On 9/25/2014 6:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Yeah, I read Koonin's article yesterday, and I have no reason to doubt
it.

And that "no reason" is a key here. No one here has a minute fraction
of the knowledge necessary to judge the evidence of climate science.
We all go with our experience in listening to the scientists, and
judging what they say on the basis of past performance.

The evidence is they're more often right than not. And despite what
Koonin says, an overwhelming number of climate scientists agree on the
basic points. Koonin obviously is selecting data points to make his
case. If he's right, most scientists will agree with him, if he has
the evidence to convince them. So far, not.

Meanwhile, you, I, and everyone else here watch and listen. Some are
fools who think they know the answers. They don't.



Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 6:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Yeah, I read Koonin's article yesterday, and I have no reason to doubt
it.

And that "no reason" is a key here. No one here has a minute fraction
of the knowledge necessary to judge the evidence of climate science.
We all go with our experience in listening to the scientists, and
judging what they say on the basis of past performance.

The evidence is they're more often right than not. And despite what
Koonin says, an overwhelming number of climate scientists agree on the
basic points. Koonin obviously is selecting data points to make his
case. If he's right, most scientists will agree with him, if he has
the evidence to convince them. So far, not.

Meanwhile, you, I, and everyone else here watch and listen. Some are
fools who think they know the answers. They don't.



Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/25/2014 10:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.



I might agree if you agree that if there were not *ANY* Money to be made
from global warming it simply wouldn't exist.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 6:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Yeah, I read Koonin's article yesterday, and I have no reason to doubt
it.

And that "no reason" is a key here. No one here has a minute fraction
of the knowledge necessary to judge the evidence of climate science.
We all go with our experience in listening to the scientists, and
judging what they say on the basis of past performance.

The evidence is they're more often right than not. And despite what
Koonin says, an overwhelming number of climate scientists agree on the
basic points. Koonin obviously is selecting data points to make his
case. If he's right, most scientists will agree with him, if he has
the evidence to convince them. So far, not.

Meanwhile, you, I, and everyone else here watch and listen. Some are
fools who think they know the answers. They don't.



Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

Isn't that a song by Algore and the Evicted Bears?

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:21:27 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 10:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

I might agree if you agree that if there were not *ANY* Money to be made
from global warming it simply wouldn't exist.

Bingo! g

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

On 9/26/2014 12:34 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:21:27 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 10:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

I might agree if you agree that if there were not *ANY* Money to be made
from global warming it simply wouldn't exist.

Bingo! g

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon



Yep so many libs worship at the altar that GW has all the markings of a
religion. Libs don't believe in God but they'll believe in anything else.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

Yep so many libs worship at the altar that GW has all the markings
of a religion. Libs don't believe in God but they'll believe in
anything else.

The most damning sign is how they dismiss or lie about contrary
evidence instead of testing and accommodating it. The climate models
can't correctly reconstruct the known past and disagree among
themselves when it's tried so AGW proponents attempt to minimize or
deny the inconvenient Medieval Warming Period.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/s...-so-warm-15064
See the comments.

Meanwhile the Greenland Ice Sheet Project ice core found that modern
climate is well within the range of variation over the last 100,000
years.

That ship that was trapped in expanding Antarctic ice last year went
there to document the predicted alarming -decrease- in the ice.

Oops!

-jsw

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:21:27 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 10:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.



I might agree if you agree that if there were not *ANY* Money to be made
from global warming it simply wouldn't exist.

Whether you agree or not has nothing to do with whether it's true,
Tom. What I said above is true no matter what you think.

As for money, there's plenty to be made on both sides. The coal
industry, the oil industry, conservative think tanks, and
opportunistic book authors have made or spent bundles on climate
denial.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, September 26, 2014 12:33:18 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message

...

Yep so many libs worship at the altar that GW has all the markings

of a religion. Libs don't believe in God but they'll believe in

anything else.

The most damning sign is how they dismiss or lie about contrary

evidence instead of testing and accommodating it.

The only sign that mainstream science (and the mainstream news media) need is their agreement with each other.

If ABC, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, NPR News and CNN agree with each other, then screw fox news. They and other people out in the forest, in the hills or otherwise in the middle of nowhere can agree or not.

wrote in message
...
On Friday, September 26, 2014 12:33:18 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message

...

Yep so many libs worship at the altar that GW has all the
markings

of a religion. Libs don't believe in God but they'll believe in

anything else.

The most damning sign is how they dismiss or lie about contrary

evidence instead of testing and accommodating it.

The only sign that mainstream science (and the mainstream news
media) need is their agreement with each other.

If ABC, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, NPR News and CNN agree with each other,
then screw fox news. They and other people out in the forest, in
the hills or otherwise in the middle of nowhere can agree or not.

Journalists don't know squat about hard science, and are losing sight
of their own WhoWhatWhereWhenHowWhy. They've repeatedly shown their
ignorance of why airplanes need all those big flat thingies sticking
out of the sides and top.

The only media members I even half believe are the weather
forecasters, and they aren't convinced of AGW.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ate-consensus/
"The reality is when you factor in the other necessary components of a
global warming crisis, clearly less than half of American
Meteorological Society meteorologists believe in the frequently
asserted global warming crisis."

"If a show of hands determined scientific truth, medical doctors would
still be bleeding people with leeches and we would still believe the
sun revolves around the earth."

The weatherman I asked clearly doesn't believe it from his disgusted
facial expression, but he won't state anything that risks his job. I
didn't bias my question to suggest what answer I wanted to hear.
Politicians have actually complained about my neutrally worded
questions, they had a ready answer either way and didn't know which to
give.
-jsw

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:02:46 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 12:34 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:21:27 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 10:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

I might agree if you agree that if there were not *ANY* Money to be made
from global warming it simply wouldn't exist.

Bingo! g

Yep so many libs worship at the altar that GW has all the markings of a
religion. Libs don't believe in God but they'll believe in anything else.

Yeah, and they'll do it religiously!

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:10:25 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin

I'll bet you'll enjoy it. Take a look at it on Amazon.

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/27/2014 9:10 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin
Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:35:40 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/27/2014 9:10 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin
Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/26/2014 10:39 AM, wrote:


PLINK

On 9/26/2014 5:11 PM, wrote:
On Friday, September 26, 2014 12:33:18 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message

...

Yep so many libs worship at the altar that GW has all the markings

of a religion. Libs don't believe in God but they'll believe in

anything else.

The most damning sign is how they dismiss or lie about contrary

evidence instead of testing and accommodating it.

The only sign that mainstream science (and the mainstream news media)

need is their agreement with each other.

If ABC, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, NPR News and CNN agree with each other, then


screw fox news. They and other people out in the forest, in the hills or

otherwise in the middle of nowhere can agree or not.



Spoken like a true believer!

On 9/26/2014 2:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:21:27 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 10:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.



I might agree if you agree that if there were not *ANY* Money to be made
from global warming it simply wouldn't exist.

Whether you agree or not has nothing to do with whether it's true,
Tom. What I said above is true no matter what you think.

As for money, there's plenty to be made on both sides. The coal
industry, the oil industry, conservative think tanks, and
opportunistic book authors have made or spent bundles on climate
denial.



How many 15 year stints of no warming will it take? How many more times
must AGW proponents be caught fudging data? Just how much **** does it
take to spoil the ice cream?

On 9/26/2014 12:33 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 6:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Yeah, I read Koonin's article yesterday, and I have no reason to doubt
it.

And that "no reason" is a key here. No one here has a minute fraction
of the knowledge necessary to judge the evidence of climate science.
We all go with our experience in listening to the scientists, and
judging what they say on the basis of past performance.

The evidence is they're more often right than not. And despite what
Koonin says, an overwhelming number of climate scientists agree on the
basic points. Koonin obviously is selecting data points to make his
case. If he's right, most scientists will agree with him, if he has
the evidence to convince them. So far, not.

Meanwhile, you, I, and everyone else here watch and listen. Some are
fools who think they know the answers. They don't.



Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

Isn't that a song by Algore and the Evicted Bears?

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon



I wish they would vote on time travel using Pez dispensers.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:28:36 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 2:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:21:27 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 10:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.



I might agree if you agree that if there were not *ANY* Money to be made
from global warming it simply wouldn't exist.

Whether you agree or not has nothing to do with whether it's true,
Tom. What I said above is true no matter what you think.

As for money, there's plenty to be made on both sides. The coal
industry, the oil industry, conservative think tanks, and
opportunistic book authors have made or spent bundles on climate
denial.



How many 15 year stints of no warming will it take?

For what?

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

How many more times
must AGW proponents be caught fudging data?

The deniers do it all the time, Tom.

You seem to think you know the answer, that a very large majority of
the world's climatologists are lying, and that you, Tom Gardner, know
enough about it to see through their deceit -- even if you couldn't
even read one of their white papers to save your life.

You're a True Believer, Tom.

Just how much **** does it
take to spoil the ice cream?

You should be asking that of the denier/conspiracy theorists. It
doesn't seem to matter how many time their "facts" get shot down. They
just keep slinging more of it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:31:38 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 12:33 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/25/2014 6:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Yeah, I read Koonin's article yesterday, and I have no reason to doubt
it.

And that "no reason" is a key here. No one here has a minute fraction
of the knowledge necessary to judge the evidence of climate science.
We all go with our experience in listening to the scientists, and
judging what they say on the basis of past performance.

The evidence is they're more often right than not. And despite what
Koonin says, an overwhelming number of climate scientists agree on the
basic points. Koonin obviously is selecting data points to make his
case. If he's right, most scientists will agree with him, if he has
the evidence to convince them. So far, not.

Meanwhile, you, I, and everyone else here watch and listen. Some are
fools who think they know the answers. They don't.



Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

Isn't that a song by Algore and the Evicted Bears?

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon



I wish they would vote on time travel using Pez dispensers.

ROFLMAO!!!

Indeed!!

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:28:36 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 9/26/2014 2:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:21:27 -0400, Tom Gardner

wrote:



On 9/25/2014 10:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:



When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*

true, that those rare cases become legends.







I might agree if you agree that if there were not *ANY* Money to be made

from global warming it simply wouldn't exist.



Whether you agree or not has nothing to do with whether it's true,

Tom. What I said above is true no matter what you think.



As for money, there's plenty to be made on both sides. The coal

industry, the oil industry, conservative think tanks, and

opportunistic book authors have made or spent bundles on climate

denial.


How many more times must AGW proponents be caught fudging data?

How many more supporting examples of your conservative claims will you REFUSE to provide as proof?

On 9/28/2014 10:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:35:40 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/27/2014 9:10 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin
Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Have you heard - three volcanoes are blowing their tops - latest is
Japan. Philippines and then Ice Land. North American, Pacific, mid
Trench Atlantic.

I can't wait for the three sisters in Oregon or some others in the
region. Been a while since some of the dozen or so in the Pacific NW
and the ones in Texas, 5 in Austin, TX, .... Been sleeping a long time
now.

Martin

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:28:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Have you heard - three volcanoes are blowing their tops - latest is
Japan. Philippines and then Ice Land. North American, Pacific, mid
Trench Atlantic.

They're trying to punish the Blievers for their total nonsense
AGWK.


I can't wait for the three sisters in Oregon or some others in the

Oh, no no no no no no NO! Not local, thankyouverymuch.


region. Been a while since some of the dozen or so in the Pacific NW
and the ones in Texas, 5 in Austin, TX, .... Been sleeping a long time
now.

I had been working on Hamilton, just off San Vicente Blvd in BH, when
the movie Volcano came out. What a trip, seeing lava run down the
road I had been on the day before! I was very happy for it to have
been only a movie, too.

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:28:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/28/2014 10:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:35:40 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/27/2014 9:10 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin
Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Have you heard - three volcanoes are blowing their tops - latest is
Japan. Philippines and then Ice Land. North American, Pacific, mid
Trench Atlantic.

The Magma Gods are angry, for sure...


I can't wait for the three sisters in Oregon or some others in the
region. Been a while since some of the dozen or so in the Pacific NW
and the ones in Texas, 5 in Austin, TX, .... Been sleeping a long time
now.

Martin

That's some excitement I can do without. g I think the reason I find
volcanoes exciting is that I've never actually seen one. It's like
20-foot white sharks. They both look so cool on TV or in the pages of
National Geographic.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:45:02 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:28:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/28/2014 10:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:35:40 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/27/2014 9:10 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin
Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Have you heard - three volcanoes are blowing their tops - latest is
Japan. Philippines and then Ice Land. North American, Pacific, mid
Trench Atlantic.

The Magma Gods are angry, for sure...


I can't wait for the three sisters in Oregon or some others in the
region. Been a while since some of the dozen or so in the Pacific NW
and the ones in Texas, 5 in Austin, TX, .... Been sleeping a long time
now.

Martin

That's some excitement I can do without. g I think the reason I find
volcanoes exciting is that I've never actually seen one. It's like
20-foot white sharks. They both look so cool on TV or in the pages of
National Geographic.

I wonder how many years production of CO2 the volcanoes are spitting
out. Global warming this year for sure.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...

I wonder how many years production of CO2 the volcanoes are spitting
out. Global warming this year for sure.
--
Cheers,

John B.

I wonder who will have to pay for it.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/25/6843673...-rise-30-years

On 9/29/2014 11:03 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:28:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Have you heard - three volcanoes are blowing their tops - latest is
Japan. Philippines and then Ice Land. North American, Pacific, mid
Trench Atlantic.

They're trying to punish the Blievers for their total nonsense
AGWK.


I can't wait for the three sisters in Oregon or some others in the

Oh, no no no no no no NO! Not local, thankyouverymuch.


region. Been a while since some of the dozen or so in the Pacific NW
and the ones in Texas, 5 in Austin, TX, .... Been sleeping a long time
now.

I had been working on Hamilton, just off San Vicente Blvd in BH, when
the movie Volcano came out. What a trip, seeing lava run down the
road I had been on the day before! I was very happy for it to have
been only a movie, too.

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

I used to do monthly air plane rides up the coast and visit customers
in the R&D land. Nice to fly buy and see some of the big ones -

I have some 'glass' from Mt. Lassen, a glassy volcano, vial of fluff
from Mt. ST. Helen.

I bet watching some of the places you have been in the movie was
something. Lava is nasty stuff. Mud slide is nasty as well.

Martin

On 9/30/2014 6:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:45:02 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:28:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/28/2014 10:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:35:40 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/27/2014 9:10 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin
Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Have you heard - three volcanoes are blowing their tops - latest is
Japan. Philippines and then Ice Land. North American, Pacific, mid
Trench Atlantic.

The Magma Gods are angry, for sure...


I can't wait for the three sisters in Oregon or some others in the
region. Been a while since some of the dozen or so in the Pacific NW
and the ones in Texas, 5 in Austin, TX, .... Been sleeping a long time
now.

Martin

That's some excitement I can do without. g I think the reason I find
volcanoes exciting is that I've never actually seen one. It's like
20-foot white sharks. They both look so cool on TV or in the pages of
National Geographic.

I wonder how many years production of CO2 the volcanoes are spitting
out. Global warming this year for sure.
--
Cheers,

John B.

It will be a chilling effect - more rain (particles set out rain) and
a haze will be cast world wide.

Martin

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:07:43 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/30/2014 6:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:45:02 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:28:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/28/2014 10:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:35:40 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/27/2014 9:10 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 9/26/2014 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:27:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/26/2014 1:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:15:22 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:15:02 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:


Science by consensus. The majority *IS* always right!

When it comes to science, it's mostly true. And it's so seldom *not*
true, that those rare cases become legends.

--
Ed Huntress

Then you must know the legend of geology, which was completely wrong
by universal consensus until an untainted grad student "discovered"
continental drift, which had been Alfred Wegener's theory that the
scientific community shunned because the Nazis championed him as an
example of Aryan superiority.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but
the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents
and land bridges."

I studied Earth Science in high school and could plainly see that the
then-current theory of mountain formation was utter bull****, the
weight of sediment in a deep ocean trench couldn't possibly have
raised an adjacent ridge on land, but it was what all geologists who
wanted a job had to pretend to believe.

The history of Continental Drift is an excellent example of how
political correctness can stifle an entire field of science.

-jsw

Oh, yeah, that was a big one -- one of the modern legends.

For the non-scientist, it's discussed in a fascinating way, as part of
a larger story about geology, in John McPhee's _Annals of the Former
World_. I read his two earlier books, _In Suspect Terrain_ and _Basin
and Range_, which have now been consolidated into _Annals_.

Highly recommended. He has a unique skill to make geology interesting
for the non-specialist.

Interesting that was. I have a minor in Geology and fully believed in
and sold on continental drift in 66. I had several good professors who
were former oil explorers. I enjoy some of the science shows on how the
N.E. was created or the mid west... I was a Gulf Coast / inland
stratification 'student'. It went well with Physics and Math majors.

Martin

Then you'd probably enjoy _Annals of the Former World_.

McPhee also happens to be one of the best non-fiction writers in the
English language. And he's a good shad fisherman. g

Thanks, always interested in various sciences. And enjoy a good Geology
book.

Martin
Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Have you heard - three volcanoes are blowing their tops - latest is
Japan. Philippines and then Ice Land. North American, Pacific, mid
Trench Atlantic.

The Magma Gods are angry, for sure...


I can't wait for the three sisters in Oregon or some others in the
region. Been a while since some of the dozen or so in the Pacific NW
and the ones in Texas, 5 in Austin, TX, .... Been sleeping a long time
now.

Martin

That's some excitement I can do without. g I think the reason I find
volcanoes exciting is that I've never actually seen one. It's like
20-foot white sharks. They both look so cool on TV or in the pages of
National Geographic.

I wonder how many years production of CO2 the volcanoes are spitting
out. Global warming this year for sure.
--
Cheers,

John B.

It will be a chilling effect - more rain (particles set out rain) and
a haze will be cast world wide.

Martin

Interestingly the immediate effects of the 1883 Krakatoa explosion
was:

"In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere
summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).

Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures
did not return to normal until 1888. The record rainfall that hit
Southern California during the water year, from July 1883 to June 1884
Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97
inches (659.6 mm).

--
Cheers,

John B.

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
On 9/30/2014 6:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

I wonder how many years production of CO2 the volcanoes are
spitting
out. Global warming this year for sure.
--
Cheers,

John B.

It will be a chilling effect - more rain (particles set out rain)
and
a haze will be cast world wide.

Martin

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~ethribe/web/tambora.htm
"The highs were still close to 100 degreed Fahrenheit on some days.
However, the cold spells, especially at night, cause massive crop
failure, and, as a result, even more famine."

"200 million tons of sulfur dioxide was shot up into the stratosphere.
The sulfur dioxide prevented much sunlight from reaching the Earth's
surface, lowering the overall temperature, and killing crops and many
creatures as a result."

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:04:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/29/2014 11:03 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:28:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Hardback should be here Tuesday.
Martin

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Have you heard - three volcanoes are blowing their tops - latest is
Japan. Philippines and then Ice Land. North American, Pacific, mid
Trench Atlantic.

They're trying to punish the Blievers for their total nonsense
AGWK.


I can't wait for the three sisters in Oregon or some others in the

Oh, no no no no no no NO! Not local, thankyouverymuch.


region. Been a while since some of the dozen or so in the Pacific NW
and the ones in Texas, 5 in Austin, TX, .... Been sleeping a long time
now.

I had been working on Hamilton, just off San Vicente Blvd in BH, when
the movie Volcano came out. What a trip, seeing lava run down the
road I had been on the day before! I was very happy for it to have
been only a movie, too.

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

I used to do monthly air plane rides up the coast and visit customers
in the R&D land. Nice to fly buy and see some of the big ones -

I have some 'glass' from Mt. Lassen, a glassy volcano, vial of fluff
from Mt. ST. Helen.

I bet watching some of the places you have been in the movie was
something. Lava is nasty stuff. Mud slide is nasty as well.

I'm sure being mown down by a pyroclastic cloud would rate high on the
Suckage List, too.


--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:04:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:


I bet watching some of the places you have been in the movie was
something. Lava is nasty stuff. Mud slide is nasty as well.

I'm sure being mown down by a pyroclastic cloud would rate high on
the
Suckage List, too.

http://www2.brevard.edu/reynoljh/italy/corpsecasts.htm

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:30:38 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:04:57 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:


I bet watching some of the places you have been in the movie was
something. Lava is nasty stuff. Mud slide is nasty as well.

I'm sure being mown down by a pyroclastic cloud would rate high on
the
Suckage List, too.

http://www2.brevard.edu/reynoljh/italy/corpsecasts.htm

Seen the 2014 Pompei movie yet? It was fun, but I hated the ending...

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:30:38 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


I'm sure being mown down by a pyroclastic cloud would rate high on
the
Suckage List, too.

http://www2.brevard.edu/reynoljh/italy/corpsecasts.htm

Seen the 2014 Pompei movie yet? It was fun, but I hated the
ending...

The dramatized fictionalizations in most historical movies are
annoying and distracting when I've read the book.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm

"Pearl Harbor" was the worst. It's a good thing I didn't see it in a
theater.

"Gettysburg" was an exception, partly because the army of reenactors
knew the battles and wouldn't perform them inaccurately.

With novels I can see how and understand why they simplified the film
to skip over exposition and details that wouldn't easily translate to
images and dialog. For example in the book of "ET" the dog dreamed of
hamburger bushes and ET had a huge crush on the mother. The book
"Stalingrad" is vastly more complex than the film, which dramatized
only a few pages of it.
-jsw

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 06:39:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:30:38 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


I'm sure being mown down by a pyroclastic cloud would rate high on
the
Suckage List, too.

http://www2.brevard.edu/reynoljh/italy/corpsecasts.htm

Seen the 2014 Pompei movie yet? It was fun, but I hated the
ending...

The dramatized fictionalizations in most historical movies are
annoying and distracting when I've read the book.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm

Wow, I had no idea they had eyewitnesses to that eruption! Cool.
It looks worth reading.

Yes, distracting, especially when they base the entire movie on a mere
ten pages out of the book, right? g


"Pearl Harbor" was the worst. It's a good thing I didn't see it in a
theater.

PH was a good movie, but I didn't watch it to find anything close to
historical honesty. It was just a movie. Remember back when
directors and producers had moral codes, and how they tried to film
them historically correct, even hiring special historians for that
task? I can't believe that is no longer happening, but after trying
to watch an hour of teevee the other night in my hotel room, I
remembered what it had all turned into. Truth, justice, and honesty
are not to be found anywhere on any screen any more, it seems.
ads
"Buy our new Oil-Free Oil of Olay Today! It's slicker'n snot!" //
"Take Shrimpzilla Now, and let your pecker think it's a humpback!" //
"Can't sleep at night? Take our new Downer/Upper dose. One tablet lets
you get a good night's sleep and speeds you up in the morning!" //
"Did Podunk's RectumRite ruin your ass? Call our attorneys to help
you kick theirs!" //
"Drink SugarAid Mega, now with more sugar -and- caffeine!" //
/ads

Less than an hour reminded me why I entirely gave up TV.


"Gettysburg" was an exception, partly because the army of reenactors
knew the battles and wouldn't perform them inaccurately.

Yeah, they're no Hollyweird Whores.


With novels I can see how and understand why they simplified the film
to skip over exposition and details that wouldn't easily translate to
images and dialog. For example in the book of "ET" the dog dreamed of
hamburger bushes and ET had a huge crush on the mother. The book

Au contraire, mon ami. Didja see the movie "What Women Want"?
The imagery and dialog in that was just hilarious.


"Stalingrad" is vastly more complex than the film, which dramatized
only a few pages of it.

Luckily for us, it's easier for them to translate wildly fantastic
ideas into images and dialog. I'm having fun watching the DVDs from
Marvel Comics. Iron Man, Thor, & Agents of Shield are all just great
fun, while being wonderful escapes from the daily grind.

Then again, those concepts are a bit easier to grok and script than
the war days of Stalingrad.

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon