On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:13:23 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:25:29 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:06 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:46:32 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:r102eb14b6vttsoq5offq6q8s30jfpoq79@4ax .com...
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 23:06:10 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in
message
news:n0h1ebl2nmu7l7d4qm61vf4hugvh1fl6cs@4 ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161
wrote:

I have a question.

If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are
shrinking?
And
so does the Arctic ice?

Questions here, too. If Algore is an environmentalist, why
was
he
spending over $30,000 a year to heat and cool his home? And
if
his
movie was realistic, why did the Brits ban it from showing
in
UK
schools? And if polar bears were drowning, why didn't they
just
move
with the ice? P.S: Algore finally admitted that was
entirely
CGI
and that he made up the polar bear story. Then again, I
just
saw
another picture of a dead polar bear captioned on yet
another
AGWK
story recently. sigh They just don't get it.

Now, your answer:

Check the rest of the Earth. When one area loses ice, ice
builds
in
another area. It happens the same way each year with the
seasons,
but
that's called "weather", which is what people are reacting
to.
Earth
is between ice ages and will continue to warm (or remain
stable
like
the past decade+) until the next ice age.


Also see these books:

_State of Fear_ The excellent fictional book by Michael
Crichton
which first led me to question the media and global
alarmists.

_The Skeptical Environmentalist_
Bjorn Lomborg (formerly of Greenpeace)

_The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and
Environmentalism_
Chris Horner

_Terrestrial Energy_
William Tucker

_Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by
Scientists,
Politicians, and the Media_
Patrick J. Michaels

_Hard Green: Saving the Environment from Environmentalists_
by Peter Huber

_Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years_
Patrick J. Michaels

_The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy
Threatens
Your
Future_
Senator James Inhofe

_The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science_
Tim Ball

_Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global
Warming
Hoax_
Larry Bell

http://joannenova.com.au/

What's your point here, Jim? Did you follow the sources quoted
in
that
story?

"Everywhere we look, the climate change signal for extreme
heat
events
is becoming stronger," said Andrew King, a climate extremes
research
fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia and lead
author
of
the study. "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so
much
outside natural variability that they were almost impossible
without
global warming." -- "Emergence of heat extremes attributable
to
anthropogenic influences": Andrew D. King.

--
Ed Huntress


How have you practiced reducing your personal carbon footprint
before
you are forced to? Do you even have a clothesline?

Why should I care? And what does it have to do with my question?

--
Ed Huntress

Have you swallowed the Left's voodoo that these AGW restrictions
you
support will only punish those evil rich folks who supply you with
the
energy you depend on, without affecting you personally?

--jsw

Are you saying that your economic philosophy trumps the science?

This is what prompted my question: You've generally been on the
anti-AGM side of these discussions, but then you post a link to an
article that says, to repeat:

"Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside
natural variability that they were almost impossible without
global
warming." This, in an article titled "Emergence of heat extremes
attributable to anthropogenic influences."

So this is the question: Have you changed your position, or did
you
do
a Gunner and not read the article you linked to?

--
Ed Huntress

I can't confirm or deny the validity of AGW.

Neither can anyone else in this NG. But it's sometimes entertaining
to
watch them try.

I merely call out the
blatant deceptions of its fervent acolytes...

In this case, what you were "calling out" was unclear -- unless it's
all of Larry's claims and citations.

You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence
of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic
influences."

...while trying to learn to
live with the shortages and restrictions that will surely happen if
you ever get all you demand.

Is there something I'm demanding? If so, I'm unaware of it.

This means needing less rather than
having more.

It looks to me like we have more than ever before. I'm not
complaining
about it.

--
Ed Huntress


--jsw

You AGW believers collectively.

Let's make something clear: I'm not a "believer" in much of anything.
I go with the preponderance of evidence, and I either have it or I
don't.

In this case, I don't have any. Neither does anyone else on this NG.
You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which
way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of
measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole
puzzle fits together.

My neighbor down the street, a retired PhD meteorologist who was the
voice of marine broadcasts for NOAA in NYC for a couple of decades,
laughed when I asked him about climatology. He doesn't know, either.
But, unlike the people arguing here, he's smart enough, and
knowledgable enough, to know that he doesn't know enough about it to
have a worthwhile opinion. And he did weather every day.

So don't lump me with "believers." Believers and disbelievers are
mostly delusional fools who can't stand the anxiety of not knowing, so
they convince themselves that they do in order to give themselves some
anxiety relief and someone to blame -- for anything. I think my
opinion on this is very close to that of whoyakidding.

The only thing we have to work with is our experience with science and
scientists in general, and some knowledge about how often they are
right or not. When 95% of them agree on something, they're usually
right. So I put my money on the winners. That doesn't mean I
"believe." It means I rely on the only rational tool I have to make a
decision, should I have to make one. For the most part, I don't have
to.

This is what the experts know you
should be doing to reduce your personal carbon footprint:
http://cotap.org/reduce-carbon-footprint/

If you aren't one of the "AGW believers, collectively," why would you
bother?

They forgot about hanging laundry outdoors, the heater in an electric
dryer is a huge unnecessary waste.

I did that 40 years ago. Then I got a dryer. I'm not going back. g


Since you have a lathe you can convert round trash barrels ($12 at HD)
into inexpensive rain barrels ($100 at HD) and avoid watering your
lawn with treated drinking water by threading the barbed end of a hose
coupler and mounting it in the lower side wall, with an O ring on the
outside and the appropriate stainless nut and washer on the inside.
Landscaping fabric over hardware cloth across the top will keep out
gutter debris and mosquitos.

I'll bet it would.


During the winter I store chainsaw chips and chopped-up tree branches
from the yard in the barrels, to use as kindling.

Pressing on and clamping a short piece of hose onto the barbs inside
might be enough to make the watertight seal, but the inside bottom of
the barrel is a difficult place to apply much force.

--jsw

You sure go to a lot of trouble for someone who isn't an AGW believer,
collectively or individually.

--
Ed Huntress

+5.

As I said before, there is not a member of this group who is qualified inany way to understand or analyse this data. "Because I read it on a right-wing 'news' site" is hardly a sound reason for trashing the findings of 95% of actual scientists.

As I also said before, until Gunner (or any of the other 'deniers' here) presents his credentials, I'll go along with my climatology and oceanography PhD friends. A few years ago, in a moment of self-deprecation, I asked one of them to name the math courses she had taken to prepare for her degree. Not only were the courses way, way, way beyond anything I had ever studied, but I had trouble even understanding the names of most of them. To top it off, she said, "But I'd really like to take some more math courses so I could really understand this [climate data]" So, when Gunner and Larry say they don't believe, well, pffft!

g When my son was an undergrad, majoring in econ and minoring in
math (he now has a master's degree in math), I asked him what math he
was studying that semester. "Real analysis" was the reply.

Oh, that doesn't sound so tough, I said. Let me see that book....hmmm,
Lebesgue Integration of Extended Domains...oops. g


When I asked the same PhD (I was a little tipsy at this point), "So, do you believe in global warming?" Her response was, " you don't 'believe' in global warming. you believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Global warming is as much a fact as gravity."

Refreshing. It's like believing in supply-side economics: who cares
about customers when you can build another plant and invest in more
machinery? Install a bigger machine, and they will come...


But I swear that if Rush or Glen Beck or Trump launched a campaign denying gravity and if world net daily picked it up, Gunner et al would be right here on rcm telling us that gravity is just a left-wing plot to sell brassieres to unsuspecting women.

Ha-ha!


BTW, I'm happy that Jim is something of an environmentalist.

I am, too. I encourage it among my friends all the time.

--
Ed Huntress