| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting junk again
There is no man made global warming.
The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Try some science. http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta.../ZonAnn.Ts.txt http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Da...il-Bellamy.htm |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
duh-Mikey's epiphany
It's a cosmic joke. It must be. There is no man made global warming. The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're the troll god created to **** with us. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Mikey abberation
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... It's a cosmic joke. It must be. There is no man made global warming. The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're the troll god created to **** with us. It actually took me years of usenet to finally understand that there is this peculiar condition where the person's logical faculties become subordinated to his personality characteristics. For the afflicted, there is no such thing as objectivity. We can visualize the workings of Mikey's brain, or Arny's, in the following fashion: 1. Brain receives information from outside world. 2. Information is parsed for emotional trigger. 3. Emotional centers activated--discomfort. 4. Order to cortex: generate defense to quiet emotional agitation. 5. Cortex responds: "I'm sorry, but the logical news is not good. The world stinks." 6. Emotional center to cortex: "Generate a logical defense NOW!, or I'll peel you off like an onion. 7. Cortex to emotional center: "In that case, we have 'the world according to Mikey'. Please don't ask me to stand behind it." 8. Emotional center: "Shut the **** up. If I tell you to prove the world is flat, you do it, capiche?" 9. Cortex: "Javol, Herr Commandant." 10. Emotional center: "Good. Now I don't like the idea of global waming. Give me something I can post." 11. Cortex: "Javol. Here is a diatribe. May I go back to sleep?" 12. Emotional center: "You damn well better." |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, wrote:
The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Are you comparing them to the current Administration? |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, wrote: The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Are you comparing them to the current Administration? I don't know. Check your tree for nails. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
duh-Mikey's epiphany
From: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 22:15:34 -0500 It's a cosmic joke. It must be. Did this guy, or did this guy not, just quote what appears to be the National Enquirer? http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Da...il-Bellamy.htm Is this individual really this stupid, or am I being trolled? Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're the troll god created to **** with us. Thank you. I don't mind being trolled. Thinking that there really was somebody that devoid of rational thought, however, would have bothered me. This individual is making me believe in after-birth abortions. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
duh-Mikey's epiphany
From: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 22:15:34 -0500 It's a cosmic joke. It must be. Did this guy really just quote the scientific equivalent of _The National Enquirer_ in a debate? http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Da...il-Bellamy.htm Am I being trolled, or are there people that are really this stupid? Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're the troll god created to **** with us. Oh, thanks. I don't mind getting trolled. Thinking there were people that were seriously this stupid would have bothered me though. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, wrote: The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Are you comparing them to the current Administration? I don't know. Check your tree for nails. My tree's tapped as well? |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, wrote: The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Are you comparing them to the current Administration? I don't know. Check your tree for nails. My tree's tapped as well? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, wrote: The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Are you comparing them to the current Administration? I don't know. Check your tree for nails. My tree's tapped as well? has it been phoning Al-Queda? Maybe talking to some cedars in Lebanon? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
dave weil wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, wrote: The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Are you comparing them to the current Administration? I don't know. Check your tree for nails. My tree's tapped as well? The Party has secret microphones everywhere ! Graham |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From: Pooh Bear
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:00:00 +0000 The Party has secret microphones everywhere ! The Labour party, no doubt. It's Clinton's fault. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... dave weil wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, wrote: The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Are you comparing them to the current Administration? I don't know. Check your tree for nails. My tree's tapped as well? The Party has secret microphones everywhere ! Graham -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... dave weil wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, wrote: The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Are you comparing them to the current Administration? I don't know. Check your tree for nails. My tree's tapped as well? The Party has secret microphones everywhere ! what's a party without secret microphones? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
duh-Mikey's epiphany
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 22:15:34 -0500 It's a cosmic joke. It must be. Did this guy really just quote the scientific equivalent of _The National Enquirer_ in a debate? http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Da...il-Bellamy.htm Am I being trolled, or are there people that are really this stupid? Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're the troll god created to **** with us. Oh, thanks. I don't mind getting trolled. Thinking there were people that were seriously this stupid would have bothered me though. And the stuff from NASA is to be ignored? Annual mean Temperature Anomalies in .01 C selected zonal means source: GHCN 1880-12/2004 using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment Note: ***** = missing - base period: 1951-1980 Annual Temperature Anomalies (.01 C) - CR 1200KM 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S 44S 64S 90S Year Glob NHem SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S Year 1880 -12 -34 11 -43 -16 22 -92 -47 -22 -21 -7 27 47 ***** 1880 1881 -13 -28 2 -37 -5 -10 -96 -44 -9 -15 20 -2 3 ***** 1881 1882 -1 -27 24 -33 -1 17 -133 -22 -8 -18 36 28 14 ***** 1882 1883 -5 -32 23 -45 13 -9 -4 -62 -37 -13 71 -4 10 ***** 1883 1884 -42 -55 -30 -75 -21 -38 -114 -71 -66 -24 -18 -19 -67 ***** 1884 1885 -23 -50 4 -72 -7 -11 -150 -59 -52 -18 26 9 -44 ***** 1885 1886 -26 -37 -14 -55 -7 -25 -144 -41 -32 -10 2 -8 -49 ***** 1886 1887 -46 -55 -37 -80 -24 -32 -184 -89 -26 -18 -43 -24 -23 ***** 1887 1888 -24 -42 -5 -64 2 -19 -129 -76 -24 -9 15 12 -53 ***** 1888 1889 6 -12 23 -23 37 -13 -53 -13 -22 6 77 4 -22 ***** 1889 1890 -22 -25 -20 -41 -10 -18 -96 -56 -2 -2 -22 -22 10 ***** 1890 1891 -56 -41 -70 -52 -56 -44 -109 -44 -38 -26 -109 -34 -41 ***** 1891 1892 -40 -54 -27 -56 -42 -22 -107 -58 -36 -50 -34 -25 9 ***** 1892 1893 -39 -54 -25 -54 -48 -15 -72 -46 -54 -55 -40 -23 27 ***** 1893 1894 -33 -39 -26 -36 -59 9 -81 -34 -18 -42 -79 -2 54 ***** 1894 1895 -33 -41 -25 -46 -40 -10 -69 -49 -30 -34 -47 -15 23 ***** 1895 1896 -27 -37 -18 -47 -35 3 -88 -53 -22 -21 -50 -5 39 ***** 1896 1897 -15 -21 -10 -25 -7 -18 -55 -19 -17 -16 3 -2 -24 ***** 1897 1898 -21 -37 -5 -31 -31 3 -108 -11 -16 -45 -16 30 -23 ***** 1898 1899 -25 -23 -27 -23 -38 -6 -110 -2 -7 -23 -59 10 -13 ***** 1899 1900 -6 -14 1 -15 1 -8 -63 0 -8 -13 16 4 -11 ***** 1900 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S 44S 64S 90S Year Glob NHem SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S Year 1901 -5 -14 4 -7 -14 7 -40 23 -22 -25 -1 9 29 ***** 1901 1902 -30 -38 -22 -52 -14 -31 -142 -47 -15 -19 -9 -12 -48 ***** 1902 1903 -36 -35 -37 -33 -35 -39 -26 -20 -48 -38 -33 -30 -29 -140 1903 1904 -42 -44 -40 -35 -61 -23 -29 -35 -37 -58 -66 -4 -28 -175 1904 1905 -26 -29 -22 -24 -21 -36 -11 -2 -50 -37 -2 -26 -28 -93 1905 1906 -16 -17 -14 -11 -15 -22 -29 7 -21 -25 -3 -4 -30 -98 1906 1907 -40 -49 -32 -58 -33 -33 -59 -72 -44 -35 -30 -22 -25 -131 1907 1908 -31 -34 -27 -35 -35 -19 -30 -37 -35 -34 -39 -30 18 66 1908 1909 -31 -34 -28 -39 -25 -30 -73 -40 -24 -27 -24 -31 -4 -84 1909 1910 -21 -31 -10 -24 -29 -9 -64 -4 -26 -43 -13 -9 12 28 1910 1911 -26 -26 -26 -22 -30 -24 -13 -20 -27 -32 -28 -26 1 -19 1911 1912 -33 -47 -20 -59 -18 -29 -76 -62 -49 -30 -5 -5 -43 -217 1912 1913 -29 -36 -22 -31 -33 -24 -63 -20 -27 -44 -20 -3 -36 -139 1913 1914 -3 -13 8 -11 -7 11 -62 -1 0 -17 3 27 5 -37 1914 1915 5 1 9 -10 30 -15 -78 -2 12 17 45 16 -41 -269 1915 1916 -21 -29 -13 -32 -11 -24 -69 -42 -8 -25 4 -13 -11 -186 1916 1917 -46 -59 -34 -60 -51 -26 -114 -46 -52 -56 -45 -49 49 29 1917 1918 -35 -39 -31 -40 -39 -24 -116 -19 -28 -38 -41 -20 -7 -15 1918 1919 -9 -24 6 -40 2 6 -77 -55 -13 0 5 18 1 10 1919 1920 -18 -21 -14 -13 -18 -24 24 -5 -33 -34 0 -7 -33 -110 1920 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S 44S 64S 90S Year Glob NHem SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S Year 1921 -5 -1 -8 11 -10 -15 4 27 0 -20 2 2 -22 -98 1921 1922 -10 -15 -4 -16 -4 -11 -17 -34 -2 -13 7 -6 6 -56 1922 1923 -16 -9 -23 -6 -10 -34 31 0 -23 -14 -5 -17 -48 -59 1923 1924 -11 -7 -16 -6 6 -41 38 -5 -24 -8 22 -35 -21 -148 1924 1925 -15 -1 -29 7 -9 -48 -4 33 -8 -15 -2 -38 -43 -85 1925 1926 4 12 -5 16 13 -22 49 34 -9 6 22 0 -45 -74 1926 1927 -5 1 -12 -4 12 -30 0 -13 2 9 16 -2 -59 -187 1927 1928 0 8 -8 6 18 -30 70 -2 -12 11 26 -2 -47 -304 1928 1929 -22 -17 -27 -27 -3 -40 17 -42 -32 0 -8 -26 -35 -186 1929 1930 -4 12 -19 16 2 -30 65 15 -1 5 -3 6 -68 -333 1930 1931 2 19 -16 19 18 -36 66 9 10 20 15 -30 -20 -81 1931 1932 4 11 -4 17 6 -13 45 29 -2 2 11 2 -15 -137 1932 1933 -11 -17 -5 -23 -2 -14 -9 -42 -12 -10 7 -1 -8 -140 1933 1934 5 17 -7 34 -3 -14 96 46 2 -9 3 -9 8 -87 1934 1935 -8 4 -21 7 4 -40 38 10 -7 0 9 -23 -48 -162 1935 1936 1 8 -6 9 7 -14 39 15 -7 7 7 -11 1 6 1936 1937 11 30 -7 36 16 -18 130 16 17 21 10 -14 -10 66 1937 1938 15 32 -3 56 0 -7 150 51 24 -3 3 8 -9 -121 1938 1939 -2 19 -24 35 -4 -37 71 35 21 -5 -3 -10 -66 -206 1939 1940 14 19 8 23 15 2 98 15 1 13 17 8 13 17 1940 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S 44S 64S 90S Year Glob NHem SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S Year 1941 11 20 2 8 34 -16 -8 -9 27 39 28 -6 -10 -45 1941 1942 10 15 5 14 19 -7 47 0 13 15 23 6 -4 -125 1942 1943 6 16 -5 39 -12 -5 131 36 4 -19 -4 -12 34 103 1943 1944 10 21 -1 35 2 -5 114 44 -5 0 5 11 -7 -99 1944 1945 -2 3 -7 6 2 -15 60 -6 -5 -1 6 16 -40 -200 1945 1946 0 13 -12 14 5 -19 3 -2 29 11 -1 -6 -33 4 1946 1947 12 19 5 25 14 -3 110 -5 15 11 16 2 6 -7 1947 1948 -3 11 -17 20 1 -31 23 34 8 -2 4 -5 -46 -152 1948 1949 -9 4 -22 10 -2 -39 34 14 -1 -6 2 -4 -53 -278 1949 1950 -18 -12 -24 -8 -18 -28 22 -28 -4 -17 -18 -1 -48 -105 1950 1951 -2 8 -12 9 3 -20 13 6 10 7 -1 -11 -9 -69 1951 1952 3 9 -3 10 13 -16 24 -8 18 8 17 -8 -7 -63 1952 1953 12 31 -8 44 11 -20 102 39 26 12 10 -5 -12 -171 1953 1954 -9 0 -18 6 -10 -24 82 -24 1 -10 -10 -10 -23 -78 1954 1955 -8 -11 -6 -2 -23 5 -29 -10 13 -24 -22 -15 15 121 1955 1956 -18 -30 -6 -33 -28 10 -6 -58 -24 -26 -30 -19 39 66 1956 1957 8 2 13 3 4 17 14 23 -15 0 8 5 21 45 1957 1958 10 17 2 12 24 -12 -18 21 16 24 24 7 -21 -52 1958 1959 5 12 -2 17 11 -15 55 14 5 5 17 8 -40 -41 1959 1960 -2 10 -13 12 1 -18 37 3 10 6 -4 2 -8 -86 1960 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S 44S 64S 90S Year Glob NHem SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S Year 1961 10 7 12 19 -1 15 -15 38 17 -10 8 23 -7 27 1961 1962 5 12 -2 23 -3 -3 48 34 6 -5 -2 7 21 -62 1962 1963 3 11 -5 14 3 -10 -14 35 10 5 2 -5 -32 11 1963 1964 -25 -24 -27 -31 -11 -38 -67 -31 -19 -12 -9 -30 -42 -54 1964 1965 -15 -19 -11 -22 -11 -13 -30 -26 -16 -15 -8 -13 -15 -6 1965 1966 -8 -4 -11 -15 6 -19 -85 -16 11 11 2 -27 -26 13 1966 1967 -2 -1 -3 7 -13 3 38 25 -16 -14 -11 -3 -4 28 1967 1968 -9 -10 -8 -11 -14 0 -32 1 -12 -8 -20 -13 22 8 1968 1969 0 -3 3 -25 25 -8 -4 -51 -13 30 21 -3 -25 1 1969 1970 4 -1 9 -7 9 10 -21 -12 0 9 8 4 4 39 1970 1971 -10 -17 -3 -9 -26 11 -13 -5 -11 -29 -24 -7 22 48 1971 1972 -5 -24 13 -41 7 13 -38 -60 -27 1 13 11 -11 58 1972 1973 18 13 22 14 21 18 12 25 7 13 29 17 8 36 1973 1974 -6 -16 4 -14 -23 25 -20 -13 -13 -19 -27 3 32 76 1974 1975 -2 -4 0 10 -22 13 16 28 -6 -25 -19 7 10 37 1975 1976 -21 -24 -18 -28 -19 -18 -7 -31 -33 -19 -18 -15 -18 -24 1976 1977 16 16 16 18 12 20 18 25 12 14 11 20 17 25 1977 1978 7 5 10 2 4 18 -19 7 5 10 -2 15 29 9 1978 1979 14 13 14 6 20 13 -63 13 26 25 16 19 26 -21 1979 1980 28 21 35 13 28 43 21 8 13 35 22 34 35 81 1980 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S 44S 64S 90S Year Glob NHem SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S Year 1981 40 49 31 67 17 44 112 89 32 22 12 25 58 81 1981 1982 9 4 14 -4 14 16 -36 6 1 16 12 23 19 -5 1982 1983 34 35 33 37 40 24 18 73 16 33 47 15 31 40 1983 1984 15 11 18 10 14 20 34 6 4 13 14 3 25 62 1984 1985 13 4 21 1 7 31 28 -25 10 8 6 23 53 26 1985 1986 19 18 19 19 16 21 -2 28 20 17 15 17 39 10 1986 1987 35 35 34 20 55 22 -36 22 41 58 52 26 24 10 1987 1988 42 46 37 50 40 36 60 61 38 39 40 26 19 87 1988 1989 28 32 23 48 8 34 38 76 30 8 8 24 59 27 1989 1990 48 63 34 75 41 32 63 91 67 46 36 23 38 45 1990 1991 44 52 37 59 36 41 81 72 40 41 31 20 38 94 1991 1992 15 18 11 15 26 -1 -16 35 12 22 30 -7 -5 16 1992 1993 19 28 10 22 29 2 59 27 5 35 24 8 15 -33 1993 1994 31 48 15 55 34 5 34 54 63 38 30 19 -2 -25 1994 1995 46 71 22 85 49 3 122 107 53 49 50 13 -9 -5 1995 1996 39 36 41 35 35 48 76 29 24 38 32 8 58 131 1996 1997 40 59 22 66 45 8 77 89 43 48 42 17 15 -25 1997 1998 71 89 54 91 88 30 78 90 96 87 89 30 43 14 1998 1999 45 60 31 81 30 30 50 81 94 29 31 41 41 -12 1999 2000 42 63 21 82 29 21 111 88 65 35 22 21 41 -6 2000 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S 44S 64S 90S Year Glob NHem SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S Year 2001 57 76 39 90 49 36 103 88 86 55 43 29 43 39 2001 2002 69 86 52 99 66 42 126 113 77 66 66 31 40 71 2002 2003 67 87 48 101 65 37 145 126 63 65 65 33 36 46 2003 2004 59 80 38 90 56 33 78 108 80 66 46 29 45 23 2004 Year Glob NHem SHem 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S 44S 64S 90S Year -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
duh-Mikey's epiphany
From:
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:26:16 GMT What prompted you to cut-and-paste this? LOL! Did you know the annual average temperature in San Juan, Puerto Rico is 80F, while in Karbala, Iraq it is 75F? And that in Death Valley, CA, it is also 75F? I'm looking for a nice place to vacation this July. I'd suggest that Karbala or Death Valley makes much more sense as a temperate vacation destination. Puerto Rico looks to be too hot. Don't you agree? Moron. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From:
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT Try some science. OK, moron, let's rock! (I've intentionally excluded 'left-leaning' groups like Greenpeace, bloggers, or other suspect sources. I didn't want to make the same mistake you did: copying mostly junk journalists with a specific and obvious bent.) ***WARNING: MANY OF THE FOLLOWING LINKS ARE TO ULTRA LEFT-WING ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS NASA, THE LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, NOAA, WMO, SCRIPPS INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY, MIT (not the cable company), THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AND OTHER LIKE 'SUSPECT' RADICAL LEFT-WING TERRORISTIC COMMUNIST-PINKO ANTI-SCIENCE ANTI-BUSINESS ECO-WHACKO TREE-HUGGER GROUPS.*** I liked this quote: "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable." I did not add the bit about 'rational people.';-) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html http://www.wmo.ch/wmo50/e/world/clim...warming_e.html WMO= World Meteorological Organisation (and you said meteorologists don't... never mind) Here's a press release that's interesting: http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press670.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...utthesite.html Recent Accomplishments of the USGCRP (US Global Climate Change Research Program) Model simulations of changes in climate over the last 100 years match observed patterns more closely when both greenhouse gases and the regional concentrations of sulfate aerosols are taken into account. Arctic ecosystems exposed to elevated levels of carbon dioxide only increased productivity for a few years, suggesting that the CO2 fertilization effect may be short-lived. (Compare this last one to nob's Kartoon Science, one which stated: "For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all." "That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive. " "Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists." See http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Da...il-Bellamy.htm for the complete quote. ) Hooray indeed. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...0/ann/ann.html http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov///N...106064834.html http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsletter/092605.pdf http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...consensus.html "To prove a scientific consensus on global climate change, Oreskes searched the scientific literature for papers published between 1993 and 2003 with the words "global climate change" in their abstracts. She found 928. "Not one of the papers refuted the claim that human activities are affecting Earth's climate," she said. " http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...7_warming.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...obewarm11.html "As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1407585 "Princeton geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer. compares climate skeptics to tobacco industry scientists who sought for decades to obscure the link between smoking and lung cancer. Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists obscures a more important debate over what steps are possible to moderate its effects, he says." http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...g-debate_x.htm http://www.environmentaldefense.org/.../382_myths.htm (OK, so I put one in that has an obvious bent to it.) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/climate-speth.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/global.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2003/co2.html That should suffice for now. I don't think that nob will by any of it though. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
New data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
studies appearing in two respected scientific journals raise serious questions about the science underlying alarmist predictions of global warming. NASA: Predictions "Exaggerated" In the March 13 Journal of Climate, Ken Minschwaner of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and Andrew Dessler of the University of Maryland reported on atmospheric research they conducted for NASA. Discussing the importance of water vapor assumptions in climate models, they noted, "In most global climate models, an initial warming caused by additional CO2 and other greenhouse gases leads to enhanced evaporation at the surface and a general moistening of the atmosphere. Since water vapor is a strong infrared absorber, the added moisture causes further warming. The amplifying effect can be quite large, increasing the global average warming by 70%-90% compared to calculations that maintain a fixed water vapor." According to the new NASA data, water evaporation has not increased nearly as much as alarmists have predicted and have factored into their computer models. As a result, according to the March 18 New York Times, "Dr. Minschwaner said the new research raised questions about the high end" of temperature predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which estimates the Earth's climate could warm 2.5 to 10º Fahrenheit in the next century. According to Environment & Energy Daily, the new data show "predictions about global warming have exaggerated its potential effects." "Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere," stated a related March 15 NASA press release, "some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases." Stated NASA, "In most computer models relative humidity tends to remain fixed at current levels. Models that include water vapor feedback with constant relative humidity predict the Earth's surface will warm nearly twice as much over the next 100 years as models that contain no water vapor feedback." However, "The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity," NASA quoted Minschwaner as saying. "These new findings will be useful for testing and improving global climate models," said NASA. Computer Models Fail Test Another study, published at the same time as the analysis of new NASA data, also undercut claims that computer models are accurate predictors of future climate. The study, published in Climate Research (25:185-190), noted that "an important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios." In other words, the predictive accuracy of alarmist computer models can be assessed by feeding past atmospheric data into the models and observing how well the resulting predictions match up with the current climate. "If this predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world," stated Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, "there is little reason to believe anything else the models predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface warming." Importantly, according to the Climate Research study, "at no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently observed situation of a large and highly significant surface warming accompanied with no warming whatsoever aloft." Moreover, noted the study, "significant errors in the simulations of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing. Such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations." Read more at: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14871 SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true scientists now agree that global warming is a fact. What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000. He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global warming theory. And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis said: 1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases." 2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ...man-made causes." Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world - bar none. read more at: http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm The Nonsense That Is Global Warming Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won. In almost every newspaper around the world and at least once a week, some report surfaces suggesting we stay worried in the light of latest figures and analyses. Not only is Global Warming occurring, we are assured, but it is now accelerating at some alarming rate and pretty soon the poles will have all melted, the sealevels will have risen and all low-lying atolls and seaside villages will be covered over with this calamitous rising tide. And apparently this gigantic catastrophe is due to human behaviour. We are informed that if our wicked CFC and CO2-producing ways continue, we will be doomed as a civilisation. Today we are so buffeted by what is put forth as irrefutable evidential science as to the nature of the so-called problem, that we don't even think to question it on any basic level. What is still essentially viewpoints and nothing more, based on tiny sample data and extrapolated, is now promoted as scientific fact, regardless of the lack of real evidence. The voices of the many diligent scientists calling for real hard evidence are drowned out by those who have the ear of a worldwide media hungry for sensational and emotive headlines. The Misleading Picture The result is that the picture many now have is of the Earth heating up and hotter now than it has ever been. But... 1999 was cooler than the year before and since 1998 the world has been cooling. The hottest day in all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922. There was warming from the 1880s to the 1940s, then a cooling for the next 40 years. Some of the hottest years were in the 1930s, when builders in Britain began putting pipes on the outside of buildings because frosts were only a memory. Then the thermometers turned around and from 1940 right up to 1980, global mean temperatures fell by about 0.3degC. All those houses in Britain started getting burst pipes. Some over-reacted and called it the start of a new Ice Age, due to global warming. Er..pardon? Yes, a heating up OR cooling down now was, apparently, because of global warming. The 40 year downturn in temperature was in spite of supposed rising CO2 levels due to the new industrialisation after the war, showing then that rising CO2 does NOT fit into the scenario of Greenhouse gases. Look outside. Do you see any global catastrophe? Point to an ocean that is rising. Point to a methane cloud. Demonstate in any lab how CO2 could rise or significantly increase in the atmosphere and therefore be harmful. Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that. 99.9% of all the world's CO2 is at ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans. Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.' Wind and diffusion can transport gases but that is to do with mother nature, not man, and the warmers are claiming a rising of gases is taking place due purely to humans and quite apart from wind, thermals, tornadoes and whatever else the processes of nature will do. Our question is, what can possibly make heavier than air gases rise 20 miles to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increase the constant water-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover that enables life to continue to thrive at an average temperature of 13-15degC on the surface of this planet? CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. A party balloon blown up with the breath would fly straight upwards as if it was filled with helium. Moreover CO2 dissolves in seawater. More CO2 produced just means more is going to dissolve. Scientists are still trying to find out the finer points of how it gets from the sea to the trees. They know of the great cycle in which land goes under other land, heats and spews out as volcanoes. CO2 is thrown out and drifts with rain to ground, gets into trees as CO2 and into rocks as CO3, than finds its way back to the sea, then into chalk, which is compressed plankton, and then to the seafloor which becomes part of the continental drift which produces volcanoes at its extremities. CO2 is kept aloft by upper level turbulence. Otherwise it is always drifting down, not up. CO2 is found in centuries-old ice in Antarctica, way before any industrialisation on Earth. It is a natural part of the atmosphere and as such has a stable cycle of its own. Fact: The atmosphere on the planet Venus is 100% CO2, produced entirely from volcanoes. Because it is closer to the Sun , its atmosphere is in turmoil all the time. On the other hand Mars, also with a CO2 atmosphere is so frigid its polar caps are solid CO2, which we call dry ice. The coldness comes purely because Mars is further from the Sun . If CO2 alone heated planets up, Mars would be much warmer than it is. read more at: http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT Try some science. snip all the misleading stuff. Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 Real Climate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. If you would like to contact us, suggest a topic to be covered, contribute a relevant commentary, or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis, please email RealClimate (replace -at- with @). |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From:
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing *against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of the site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon): "#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges. Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected warming." And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office): "The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is becoming clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these human activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the warming on natural ecosystems and people?" And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding the 'Hockey Stick'): "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth. This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)." Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've held, have you simply been trolling me all along? If so, why? The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global warming exists and that the main component of global warming is man-made. But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this 'disagreement' was about when we actually agree? |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing *against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of the site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon): "#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges. Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected warming." You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site you linked from are you? I find no such link. And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office): "The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is becoming clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these human activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the warming on natural ecosystems and people?" And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding the 'Hockey Stick'): "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth. Nice try, but that does not appear on page found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)." Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've held, have you simply been trolling me all along? If so, why? The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global warming exists and that the main component of global warming is man-made. But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this 'disagreement' was about when we actually agree? You're wierd. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
wrote in message ink.net... : : "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message : oups.com... : From: : Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT : : Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW. : : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 : : OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing : *against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global : warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of the : site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon): : : "#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is : caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges. : Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global : warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in : the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source : of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : (IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of : scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature : increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that : human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected : warming." : : You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site : you linked from are you? : : I find no such link. : : : And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office): : : "The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from : long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is becoming : clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and : deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these human : activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, : scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate : among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How : much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional : and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the : warming on natural ecosystems and people?" : : And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding : the 'Hockey Stick'): : : "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely : upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean : temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth. : : : Nice try, but that does not appear on page found at : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 : : : This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other : dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate : evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence : indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play : a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's : surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this : conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution : Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century : climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art : models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic : forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas : concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)." : : Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've : held, have you simply been trolling me all along? : : If so, why? : : The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global : warming exists and that the main component of global warming is : man-made. : : But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this : 'disagreement' was about when we actually agree? : : You're wierd. : second link on page 196: Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include: (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise. .................. as i've mentioned before, there _is no_ arguing with heat balance measurements made from space, specific distribution on earth does not matter in calculations in that case so yes, there is warming taking place, no possible doubt there evidently, the real worry is not a couple of centigrades rise in a couple of centuries, it's the idea of a runaway, a positive feedback scenario that cannot be undone the _venus meltdown syndrome_ if ya like :-) as mentioned before, there are many chemical and biochemical negative feedback systems in place on this planet, but they respond* on a century and millenium scale, so maybe 500 years from now, a new equilibrium is reached, but can we absorb the effect of such a long changeover (having to give up 100.000s km^2 of coastal areas, redistribution of 'fine climate areas' across the globe, large cities currently at near sea-level, etc. etc.)? *significantly like Oppenheimer said: "Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists obscures a more important debate over what steps are possible to moderate its effects" CO2 paranoia not being part of my coctail of solutions Governments using tax instruments to encourage energy-efficient technology to develop is a good start, (as in reductions, _not_ penalties  Rudy |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From:
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:27:24 GMT You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site you linked from are you? Maybe it would be easier for this discussion if you could show some quotes from realclimate that you feel support your position. I am of the opinion that any brain-dead moron would read that site and come to the unequivocal understanding that it argues exactly 180 degree from your position. Yes, what I quoted is representative. I'm even giving you more. There is NOT a lot of disagreement about it on that site. Have you had a CAT scan recently? This is typical of that site, not the links it refers you to (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=91) (regarding George Will and Michael Crichton's novel) "Remarkably - considering he is frequently writes as an historian - Will also repeats the historically inaccurate claim that "30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling" . We provide a more detailed response to this and other errors in another post. Here, we merely point out that there is abundant scientific evidence that global warming is real, that global warming has resulted in a rise in global sea-level, and that global warming has led to recession of glaciers in virtually all corners of the world. These issues have been carefully examined by several national and international scientific organizations, and it would have been easy for Will to read this literature, rather than simply taking the words of characters in Crichton's novel at face value. In addition to the scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (essentially a comprehensive review of the literature on the subject) we refer the reader to statements by the American Geophysical Union, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American Meteorological Society:" And this (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229) (last paragraph): "Our correspondents at the Montreal climate negotiations which concluded last week report that Esper et al was given a lot of play by the inaction lobby. The only major news outlet to pick up on the story, though was Fox News, whose report by "Junk Science" columnist Steve Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as science journalism. Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an opinion piece, not a research article. He also fails to mention that Esper et al do not actually conclude that a downward revision in the importance of CO2 actually is necessary; they only attempt to say (albeit based on faulty logic) what would happen if higher estimates of climate variation proved right. Milloy also fails to note the final quote supporting Kyoto, for what that's worth. Of course, it is too much to expect that Milloy would look into other papers on the subject to see if there might be something wrong with the reasoning in Esper et al." Realclimate obviously thinks that the junkscience site and its authors are garbage propagandists (I agree). Let's not forget you tried to quote junkscience as a relevant source to prove you point. Remember? Here. I'll help you: -Begin quote- From: - Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT There is no man made global warming. The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Try some science. http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta.../ZonAnn.Ts.txt http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Da...il-Bellamy.htm -end quote- You quote junkscience. TWICE. Realclimate is not too enamored of his reasoning abilities. Moron. I find no such link. You can't grow brains, remember? The quivering gelatinous clump that passes for your brain does not seem too capable of registering much. Wow. Anybody reading that site could ONLY come up with the conclusion that global warming is real, and that man-made factors are a huge contributor to it. The only other possible answer is that you're actually brain-dead. Let's call Frist to be sure... LOL! OK, here are your links from the real climate site: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11 This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)." Now, you claimed you wanted to use 'science' (here, let me help your addled brain remember): "There is no man made global warming. The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Try some science. " Remember? OK, now go the 'science links' at the real climate site (right side of page). Click the VERY FIRST ONE (AIP global warming). Click the links page there. The quotes you seek are right there. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm) You're wierd. OK, I'm weird. Shall we now debate why being weird is very much better than being really, really stupid? My god. I was actually happy when I thought you were trolling me. Now I'm even more frightened for your children's mental health. They haven't got a prayer. Jeeezus. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From: "Ruud Broens"
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:35:35 +0100 like Oppenheimer said: "Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists obscures a more important debate over what steps are possible to moderate its effects" Rudy, after reading the realclimate site, do you get ANY indication that they are in favor of statements like these? "There is no man made global warming. The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you." I don't see it, but maybe I'm nuts. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... : From: "Ruud Broens" : Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:35:35 +0100 : : like Oppenheimer said: : "Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists : obscures a more important debate over what steps : are possible to moderate its effects" : : Rudy, after reading the realclimate site, do you get ANY indication : that they are in favor of statements like these? : : "There is no man made global warming. : The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. : The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare : you." : : I don't see it, but maybe I'm nuts. These are all proxies, measured heat balance makes warming a fact. Several historical proxies exist, where overlapping in period good correspondence of data from strata, ice core air inclusions, lake sediments, tree yearrings, etc, etc. is observed. this inspires confidence in the modeled temperatures, recorded history is very short of course :-) so, if the ice air inclusion for period X shows a near-sulphates free, low CO2 atmosphere, some other indicator says sunspot activity is low, calculating the earth's rotational axis direction for X, if the model shows: "ice age, minus 22 to 38 centigrade at location Y" it'd be somewhat embarrassing to find in the geological strata there, say, palm tree seeds :-) so we have temperature-by-proxy graphs that tell us it has been all over the map, historically, air composition over a huge timespan known pretty much the same story 'single shot' events such as impacting 5 km diameter stuff has drastic effects, not easily modeled so nature made climatic change can be rather large but we may assume the cro-magnon had better stuff to do than keep temperature records, so not much recorded by humans, yet. it is the rate of change presently that - other than in cataclysmic periods- has no historical equivalent err.. ;-) Rudy |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... : : "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message : oups.com... : From: : Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT : : Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW. : : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 : : OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing : *against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global : warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of the : site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon): : : "#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is : caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges. : Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global : warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in : the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source : of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : (IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of : scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature : increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that : human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected : warming." : : You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site : you linked from are you? : : I find no such link. : : : And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office): : : "The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from : long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is becoming : clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and : deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these human : activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, : scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate : among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How : much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional : and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the : warming on natural ecosystems and people?" : : And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding : the 'Hockey Stick'): : : "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely : upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean : temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth. : : : Nice try, but that does not appear on page found at : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 : : : This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other : dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate : evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence : indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play : a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's : surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this : conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution : Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century : climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art : models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic : forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas : concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)." : : Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've : held, have you simply been trolling me all along? : : If so, why? : : The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global : warming exists and that the main component of global warming is : man-made. : : But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this : 'disagreement' was about when we actually agree? : : You're wierd. : second link on page 196: Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include: (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise. ................. as i've mentioned before, there _is no_ arguing with heat balance measurements made from space, specific distribution on earth does not matter in calculations in that case so yes, there is warming taking place, no possible doubt there I'm not arguing that there isn't, only about the cause. evidently, the real worry is not a couple of centigrades rise in a couple of centuries, it's the idea of a runaway, a positive feedback scenario that cannot be undone the _venus meltdown syndrome_ if ya like :-) There is no evidence of that happening and no proof whatsoever that humans COULD cause it. as mentioned before, there are many chemical and biochemical negative feedback systems in place on this planet, but they respond* on a century and millenium scale, so maybe 500 years from now, a new equilibrium is reached, but can we absorb the effect of such a long changeover (having to give up 100.000s km^2 of coastal areas, redistribution of 'fine climate areas' across the globe, large cities currently at near sea-level, etc. etc.)? *significantly like Oppenheimer said: "Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists obscures a more important debate over what steps are possible to moderate its effects" CO2 paranoia not being part of my coctail of solutions Governments using tax instruments to encourage energy-efficient technology to develop is a good start, (as in reductions, _not_ penalties But the only effect would be economic harm to the U.S. and other industrial countries and nothing done to the countries that use the most dirty fuels and causing much of the alleged problem. The U. S. has the strictest regulation on air quality control of any country or close to it. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... : From: "Ruud Broens" : Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:35:35 +0100 : : like Oppenheimer said: : "Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists : obscures a more important debate over what steps : are possible to moderate its effects" : : Rudy, after reading the realclimate site, do you get ANY indication : that they are in favor of statements like these? : : "There is no man made global warming. : The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. : The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare : you." : : I don't see it, but maybe I'm nuts. These are all proxies, measured heat balance makes warming a fact. Several historical proxies exist, where overlapping in period good correspondence of data from strata, ice core air inclusions, lake sediments, tree yearrings, etc, etc. is observed. this inspires confidence in the modeled temperatures, recorded history is very short of course :-) so, if the ice air inclusion for period X shows a near-sulphates free, low CO2 atmosphere, some other indicator says sunspot activity is low, calculating the earth's rotational axis direction for X, if the model shows: "ice age, minus 22 to 38 centigrade at location Y" it'd be somewhat embarrassing to find in the geological strata there, say, palm tree seeds :-) so we have temperature-by-proxy graphs that tell us it has been all over the map, historically, air composition over a huge timespan known pretty much the same story 'single shot' events such as impacting 5 km diameter stuff has drastic effects, not easily modeled so nature made climatic change can be rather large but we may assume the cro-magnon had better stuff to do than keep temperature records, so not much recorded by humans, yet. it is the rate of change presently that - other than in cataclysmic periods- has no historical equivalent err.. ;-) Rudy The most relaiable data shows that there is no big change in mean temprature and that what there is happend before in the 1940's. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
wrote in message nk.net... : ::: "Ruud Broens" wrote ::: measured heat balance makes warming a fact. : The most relaiable data shows that there is no big change in mean temprature : and that what there is happend before in the 1940's. : read loop 100 times: measured heat balance makes warming a fact & report back, private Mike ;-) R. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... From: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:27:24 GMT You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site you linked from are you? Maybe it would be easier for this discussion if you could show some quotes from realclimate that you feel support your position. I am of the opinion that any brain-dead moron would read that site and come to the unequivocal understanding that it argues exactly 180 degree from your position. Yes, what I quoted is representative. I'm even giving you more. There is NOT a lot of disagreement about it on that site. Have you had a CAT scan recently? This is typical of that site, not the links it refers you to (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=91) (regarding George Will and Michael Crichton's novel) "Remarkably - considering he is frequently writes as an historian - Will also repeats the historically inaccurate claim that "30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling" . We provide a more detailed response to this and other errors in another post. Here, we merely point out that there is abundant scientific evidence that global warming is real, that global warming has resulted in a rise in global sea-level, and that global warming has led to recession of glaciers in virtually all corners of the world. These issues have been carefully examined by several national and international scientific organizations, and it would have been easy for Will to read this literature, rather than simply taking the words of characters in Crichton's novel at face value. In addition to the scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (essentially a comprehensive review of the literature on the subject) we refer the reader to statements by the American Geophysical Union, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American Meteorological Society:" And this (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229) (last paragraph): "Our correspondents at the Montreal climate negotiations which concluded last week report that Esper et al was given a lot of play by the inaction lobby. The only major news outlet to pick up on the story, though was Fox News, whose report by "Junk Science" columnist Steve Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as science journalism. Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an opinion piece, not a research article. He also fails to mention that Esper et al do not actually conclude that a downward revision in the importance of CO2 actually is necessary; they only attempt to say (albeit based on faulty logic) what would happen if higher estimates of climate variation proved right. Milloy also fails to note the final quote supporting Kyoto, for what that's worth. Of course, it is too much to expect that Milloy would look into other papers on the subject to see if there might be something wrong with the reasoning in Esper et al." Realclimate obviously thinks that the junkscience site and its authors are garbage propagandists (I agree). Let's not forget you tried to quote junkscience as a relevant source to prove you point. Remember? Here. I'll help you: -Begin quote- From: - Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT There is no man made global warming. The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Try some science. http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta.../ZonAnn.Ts.txt http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Da...il-Bellamy.htm -end quote- You quote junkscience. TWICE. Realclimate is not too enamored of his reasoning abilities. Moron. I find no such link. You can't grow brains, remember? The quivering gelatinous clump that passes for your brain does not seem too capable of registering much. Wow. Anybody reading that site could ONLY come up with the conclusion that global warming is real, and that man-made factors are a huge contributor to it. The only other possible answer is that you're actually brain-dead. Let's call Frist to be sure... LOL! OK, here are your links from the real climate site: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11 This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)." Now, you claimed you wanted to use 'science' (here, let me help your addled brain remember): "There is no man made global warming. The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual. The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you. Try some science. " Remember? OK, now go the 'science links' at the real climate site (right side of page). Click the VERY FIRST ONE (AIP global warming). Click the links page there. The quotes you seek are right there. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm) You're wierd. OK, I'm weird. Shall we now debate why being weird is very much better than being really, really stupid? If you beleive in GW you're both. My god. I was actually happy when I thought you were trolling me. Now I'm even more frightened for your children's mental health. They haven't got a prayer. Jeeezus. Nope, they're probably going to Atheists too. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
wrote in message ink.net... : : "Ruud Broens" wrote : second link on page 196: : Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases : and : aerosols : among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 : W/m2 more : energy : from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by : precise : measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. : Implications include: : (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without : further : change of : atmospheric composition; : (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, : implying : the need : for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; : and : (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level : rise. : ................. : as i've mentioned before, there _is no_ arguing with heat balance : measurements : made : from space, specific distribution on earth does not matter in calculations : in : that case : : so yes, there is warming taking place, no possible doubt there : : : I'm not arguing that there isn't, only about the cause. thanks for the 'wrap up' ;-) : : evidently, the real worry is not a couple of centigrades rise in a couple : of : centuries, : it's the idea of a runaway, a positive feedback scenario that cannot be : undone : the _venus meltdown syndrome_ if ya like :-) : : There is no evidence of that happening and no proof whatsoever that humans : COULD cause it. you think? just explode a dozen hydrogen bombs*, see what happens (although, granted, climate considerations will not likely be on the top of your mind, then) * interestingly enough, the first above Megaton Hbomb was called Mike : as mentioned before, there are many chemical and biochemical negative : feedback : systems in place on this planet, but they respond* on a century and : millenium : scale, : so maybe 500 years from now, a new equilibrium is reached, : but can we absorb the effect of such a long changeover (having to give up : 100.000s km^2 of coastal areas, redistribution of 'fine climate areas' : across the : globe, : large cities currently at near sea-level, etc. etc.)? : : *significantly : : like Oppenheimer said: : "Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists : obscures a more important debate over what steps : are possible to moderate its effects" : : CO2 paranoia not being part of my coctail of solutions : Governments using tax instruments to encourage energy-efficient technology : to develop is a good start, : (as in reductions, _not_ penalties : : But the only effect would be economic harm to the U.S. and other industrial : countries prove it. or should we talk about your market self regulating stuff ? :-) and nothing done to the countries that use the most dirty fuels : and causing much of the alleged problem. : : The U. S. has the strictest regulation on air quality control of any country : or close to it. : :-) religion takes the weirdest shapes and forms, eh ? R. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From:
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:13:21 GMT But the only effect would be economic harm to the U.S. and other industrial countries and nothing done to the countries that use the most dirty fuels and causing much of the alleged problem. Oh, it's a POCKETBOOK thing again. "Keep your hands off my money! It's MINE!" Why didn't you just say so? Fine. Let's not do Kyoto. We can set our own reduction targets then, right? Why aren't we? Oh. That's right. You think 'junkscience' is real science. Apparently so does Bushie. (Note to Europeans and the rest of the world: you've wondered how Bush, et al could possibly get elected in the US. You're seeing an example of his 'base' and the 'intelligence' thereof first-hand.) |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From: "Ruud Broens"
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:43:00 +0100 religion takes the weirdest shapes and forms, eh ? Many Americans worship the dollar, but most do not seem to take it to the extreme that nob does. Many Americans, however, do not seem to understand science. That explains the adherents of Intelligent Design, and more specifically, people like nob. Perhaps we've found the missing link that will show the ID people that evolution really does occur: someone that presumably has all the physical traits of a modern human, but which has the mental capacity of a distant ancestor (like australopithecus). |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... wrote in message nk.net... : ::: "Ruud Broens" wrote ::: measured heat balance makes warming a fact. : The most relaiable data shows that there is no big change in mean temprature : and that what there is happend before in the 1940's. : read loop 100 times: measured heat balance makes warming a fact 1-2 degrees per 100 years. Nothing that can't be accounted for as a normal trend in weather. The whole GW hysteria is similar to the hysteria over DDT. DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding it are plain B.S. |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... wrote: DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding it are plain B.S. God you're stupid. The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by it. In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no longer effective ! Don't worry! maybe we will evolve to accept increasing amounts of carbon dioxide! -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From: Pooh Bear
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:27:40 +0000 (Regarding nob) God you're stupid. It is amazing, isn't it? |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
|
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
From: "Ruud Broens"
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:03:14 +0100 don't you know, it's a technique invented by Mike, called spread spectrum BS claiming ? I'm sorry, Rudy, but you're wrong. Nob is not bright enough to know what he's doing, let alone actually invent a technique. No, nob's 'technique' is simply known as 'pure stupidity.' |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... wrote: DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding it are plain B.S. God you're stupid. The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by it. In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no longer effective ! Graham Sorry to diagree with you, but there are still people saying that DDT is effective and there was a report on ABC a few weeks ago that had that notion confirmed by some functionary of the U.S. government as she explained why we won't make the stuff to be sold in countries where it would be useful. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revisiting junk again
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... wrote: DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding it are plain B.S. God you're stupid. The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by it. In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no longer effective ! Graham From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito The most effective solutions for malaria control efforts in the third world a mosquito nets (klamboe), insecticide-laced mosquito nets, and DDT. [3] Plain mosquito nets are cheap, they are completely effective in protecting humans within the net, they do not adversely affect the health of natural predators such as dragonflies, and do not require sophisticated public health capacity on the part of the government. Or you can check he http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...all02/DDT.html The following is adapted from a presentation by Donald R. Roberts, Ph.D., Professor of Tropical Public Health at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. Roberts's talk, titled "DDT and Malaria Control: Past, Present, and Future," was given to a conference sponsored by Accuracy in Media in Washington, D.C., in October 2002. His views do not represent the official position of the University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. However, to actually understand how it works we must think in terms of probabilities of events, and introduce the multiplication law of probabilities. Let's assume that each of the three actions (repellent, irritant, and toxic) function at a level of 50 percent. Let's also assume that there are 100 mosquitoes that will enter a house if it is not sprayed. If the house is sprayed, 50 percent will not enter. That leaves 50 mosquitoes that will go inside the house. Of these 50 mosquitoes, 50 percent will be irritated and exit without biting. This leaves only 25 that will remain indoors and bite. Of these 25 mosquitoes, 50 percent will absorb a toxic dose of DDT and die. So, even if the separate actions of DDT function at only a 50 percent level of effectiveness, the combined impact will reduce the success of entering, biting and surviving by 88 to 89 percent, and roughly 86 percent of the total impact will be the result of repellent and irritant actions; only 14 percent of the impact will be due to DDT toxicity. How does this relate to the real world of malaria and malaria control? Published works suggest that the level of effectiveness of separate actions of DDT residues will vary from one species of malaria vector to another. However, the repellent action alone is invariably above the 50 percent level of effectiveness. Field studies have shown that DDT residues repel 95 to 97 percent of major malaria mosquitoes in the Americas. Field experiments are often so overwhelmed by the repellent action that researchers cannot even measure the impact of irritant and toxic actions of DDT residues. . . . Sorry Graham, but you are wrong on this one. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Applian Tech. Replay Radio Product = JUNK TRASH GARBAGE!! | Tech | |||
| fa help me pay my bills and buy more junk to sell-please | Marketplace | |||
| Getting half-decent sounds from a pile of junk... | Tech | |||
| Hi Fi Junk looking for importers | Marketplace | |||
| Presonus MP20 dual mic pre - decent or junk? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
