On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 00:14:31 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Buerste" wrote in message
...
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.
Have fun.
Thanks. I'll try.
--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool
Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still
can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for it.
Oh,
I think I just got the answer.
Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling
around
the sun, and the holocaust.
What, no "Halelujah!"?
'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help us
discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.
How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?
I wouldn't know, and neither would you.
Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?
That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.
Then why aren't more being heard? Because it's too political and they
want their funding, maybe?
Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics.
There's two. Ten-thousand to go. d8-)
Then there were the 17k+ scientists who signed the skeptic's paper...
They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.
Thank you. Now, would you care to weigh in on diamond nanoparticles in
layers of the Earth's crust dating from 12,000 years ago, and its relation
to the extinction of the Clovis culture? Your opinion about that should be
equally valuable.
Easily, in two words. No comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer atmospheric scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels 27+ yrs climatologist
Look at the twenty and thirty page biblios in the back of Crichton's
and Lomborg's books. They, too, have done their homework.
I read Crichton's book, you may recall, at your request. I also read several
counterarguments from real climatologists. They tore him a new asshole.
I hope you can remember who those two were or where you read that.
Politics-R-Us Hansen and who else?
There were two points made in that book that even I could understand and
that were obvious horse****; one because it's simple logic (the business
about the extra ice floating in south polar seas; of course, you idiot
Crichton. That's what happens when an ice sheet breaks up!) and the other
because I happened once upon a time to have studied the statistics of
diffused reflection and refraction. I won't go into that (I couldn't
remember it at this point, anyway), except to say that it raised a red flag
when he brought up the football-field analogy to explain the thickness of a
solid layer of CO2. That was calculated to convince the layman who doesn't
understand the math. Not that I know enough to apply it to atmospheric
warming, either. But I recognize a bull**** argument in that narrow little
instance.
The book was a novel. As science, it was a con job. Or, more likely, much of
it was really over his head. He was an genre novelist and a physician, not a
climatologist, any more than you are or I am. But he could write a good
page-turner, so reading it wasn't a complete waste of time.
What I liked about the book, apart from it being a good novel, was
that it got people questioning the 'The Climate is Falling" scare
tactics of the Left.
You appear
to be like the herd here, Ed; Happy to accept what the masses do. How
much have you studied the subject? What all did you discuss with your
climatologist friend or acquaintance?
My "climatologist friend"? I don't have any. Do you mean my PhD.
meteorologist neighbor down the street, who works for NOAA? Mostly we
laughed about the idiocy of the political arguments. He's the first to admit
that climatology is over his head. But he does have an opinion about global
warming, as I've mentioned to you before. He agrees with you. Then he says,
"but I really don't know, and couldn't know." Meteorology is not
climatology.
OK.
I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.
Please hold your breath. We'll get back to you, Ed.
While you wait, why not get back to your copy of _Inconvenient Truth_...
'Never saw it, and I'm unlikely ever to read it. It's of no more interest to
me than the selective polemics written by the politicos on either side of
the issue. The idea that they could be trusted to write a complete and
unbiased account of the mainstream science is too much to believe.
or Friedman's book, _Hot, Flat, and Crowded_, eh?
I haven't read it. I'm not impressed by Thomas Friedman. I read his columns
every week and consider it worthwhile if one out of ten is a good read.
Otherwise, I read him for style, which is interesting, because I know he's
smarter than his style reflects. That's interesting to a writer, especially
when it's so commercially successful.
Judging by his book titles, I doubt I'd like his style or anything he
wrote. He's apparently an Ehrlich groupie. Feh!
So, since you're into really heavy thinking here, what do you think about
the Clovis extinction? Any opinion on the truth about naked singularities?
d8-)
I love dem black hos but doubt one was caused by the Clovis comet.
Does this type of deep critique help you, Ed?
--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool