the global warming fundies and
> faithful, coulda found out what Michael says by reading their own
> bible instead of depending on TV misinformation soundbites.

If they really cared about the "cause" (laughable on its face), then they'd
contribute money and urging to this:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/16/al-gore-and-the-great-debate-will-he-or-wont-he/

Bill "good thing holding one's breath doesn't contribute to GW" S.

***

> By way of
> example, one of the most striking lines in any IPCC report (and I've
> read them all, of course) says quite bluntly that up to 2% of global
> warming will be good for us economically and agriculturally.
>
> But the "cool kids", who think the revolution is smoking pot and
> listening to some dead Jamaican gangster, already heard on television
> that *any* temperature increase is *evil*.
>
> Andre Jute
> I've met luddites with more mechanical aptitude than Maxine Ott

!Jones

November 17th 09, 12:19 PM

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:02:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute > wrote:

>There's a difference, Jonesy. You told me what I could and couldn't
>do. I didn't tell you to do anything at all, I merely observed that
>doing what you did makes you trailer park trash. I trust this note
>enhances your grasp of simple English; it would be too much to ask it
>to improve your morality.

I don't see any difference, sir. I asked you not to cross-post the
reply headers, thus replying to multiple, unrelated groups when my
initial post had gone only to one (and I even said "please") ... you
suggested that I could save my breath and that you'd do as you damn
well liked, or something to that effect. Then *I* changed the reply
headers and you went into a snit over it, calling me "trailer park
trash". That's an impressive debate tactic, you know! Clearly,
you're a man of formidable forensic talent!

I usually don't post to multiple groups unless there is some rational
connection between the two because it annoys people and is a commonly
used harassment tactic. In a stretch, one might see how a global
warming discussion could be appropriate for a bicycle group; I cannot
see how it would possibly fit in an antique audio equipment
discussion.

So (since this is posted there)... rec.audio.tubes... what do the
*rest* of you think of the incessant global warming argument? Is
anyone else really interested? Would anyone really like to read
another few weeks of this nonsense, or should I simply trim
rec.audio.tubes out of the distribution and let Mr. Jute whine about
it... he doesn't *like* it when I trim headers! (Mr. Jute thinks
people like me are immoral for depriving RAT of our ... err...
discussion; see above.)

Jones

!Jones

November 17th 09, 12:24 PM

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:50:09 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute > wrote:

>> >Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. *That
>> >"has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
>> >habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat
>> >it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta
>> >unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst.
>>
>> Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. *To do that, you'd have to
>> start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign
>> them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for
>> three decades while the other does not smoke. *Differences could then
>> be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis.
>>
>> Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there
>> will never be one. *
>
>Er, Jonesy, didn't they teach you any logic? If there is no proof that
>smoking tobacco is dangerous, why would it be "highly unethical" to
>conduct a corntrolled test to observe its effect?

Because it is the responsibility of the researcher with human subjects
to show that there is no harm to the subjects... the simple lack of
proof that there is any harm is not nearly enough.

It's almost impossible to design an experimental study to investigate
whether *anything* is harmful because, if you don't already know, then
you can't do it.

And you're beginning to bore me, sir.

!Jones

November 17th 09, 12:29 PM

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:49:18 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute > wrote:

>> Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
>> our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
>
>Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
>an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
>the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
>computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
>though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
>exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
>which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
>by 1 and zero.
>
>(If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof"
>without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be
>impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look
>up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in
>India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book
>near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point,
>the latter being *incapable* of proof.)

I don't even have a *clue* what you're talking about. I doubt that
you do, either.

I don't see many people engaging in discussion with you... I think
that I'm going to do the nice people over in RAT a favor and proceed
no further.

Jones

mike[_5_]

November 17th 09, 09:24 PM

In article <c1cd63e5-4ead-4738-96d9-
>, says...
> On Nov 16, 12:44*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> > that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr.
>
> > Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
> > our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
>
> Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
> an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
> the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
> computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
> though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
> exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
> which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
> by 1 and zero.
>
This is probably the funniest thing I have seen you write yet Andre. In
one short paragraph you display:
a) your inability to comprehend a simple argument;
b) your complete misunderstanding of factorisation and algorithmic
complexity;
c) your habit of inserting random and irrelevant 'technicaleese' into
your prose in an attempt to hide your ignorance;
d) your willingness to make a public fool of yourself at any cost.

I thank you for the entartainment.

Note that if this is actually a clever example of self-parody, then it
is even more brilliant.

Cheers,
Mike

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 10:37 PM

On Nov 17, 12:19*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:02:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
>
> Jute > wrote:
> >There's a difference, Jonesy. You told me what I could and couldn't
> >do. I didn't tell you to do anything at all, I merely observed that
> >doing what you did makes you trailer park trash. I trust this note
> >enhances your grasp of simple English; it would be too much to ask it
> >to improve your morality.
>
> I don't see any difference, sir. *I asked you not to cross-post the
> reply headers, thus replying to multiple, unrelated groups when my
> initial post had gone only to one (and I even said "please") ... you
> suggested that I could save my breath and that you'd do as you damn
> well liked, or something to that effect. *Then *I* changed the reply
> headers and you went into a snit over it, calling me "trailer park
> trash". *That's an impressive debate tactic, you know! *Clearly,
> you're a man of formidable forensic talent!
>
> I usually don't post to multiple groups unless there is some rational
> connection between the two because it annoys people and is a commonly
> used harassment tactic. *In a stretch, one might see how a global
> warming discussion could be appropriate for a bicycle group; I cannot
> see how it would possibly fit in an antique audio equipment
> discussion.
>
> So (since this is posted there)... rec.audio.tubes... what do the
> *rest* of you think of the incessant global warming argument? *Is
> anyone else really interested? *Would anyone really like to read
> another few weeks of this nonsense, or should I simply trim
> rec.audio.tubes out of the distribution and let Mr. Jute whine about
> it... he doesn't *like* it when I trim headers! *(Mr. Jute thinks
> people like me are immoral for depriving RAT of our ... err...
> discussion; see above.)
>
> Jones

You're an idiot who can't even follow a thread, Jonesy. This thread
*originated* on RAT in a post by Patrick Turner. It belongs to RAT. It
is posted to RBT by courtesy because I know many on RBT take an
interest in global warming. Now, some johnny-come-lately, one Jonesy,
wants arbitrarily to deprive RAT of a thread started by Patrick
Turner, a RAT in very good standing indeed. This is the second time of
telling you, Jonesy: it isn't for johnny-come-latelies like you to
tell anyone what they can post on RBT or RAT, and it is very ugly
indeed for you to try and deprive RAT of its own thread.

Andre Jute
Nobless oblige, until my patience with American fools runs out

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 10:40 PM

On Nov 17, 12:24*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:50:09 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
>
>
>
>
>
> Jute > wrote:
> >> >Yes, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause health problems. *That
> >> >"has never been...." is just the standard line that the "smoking is just a
> >> >habit" people keep repeating. Doesn't make it true just because they repeat
> >> >it. My FIL died from aortic aneurysm. A lifelong smoker, it made his aorta
> >> >unflexible, the so-called "hardening of the arteries." Result: it burst.
>
> >> Actually, it hasn't and it never will be. *To do that, you'd have to
> >> start with a population of teens who had never smoked, randomly assign
> >> them to two groups, then have one group smoke two packs a day for
> >> three decades while the other does not smoke. *Differences could then
> >> be attributed to tobacco use with scientific basis.
>
> >> Of course, such a study would be highly unethical; therefore, there
> >> will never be one. *
>
> >Er, Jonesy, didn't they teach you any logic? If there is no proof that
> >smoking tobacco is dangerous, why would it be "highly unethical" to
> >conduct a corntrolled test to observe its effect?
>
> Because it is the responsibility of the researcher with human subjects
> to show that there is no harm to the subjects... the simple lack of
> proof that there is any harm is not nearly enough.
>
> It's almost impossible to design an experimental study to investigate
> whether *anything* is harmful because, if you don't already know, then
> you can't do it.

Be shorter just to say that you don't understand the concept of logic,
Jonesy. You're so dumb, you're funny.

> And you're beginning to bore me, sir.

Run, rabbit, run.

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 10:49 PM

On Nov 17, 12:29*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:49:18 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre Jute > wrote:
> >> Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
> >> our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
>
> >Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
> >an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
> >the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
> >computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
> >though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
> >exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
> >which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
> >by 1 and zero.
>
> >(If you were smart enough to call zero "a number without proof"
> >without which our base-10 or "exponential" mathematics would be
> >impossible, you would have stumped me with the truth. You should look
> >up the late entry of the full-service zero to our counting system in
> >India, and marvel at what went before Brahmagupta published his book
> >near the beginning of the C7 to settle the zero and the decimal point,
> >the latter being *incapable* of proof.)
>
> I don't even have a *clue* what you're talking about. *I doubt that
> you do, either.

Even after Michael Press gave you a hint, albeit elliptical, that
computer practice doesn't quite count up to exponentiation? You're
right to run, Jonesy, if you can't even dance the two-step.

> I don't see many people engaging in discussion with you... I think
> that I'm going to do the nice people over in RAT a favor and proceed
> no further.

All those I want to engage with me engage with me. Unfortunately some
ignoramuses and undesirables also respond to my posts. But I'm well
advanced in reducing the number of those in my threads to only the
useful, the knowledgeable and the entertaining. I've already explained
to you that I don't care for being "cool" if it means mindless
acceptance of the stupidities of pointless breathers and eaters; I can
safely leave that sort of hypocritical popularlty to clowns like you.

> Jones

Ciao, Jonesy. Mind that someone doesn't mistake you for a rabbit and
pot you for the pot.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 10:56 PM

On Nov 17, 7:34*pm, William Asher > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
> > cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
> > man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
> > CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
> > that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
> > proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
> > higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
> > atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
> > grow faster.
>
> The only one of your "proven" statements that is true is the final one,
> where the FACE data do suggest plants grow faster in high-CO2 environments
> (provided they have enough nutrients and water to make use of the
> additional CO2 and they are C4 photosynthesizers). *The two about planetary
> warming (although you just asserted that as a given at the start) and CO2
> levels are not proven, but inferred from proxy data records that could be
> shown to be false at some point in the future. *So, if you are using your
> statements to believe anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate, you are
> using false assumptions in your logic, since there is the possibility that
> the proxy records are wrong. *

Er, Asher, how can this data hold true when the global warmies want to
use it to prove something (after they've cooked the statistics) but
those opposed to such stupidity aren't allowed to use it on the ground
that new data may be found?

Surely the data shows only one truth, that there isn't any global
warming and zero causal connection between CO2 increase and global
temperature rise.

> What is proven is that CO2 absorbs longwave IR radiation, that atmospheric
> gases that absorb longwave IR radiation provide a longwave surface
> radiative forcing to the planet, and that the Earth's climate is very
> sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing both in terms of the
> latitudinal distribution and average global magnitude. *Inferences you draw
> from those three facts are up to you. *
>
> --
> Bill Asher

Where the beef, Asher, the connection, the cause and effect by which
all other science stands or falls, except the religion of global
warming?

Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
"Oh, I've seen the loonies do that for half a century. Asher's problem
is that he has such a poor grasp of history, he thinks the New
Apocalypse of Global Warming is brand spanking new and exciting." --
Andre Jute

!Jones

November 17th 09, 11:02 PM

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:37:29 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute > wrote:

>You're an idiot...

.... whatever; I have just run out of patients with your incessant name
calling. Bear in mind that being so patently offensive that everyone
else simply walks away in disgust isn't quite the same thing as
winning a debate. May I suggest:

"Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love
the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be
given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is
to live everything. Live the questions." I think that was Rilke, as I
recall... if he didn't say it, he should have!

When someone asks difficult questions, try to address the question
rather than the person asking it. Live the question!

That is my parting advice to you sir... that, and... have a great
life!!!

Jones

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 11:10 PM

On Nov 17, 9:24*pm, mike > wrote:
> In article <c1cd63e5-4ead-4738-96d9-
> >, says...> On Nov 16, 12:44*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> > > that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr.
>
> > > Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
> > > our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
>
> > Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
> > an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
> > the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
> > computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
> > though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
> > exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
> > which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
> > by 1 and zero.
>
> This is probably the funniest thing I have seen you write yet Andre. In
> one short paragraph you display:
> a) * * *your inability to comprehend a simple argument;
> b) * * *your complete misunderstanding of factorisation and algorithmic
> complexity;
> c) * * *your habit of inserting random and irrelevant 'technicaleese' into
> your prose in an attempt to hide your ignorance;
> d) * * *your willingness to make a public fool of yourself at any cost.
>
> I thank you for the entartainment.
>
> Note that if this is actually a clever example of self-parody, then it
> is even more brilliant.
>
> Cheers,
> *Mike

You're the feller from those islands some way off the coast of the
Great Country, right? I saw a soundbite on the BBC World Service the
other day in which your prime minister wittered on about what her
government was doing about global warming. She seemed to be impressed
by the fact that the debate is over. She didn't once ask who ended the
debate, or by what argument, nor did she demand any proof, nor did she
seem aware that the only part she read, the Summary for Policy Makers,
reports in many instances the diametric opposite of what the main
report states. I suppose you don't get much choice in your
politicians, what with having such a small population, and so
homogenous, but I certainly wouldn't vote for someone so complacent.

I thank you for the compliments but perhaps you'd care to follow up
with an explanation, because we're none the wiser to your technical
contribution, if indeed any was intended. (You're right, of course; my
original post was intended to run Jonesy around the buoys a couple of
times, as was Michael Press's response to Jonesy, to pay him out for
his pompous self-righteousness.)

Andre Jute
Name one famous New Zealander besides Hillary -- Australian joke

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 17th 09, 11:29 PM

Here's another who presumes the hypothesis proven before making the
experiment. He just does it marginally more subtly than the other
clowns. His name is Ben Weiner and he's the one who told the lie about
the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being "merely
eurocentric phenomena" when I pointed out that there is no global
warming when present and recent temperatures are so much lower than
for several centuries in the MWP, and that it is more reasonable to
assume that any warming trend as in the 1990 is merely a recovery from
the LIA. Until the global warmies can explain away those historical,
world-wide phenomena -- and not with statistical lies like Mann and
Briffa told with their Hockey Stick which the IPCC still promotes --
no one in his right mind will believe in global warming. That
essentially means forever, because in every other science but "global
warming", those phenomena are entrenched in the historical record. Now
who could possibly be dumb enough to fall for the debating trade crap
Weiner puts up as arguments below? Offered up for your delectation! --
Andre Jute

On Nov 17, 9:27*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Nov 16, 11:01*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is not proven that atmospheric
> > CO2 increases the Earth's temperature.
>
> It all depends on what the meaning of the word
> "proven" is.
>
> It is not proven that if I jump off a two-story building,
> I will break my legs. *Human bodies are complicated,
> non-linear, and difficult to model, and every landing
> is different. *However, given what we know about gravity
> and the impact forces on bodies, it is a reasonable
> assumption that I will probably break my legs if I land
> on my feet. *Arguably the only way to "prove" this is
> to either study the results of many documented falls
> (we don't have the repeat of N experiments in the
> CO2 case) or to jump myself. *However, most people
> will accept the physics and figure there's nowhere
> for the energy to go but into one's legs, and decline to
> jump.
>
> Bill Asher's point about CO2 radiative forcing is similar.
> IIRC, the global climate record doesn't have any analogous
> examples of rapid changes in the level of CO2 over a
> few hundred years (we couldn't resolve timespans of
> a few hundred years in the long term climate record anyway).
> However, increased CO2 causes radiative forcing, the
> climate system is sensitive to radiative forcing, and
> there is nowhere else for the energy to go. *If you think
> something else happens, how does it happen?
>
> Of course if you wait long enough, we will get an answer -
> do you want to wait 50 years and see whether the
> temperature has continued to increase? *This is like
> saying that you might as well jump, to test the hypothesis.
>
> Ben

[email protected]

November 18th 09, 12:37 AM

On Nov 17, 4:29*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> Here's another who presumes the hypothesis proven before making the
> experiment. He just does it marginally more subtly than the other
> clowns. His name is Ben Weiner and he's the one who told the lie about
> the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being "merely
> eurocentric phenomena" when I pointed out that there is no global
> warming when present and recent temperatures are so much lower than
> for several centuries in the MWP, ...

The conventional use of quotation marks is to denote
something that someone actually wrote. Thus a reasonable
person, reading Andre's post, could assume that the quotation
is attributed to me and that I described the MWP and Little Ice
Age as "merely eurocentric phenomena." In fact I don't believe
I have ever written that phrase. If you use Google advanced
search for "eurocentric" in rec.bicycles.tech:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=eurocentric+group%3Arec.bicycles.tech&btnG=Search&sitesearch=

http://preview.tinyurl.com/y928lfk

it only occurs 6 times. Twice in 2004 and four times where
Andre Jute attributes it to me. Falsely, as I never wrote it.
Google search is imperfect, but at this point the burden is
on Jute to prove that I wrote it. I hadn't realized that he had
been repeatedly quoting me on the subject, as I don't
follow all of his climate discussions.

I may have written something about whether or not the
MWP and Little Ice Age were northern-hemisphere only,
which is a legitimate position: see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period

However, the use of quotation marks means a direct quote,
not some random exaggerated paraphrase you feel like
making up. A famous novelist such as Andre Jute should
understand this. Whether the rest of Jute's beliefs are
equally carefully argued is left to the reader's discretion.

Ben

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 18th 09, 12:42 AM

This is what I sent before incorrigible net-criminal Jonesy snipped it
in order to hide his crimes. And then the poor dumb cluck has the
cheek to lecture me once more!

*******
You're an idiot who can't even follow a thread, Jonesy. This thread
*originated* on RAT in a post by Patrick Turner. It belongs to RAT.
It
is posted to RBT by courtesy because I know many on RBT take an
interest in global warming. Now, some johnny-come-lately, one Jonesy,
wants arbitrarily to deprive RAT of a thread started by Patrick
Turner, a RAT in very good standing indeed. This is the second time
of
telling you, Jonesy: it isn't for johnny-come-latelies like you to
tell anyone what they can post on RBT or RAT, and it is very ugly
indeed for you to try and deprive RAT of its own thread.

Andre Jute
Nobless oblige, until my patience with American fools runs out

*******

On Nov 17, 11:02*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:37:29 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
>
> Jute > wrote:
> >You're an idiot...
>
> ... whatever; I have just run out of patients with your incessant name
> calling. *Bear in mind that being so patently offensive that everyone
> else simply walks away in disgust isn't quite the same thing as
> winning a debate. *May I suggest:
>
> "Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love
> the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be
> given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is
> to live everything. Live the questions." *I think that was Rilke, as I
> recall... if he didn't say it, he should have!
>
> When someone asks difficult questions, try to address the question
> rather than the person asking it. *Live the question!
>
> That is my parting advice to you sir... that, and... have a great
> life!!!
>
> Jones

Then you should concentrate on the question of your poor manners and
your dictatorial manner, Jonesy, instead of throwing personalities
against me. And instead of trying to lie that you didn't make a dumb
mistake by trying to deprive RAT of a thread they own.

The final irony is when pompous moralists like Jonesy can't even keep
to their own rules, even as they try to impose them on others.

It ill serves the memory of Rainer Maria Rilke to have his name taken
in ****poor pastiche by such a clown! Here's the real thing for
comparison: "One must of course forgive one's enemies, but not before
they are hanged." -- Rilke

Andre Jute
Nobless oblige -- until my patience runs out with a foul-mannered,
pompous American fool

Peter Wieck

November 18th 09, 12:48 AM

On Nov 18, 2:02*am, !Jones > wrote:

> That is my parting advice to you sir... that, and... have a great
> life!!!

Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin. His typical
reaction to someone who cannot be intimidated, buffaloed or otherwise
crushed is to baffle them with bull**** as he is congenitally and
entirely unable to confront them with the facts. His pattern is to
attempt to outlast any with the temerity to confront him with his
inadequacies. After which when (as is typical) he will kpretend to
kill-file them. Intermediate steps will likely include a series of
sock-puppets and proxies.

You are in that special group to get the full Jute Treatment. Not only
is it utterly predictable, it is also predictably pathetic. Note his
pattern will include stuttering, repetition, 'excutive summaries' and
various other devices and patterns connected only by an increasing
desperation.

Have fun - playing with Andre is a bit like playing with a hognose
snake - that he is a snake is clear, that he has pretensions of
toxicity is equally clear. But the brute fact of the matter is that he
is a pretentious, fangless little remittance man driven to an Irish
backwater as the rest of the world would not have him - and the Irish,
an historically tolerant people - allow him to live out the rest of
his unhappy days sequestered in a dark room in front of a glowing CRT
grasping at an unattainable glory.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

!Jones

November 18th 09, 12:30 PM

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:48:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter
Wieck > wrote:

>Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin.

Actually, I wasn't trying to do that. Heck, I never even particularly
disagreed with the chap... I admitted right up front that I didn't
know much about global warming.

I wonder what it is about that topic that floats his boat. I'd expect
someone who believed that we needed to save the planet to be
passionate... never met anyone who was passionate about apathy...
until now, I mean.

Strangest thing I ever did see... well... I saw a six-toed cat once; I
spoze that was stranger.

Jones

Peter Wieck

November 18th 09, 12:44 PM

On Nov 18, 7:30*am, !Jones > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:48:31 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter
>
> Wieck > wrote:
> >Just be sure that you have gotten under Andre's skin.
>
> Actually, I wasn't trying to do that. *Heck, I never even particularly
> disagreed with the chap... I admitted right up front that I didn't
> know much about global warming.
>
> I wonder what it is about that topic that floats his boat. *I'd expect
> someone who believed that we needed to save the planet to be
> passionate... never met anyone who was passionate about apathy...
> until now, I mean.
>
> Strangest thing I ever did see... well... I saw a six-toed cat once; I
> spoze that was stranger.
>
> Jones

Well, if you check the latest blather from Bard of Bandon, you will
see that he has spun into his usual response to anyone/anything that
flows counter to his demands - now there are (at least) two threads
complete with stutters, repeated self-quoting and the typical coterie
of sock-puppets, sycophants and slavies that gather about him akin to
flies gathering about - well you get the picture.

Andre works at being a Bozo - assiduously. It is the center of his
being and his single and singular goal in life. He never misses an
opportunity to practice his avocation and becomes positively ferocious
when crossed in his pursuit of ignorance.

Polydactyl cats are relatively common - 58% in some breeds. Andre, on
the other hand is thankfully and blessedly unique.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

!Jones

November 18th 09, 10:41 PM

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:06:03 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter
Wieck > wrote:

>> I have an old amplifier in my garage. *It just surfaced a few days ago
>> as I was cleaning... it's a box with a bunch of tubes and stuff on
>> top, but that won't tell you much, I don't suppose. *OK, there's a
>> data plate: it says it's a McIntosh 20W-2 mono-tube. *It was my
>> father's... I'm guessing it was manufactured in the '40s. *I remember
>> using it in the '60s listening to the Beach Boys... "Everybody's gone
>> surrrrrfin..." ("TURN THAT NOISE DOWN!!!") *I'd be leary of plugging
>> it it today; however, the cord still looks OK. *Does that have any
>> value?
>>
>> Jones
>
>Sure does. And, correct, don't plug it in without the proper test
>equipment (metered variac for a start).
>
>There are individuals who will pay real money for that. Not me, but
>there are those out there.

OK, so... headers trimmed to eliminate the bicycle group (who, I'm
sure, are less than interested,) what is the big deal about old tube
stuff? Is it better?

Actually, I have a whole system with an 8-track, Perpetuum Ebner
turntable (you know... for the old LP records) and a few 8-track
tapes... Moody Blues, *Every Good Boy Deserves Favor* and some
Jefferson Airplane!!! "One pill makes you tiny and one pill makes yoy
tall..." ("I'VE TOLD YOU FOR THE LAST TIME... TURN THAT DAMN NOISE
DOWN...")

I only have one speaker box... as I recall, we tore the magnets out of
the other one in the '70s.

We must have been in some kind of a record club because I have a
****load of... well... folk songs and... whatever they are... Casey
Jones??? Erie Canal??? (".... if you've ever navigated on...")

If anybody is close to Corpus Christi, TX and likes that stuff... ?

Jones

mike[_5_]

November 18th 09, 11:12 PM

In article <46545d80-d6a6-4ef4-99f1-cd7232bd8608
@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Nov 17, 9:24*pm, mike > wrote:
> > In article <c1cd63e5-4ead-4738-96d9-
> > >, says...> On Nov 16, 12:44*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> > > > that seems to be as obvious as gravity; however, when Mr.
> >
> > > > Factoring a number is a problem of exponential order - unproven, yet
> > > > our whole system of E-commerce is based thereon.
> >
> > > Er, no. Are you senior enough yet to be let into the staff club? Find
> > > an electronics engineer and buy him a beer in return for explaining
> > > the binary counting system to you. E-commerce, and everything else on
> > > computers depends not on the exponential system (of whatever base,
> > > though you appear to be referring to base-e, as in e^x where the
> > > exponent is approximately 2.718281828) but on the binary system in
> > > which there are only two states or "digits", on and off, represented
> > > by 1 and zero.
> >
> > This is probably the funniest thing I have seen you write yet Andre. In
> > one short paragraph you display:
> > a) * * *your inability to comprehend a simple argument;
> > b) * * *your complete misunderstanding of factorisation and algorithmic
> > complexity;
> > c) * * *your habit of inserting random and irrelevant 'technicaleese' into
> > your prose in an attempt to hide your ignorance;
> > d) * * *your willingness to make a public fool of yourself at any cost.
> >
> > I thank you for the entartainment.
> >
> > Note that if this is actually a clever example of self-parody, then it
> > is even more brilliant.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > *Mike
>
> You're the feller from those islands some way off the coast of the
> Great Country, right?

You surmise correctly...

> I saw a soundbite on the BBC World Service the
> other day in which your prime minister wittered on about what her
> government was doing about global warming.

Helen hasn't been prime-minister here for over a year, she works for the
UN these days. Her replacement, from the slightly right-of-centre party
(she was slightly-left-of-centre) is following a similar climate-change
policy.

> She seemed to be impressed
> by the fact that the debate is over. She didn't once ask who ended the
> debate, or by what argument, nor did she demand any proof, nor did she
> seem aware that the only part she read, the Summary for Policy Makers,
> reports in many instances the diametric opposite of what the main
> report states. I suppose you don't get much choice in your
> politicians, what with having such a small population, and so
> homogenous, but I certainly wouldn't vote for someone so complacent.

> Name one famous New Zealander besides Hillary -- Australian joke
>
New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia contribute to a rise in average
IQ in both countries -- New Zealand joke.

Mike - signing off for a month trekking in Nepal.

Andre Jute[_2_]

November 18th 09, 11:35 PM

On Nov 18, 11:12*pm, mike > wrote:

> Mike - signing off for a month trekking in Nepal.

He'll no doubt come back and tell us it was unnaturally warm and
polluted, and he could hardly breathe for excess CO2!

Have a happy holiday, Mike.

Andre Jute
Wishing I had the foresight to overwinter in Adelaide...

Peter Wieck

November 19th 09, 01:08 AM

On Nov 18, 5:41*pm, !Jones > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:06:03 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Wieck > wrote:
> >> I have an old amplifier in my garage. *It just surfaced a few days ago
> >> as I was cleaning... it's a box with a bunch of tubes and stuff on
> >> top, but that won't tell you much, I don't suppose. *OK, there's a
> >> data plate: it says it's a McIntosh 20W-2 mono-tube. *It was my
> >> father's... I'm guessing it was manufactured in the '40s. *I remember
> >> using it in the '60s listening to the Beach Boys... "Everybody's gone
> >> surrrrrfin..." ("TURN THAT NOISE DOWN!!!") *I'd be leary of plugging
> >> it it today; however, the cord still looks OK. *Does that have any
> >> value?
>
> >> Jones
>
> >Sure does. And, correct, don't plug it in without the proper test
> >equipment (metered variac for a start).
>
> >There are individuals who will pay real money for that. Not me, but
> >there are those out there.
>
> OK, so... headers trimmed to eliminate the bicycle group (who, I'm
> sure, are less than interested,) what is the big deal about old tube
> stuff? *Is it better?
>
> Actually, I have a whole system with an 8-track, Perpetuum Ebner
> turntable (you know... for the old LP records) and a few 8-track
> tapes... Moody Blues, *Every Good Boy Deserves Favor* and some
> Jefferson Airplane!!! *"One pill makes you tiny and one pill makes yoy
> tall..." *("I'VE TOLD YOU FOR THE LAST TIME... TURN THAT DAMN NOISE
> DOWN...")
>
> I only have one speaker box... as I recall, we tore the magnets out of
> the other one in the '70s.
>
> We must have been in some kind of a record club because I have a
> ****load of... well... folk songs and... whatever they are... Casey
> Jones??? *Erie Canal??? *(".... if you've ever navigated on...")
>
> If anybody is close to Corpus Christi, TX and likes that stuff... ?
>
> Jones- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK... a couple of ground rules.

I am giving opinions, not holy writ.
I am not necessarily a fair arbiter as I am also showing my
preferences.
Here in the East, vintage equipment in good condition is thick on the
ground. Many of the 'majors' originated around here, and where I sit
is within 200 miles of several major manufacturers, some (such as
McIntosh) still extant.

McIntosh is considered by many as among the first makers to bring
consistent, well-designed, well made, well executed tube audio
equipment to the mass market - albeit the high end of that market.
Along with Saul Marantz, Avery Fisher and a few others of the time,
McIntosh more-or-less defined that market. Unlike the other two
mentioned McIntosh did not attempt to spread too far or become too
large, stayed focused on their niche and accordingly have survived to
this day. Their equipment - even their very earliest entries - are the
stuff of legend and as much because of this have retained an
disproportionately important place in the hearts of Audio collectors
world-wide. In many ways they are the Harley-Davidson of Audio,
surviving their competitors and foreign invaders despite all odds. I
am sure there is a Japanese collector out there who might just give
you well into four figures for that amp assuming it to be in good,
clean, restorable condition. Even more strangely, that same collector
might never play it, ever - just leave it on the display shelf with a
reverential label describing its origin and function. All that would
depend on originality, condition, scarcity, condition, model number,
condition, age and finally, condition of course. And, it could also
not be worth much more than its scrap value either as above. But that
is unlikely given the name.

As to moving parts (8-track, PE table and such) - they are truly a
moving target. The 8-Track might get you a few bucks to a collector of
8-tracks unless it is a Lear or some such, or has other non-function-
related value. Same as the PE Table. Likely that was brought back by a
military person as for the most part those tables were sold under the
DUAL name here in the US. Were you to have a matching McIntosh pre-amp
or tuner - that could also run into real money. It is 'all in
accordance with' - I would suggest that you check out completed
listings on eBay Audiogon and similar sources to get an idea of what
the prices might run and if anything like your stuff has been sold
there in the recent past.

Writing for myself, my equipment is functional, maintained as
functional and in service most of the time. As big as this house is, I
still have limited space - that is no space for shelf-queens or museum
pieces unless they are actually functional as well. So I have no
interest in your equipment and I will not pretend to have any. There
are five operating stereos in place, divided 3 (solid-state) and 2
(tube) - and the makings of several more. That is many-enough. And
enough vintage radios to handle the need fo 'mono' stuff. As you are
in Texas - even shipping R/T for restoration (which I would do) may
not get you enough added value to what you have already unless you
want it for yourself. From your statements that seems unlikely - but
that is just a guess. I suggest you do a bit of research if you want
to dispose of the stuff - you might be very pleasantly surprised.

As to whether 'old tube stuff' is "better" or not - that depends. I
happen to like the Dynaco ST-70 power amp - with a few tweaks and
modifications. I find it reliable, well-behaved and very pleasant. My
own front-line unit is 30 years in my hands and has operated for
thousands of hours without the tiniest problem - just standard care-
and-feeding. Others think they are the product of the devil and exist
only to frustrate. De gustibus and all that. Similarly, I have no use
at all for the Marantz 10B (Legendary tuner) - It is not so good a
tuner for my needs - but it ain't nohow the cost - I do keep a Revox
A720 (2 as it happens) as it is actually functional where the 10B was
not. Again, all a matter of taste. My Scott LK-150 will be pried from
my dead hands, however. And so forth and so on.

Take care,

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

!Jones

November 19th 09, 12:05 PM

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:08:51 -0800 (PST), in rec.audio.tubes Peter
Wieck > wrote:

>Same as the PE Table. Likely that was brought back by a
>military person as for the most part those tables were sold under the
>DUAL name here in the US.

This is true. I bought it in the PX in Vung Tau, Vietnam about '69.

Jones

Bill Sornson[_2_]

November 21st 09, 09:19 PM

Michael Press wrote:
> In article >,
> William Asher > wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
>>> cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
>>> man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
>>> CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
>>> that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
>>> proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
>>> higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
>>> atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
>>> grow faster.
>>>
>>
>> The only one of your "proven" statements that is true is the final
>> one, where the FACE data do suggest plants grow faster in high-CO2
>> environments (provided they have enough nutrients and water to make
>> use of the additional CO2 and they are C4 photosynthesizers). The
>> two about planetary warming (although you just asserted that as a
>> given at the start) and CO2 levels are not proven, but inferred from
>> proxy data records that could be shown to be false at some point in
>> the future. So, if you are using your statements to believe
>> anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate, you are using false
>> assumptions in your logic, since there is the possibility that the
>> proxy records are wrong.
>>
>> What is proven is that CO2 absorbs longwave IR radiation, that
>> atmospheric gases that absorb longwave IR radiation provide a
>> longwave surface radiative forcing to the planet, and that the
>> Earth's climate is very sensitive to changes in the radiative
>> forcing both in terms of the latitudinal distribution and average
>> global magnitude. Inferences you draw from those three facts are up
>> to you.
>
> Year 535 saw the onset of the dark ages. Literally the
> sky was dark, weather became cold and wet all around
> the globe, civil order disappeared. About 800 the
> weather started getting warm, a period known as the
> medieval warm period. Agriculture flourished, northern
> Europe saw a population explosion. Fourteenth century,
> the weather inexplicably turned cold and wet again.
> Grain rotted on the stalk. People had lost touch with
> their roots: turnip, beet, rutabega cabbage. Wheat
> bread is too good to give. They became malnourished,
> famine walked the land, and they were carried off by
> bubonic plague. Weather stayed cold until about 1850.
> The Thames river froze every winter and London threw an
> ice fair on the frozen river. In 1815 a series of
> eruptions in Indonesia culminated in a massive eruption
> of Tambora. The effect was crop failures in 1816 and
> food riots. The weather has been warming, but is not as
> warm as it was a thousand years ago.

Clearly Bush's fault, all of it.

Michael Press

November 21st 09, 09:38 PM

In article
>,
Andre Jute > wrote:

> On Nov 17, 6:36Â*am, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
> > > cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
> > > man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
> > > CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
> > > that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
> > > proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
> > > higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
> > > atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
> > > grow faster.
> >
> > Oh, man. Â*The cool kids (no double meaning intended) are NOT going to like
> > seeing you express this.
> >
> > Bill "just a tad stunned" S.
>
> Man, you take the words right out of my mouth. Whatever moved Michael
> to "betray the cause"

I have not betrayed anything or anyone.
You have misread me.

--
Michael Press

Guess

November 21st 09, 10:57 PM

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message ...
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article >,
>> William Asher > wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Planet Earth has been warming with irregular periods of
>>>> cooling for the last 12000 years. It is not proven that
>>>> man made CO2 matters. It is not proven that atmospheric
>>>> CO2 increases the Earth's temperature. It is not proven
>>>> that increased global temperatures are harmful. It _is_
>>>> proven that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much
>>>> higher in past ages. It _is_ proven that higher
>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels than present act to make plants
>>>> grow faster.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only one of your "proven" statements that is true is the final
>>> one, where the FACE data do suggest plants grow faster in high-CO2
>>> environments (provided they have enough nutrients and water to make
>>> use of the additional CO2 and they are C4 photosynthesizers). The
>>> two about planetary warming (although you just asserted that as a
>>> given at the start) and CO2 levels are not proven, but inferred from
>>> proxy data records that could be shown to be false at some point in
>>> the future. So, if you are using your statements to believe
>>> anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate, you are using false
>>> assumptions in your logic, since there is the possibility that the
>>> proxy records are wrong.
>>>
>>> What is proven is that CO2 absorbs longwave IR radiation, that
>>> atmospheric gases that absorb longwave IR radiation provide a
>>> longwave surface radiative forcing to the planet, and that the
>>> Earth's climate is very sensitive to changes in the radiative
>>> forcing both in terms of the latitudinal distribution and average
>>> global magnitude. Inferences you draw from those three facts are up
>>> to you.
>>
>> Year 535 saw the onset of the dark ages. Literally the
>> sky was dark, weather became cold and wet all around
>> the globe, civil order disappeared. About 800 the
>> weather started getting warm, a period known as the
>> medieval warm period. Agriculture flourished, northern
>> Europe saw a population explosion. Fourteenth century,
>> the weather inexplicably turned cold and wet again.
>> Grain rotted on the stalk. People had lost touch with
>> their roots: turnip, beet, rutabega cabbage. Wheat
>> bread is too good to give. They became malnourished,
>> famine walked the land, and they were carried off by
>> bubonic plague. Weather stayed cold until about 1850.
>> The Thames river froze every winter and London threw an
>> ice fair on the frozen river. In 1815 a series of
>> eruptions in Indonesia culminated in a massive eruption
>> of Tambora. The effect was crop failures in 1816 and
>> food riots. The weather has been warming, but is not as
>> warm as it was a thousand years ago.
>
> Clearly Bush's fault, all of it.

Eruptions in Indonesia in 1815? Naw, clearly Obama's fault,
just like everything else from the banking collapse to swine flu.
Just ask an American Expert on Everything like Lard Valve or
Flipper.