DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not determined
by majority vote. The climate researchers use scientific methods and
thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does not make
the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design
experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be
derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake
or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:09:59 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...


To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

I recall last winter during some especially cold weather some right-wingnuts
were snickering about how that warming climate sure was a bitch, haw haw
haw. For some reason they don't seem to have much to say on the subject at
the moment.

Yeah, we've all noticed that it's only "climate" when it's hot; when it's cold
it's only "weather".

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:29:27 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Suppose you're Acme Appliances and you make, um, rice cake ovens.
Your factory is running three shifts, totaling 600 workers, and,
while you don't sell all you make domestically, you can export all
you can produce. You've banked $10 million over the past two years
in profits.

Build the factory in China, keep the profits there, and let 'em eat
rice cakes.


Thought of that, but Acme would still have to pay tax on their foreign
profits eventually.

Not if they're never repatriated. That's *exactly* what's happening now.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:09:59 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...


To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

I recall last winter during some especially cold weather some right-wingnuts
were snickering about how that warming climate sure was a bitch, haw haw
haw. For some reason they don't seem to have much to say on the subject at
the moment.

Yeah, we've all noticed that it's only "climate" when it's hot; when it's cold
it's only "weather".

When it is cold, it because with climate change you should expect wide
deviations in the weather. So, anything the weather does is climate
change. My favorite was a few years ago when the weather guys
forecasted the worst hurricane season in years because climate change
was warming the waters. When it was one of the quietest in years, that
was because climate change had resulted in higher winds across the
African deserts which meant more particles which meant fewer hurricanes.
I also point to use of the word 'Climate Change'. It was global
warming. When things get a certain bad conotations attached to them, the
names are changed in an attempt to make them some how different. Global
warming is now climate change. Timeshares are now "interval ownership".
Liberals are now "progressives".

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:02:30 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:09:59 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...


To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

I recall last winter during some especially cold weather some right-wingnuts
were snickering about how that warming climate sure was a bitch, haw haw
haw. For some reason they don't seem to have much to say on the subject at
the moment.

Yeah, we've all noticed that it's only "climate" when it's hot; when it's cold
it's only "weather".

When it is cold, it because with climate change you should expect wide
deviations in the weather. So, anything the weather does is climate
change. My favorite was a few years ago when the weather guys
forecasted the worst hurricane season in years because climate change
was warming the waters. When it was one of the quietest in years, that
was because climate change had resulted in higher winds across the
African deserts which meant more particles which meant fewer hurricanes.

Each year, fOr the past three years, anyway.

I also point to use of the word 'Climate Change'. It was global
warming. When things get a certain bad conotations attached to them, the
names are changed in an attempt to make them some how different. Global
warming is now climate change. Timeshares are now "interval ownership".
Liberals are now "progressives".

....and before they were "liberals", they were "socialists". ...they were
"socialists" they were "communists".

Don Klipstein ) writes:
In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
Don Klipstein ) writes:
In , M.A. Stewart wrote in part:

You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!

This was before all of the fossil fuels that existed 2 centuries ago
were formed from biomass. Also at this time, there were no continents at
the poles, making the world freer of ice and reflecting less sunlight,
absorbing more.

HC's were formed during the Devonian Period (450 million years ago).
Coal was formed during the Carboniferous Period (specifically during the
Pennsylvanian Epoch, 310 million years).

That was peak of production of biomass going into earliest of 1st stage
of biomass being turned into coal. Biomass newer than 309 million years


Permian Period (270 million) oil, gas (aka HC's) also formed. Glaciers
melt in southern hemisphere too.


was not all shut out of being turned into fossil fuels that existed in
1800.

Have you heard of 'Angle Of Incident' re the sun? That's one reason why
the pole areas are colder on Earth... and Mars.

Look at the global insolation (year-round long-term average solar
irradiance) maps in the Wikipedia article on insolation.


Wikipedia?? Are you kidding me?



Though the poles get much less than the equator and tropical areas do,
it's still significant. Also, the polar and subpolar areas (especially
the Arctic and near-Arctic when Antarctica has stable ice coverage) are
where the ice albedo / surface albedo positive feedback is most
significant.


Hmmmm.... what if it's overcast in the Arctic? It does get overcast there
you know. Especially so in the summertime, much more than in the winter
time "when the sun just don't [sic] shine!".

You attempt to discount "angle of incidence of the sun" and it's effect
(NOBODY GOT THAT IT WAS THE WRONG WORD, WHICH I PUT IN ON PURPOSE!!) in the
arctic. It's more than the less energy (less per square foot, metre etc.)
penetrating the arctic sea as a function of the lesser angle of the sun in
the sky, it's also because less energy reaches the surface (to penetrate),
because it travels through more atmosphere than if the sun was bolt
upright 90 Deg. at the equator on March 21st noonish. There is also
another negative at work. Reflection of energy off of the surface of the
water. The lower the sun is in the sky, there is more energy reflection
off the surface of the water, hence less energy penetrating the water.

It's like one, two, three, strikes... all working together to make the "Oh
my God... if the arctic ice melts at the north shore of Baffin Island, it
will turn as hot as the Caribbean Sea!... Oh my God!" a leading bogus
concept.

You do know the atmosphere is more compressed (as in less distance from
the surface to the upper space) in the arctic, which means there is less
distance for heat energy to travel (which happens every instant 24/7/365
all over the earth) and be lost to outer space.

You do know that more sea ice melts, and subsequently re-freezes, every
year in the Antarctic Ocean, than exists in the Arctic ocean?




Plus there is a feedback from CO2 being less soluble in warmer oceans.
Sea level was something like 600 feet higher then than now.

Show me the 'feedback'.


If you were in class on the relevant day in 11th grade chemistry class,
you would have been taught that in general solubility of gases in liquids
decreases as temperature increases. This is why soda, beer and
champagne bubble-up more when warmer, less when colder.


Not if you pour it properly and drink it fast.

Insult me?

It doesn't matter about solubility and rates of. The amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere is PUNY. The amount CO2 dissolved in the average beer isn't puny.
Pour it properly and drink it fast. If need be... do it like the kids do
it... with a funnel and a hose.




As for specific examples of solubility of 14 specific gases in water,
one of them CO2, as a function of temperature, there is:

It doesn't matter... 0.02, 0.03, 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is PUNY.



http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ga...er-d_1148.html

(This is with gas-in-question being 100% of the "atmosphere" at "1
atmosphere pressure" above the water.)

Warmer temperature increases atmosphere/ocean ratio of CO2 in the
combo of atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse
gas worth about 1.12-1.15 degrees temperature change per doubling/halving


Show me the quantitative proof, not the hypotheticals. And then tell me
how many BTU's leave the sphere, we call the earth, every second, to be
lost to outer space?


its atmospheric presence, before effects of the cloud albedo, surface
albedo, water vapor, and lapse rate feedbacks.
IPCC and Dr. Roy Spencer at least largely agree with this, although
Spencer has a beef with IPCC-considered "determinations" of these
feedbacks and sum thereof - especially notably the cloud albedo one.

--
- Don Klipstein )

Kurt Ullman ) writes:
In article ,
" wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:09:59 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...


To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

I recall last winter during some especially cold weather some right-wingnuts
were snickering about how that warming climate sure was a bitch, haw haw
haw. For some reason they don't seem to have much to say on the subject at
the moment.

Yeah, we've all noticed that it's only "climate" when it's hot; when it's cold
it's only "weather".

When it is cold, it because with climate change you should expect wide
deviations in the weather. So, anything the weather does is climate
change. My favorite was a few years ago when the weather guys
forecasted the worst hurricane season in years because climate change
was warming the waters. When it was one of the quietest in years, that
was because climate change had resulted in higher winds across the
African deserts which meant more particles which meant fewer hurricanes.

I also point to use of the word 'Climate Change'. It was global
warming. When things get a certain bad conotations attached to them, the
names are changed in an attempt to make them some how different. Global
warming is now climate change.

It's just more vague and ambiguous... especially the manner that the word
is used to brainwash people into thinking the word 'climate' means a
'singularity'. Define the climate.

In Canada when its hot, its called 'global warming'. When its cold its
called 'climate change'! They have all the bases covered.

Timeshares are now "interval ownership".
Liberals are now "progressives".

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not determined
by majority vote. The climate researchers use scientific methods and
thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does not make
the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design
experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be
derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake
or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader because
climate science makes predictions and the future only happens once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.


--
Dan Espen

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get about eight
molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Except that the employees were _already_ covered w/ health care at
less cost and higher benefits than are allowed under the new rules
so that in fact they have less care available and higher costs than
before.

--

Except since they were covered with health care already, and that
health care meets the minimums, which you acknowledge, they wouldn't
incur any additional charges

(Giggle)

What about the bar down the street that doesn't cover his employees. Those
employees will get coverage from tax money. And where will that tax money
come from?

wrote:

Anything is possible, but if current employees have health care, it's
more likely that new employees will have the same or lower health care
costs.

Why lower?

Because the new health care law requires that everyone have coverage.
Companies will no longer be paying extra so that the uninsured can get
charity care.

Businesses are making more money than ever. We can see that in the
quarterly reporting. Earnings keep climbing. They aren't investing
in new capacity because demand is lacking.


No, they are not investing because they are stockpiling cash for other
things, contingencies. What other things? Well, nobody knows, but the
uncertainty over their imminent insurance costs is, for sure, one bucket
they want filled.

harry wrote:
-

Good idea. Most of your nutcases are religious.
We have a few over here too. But at least they don't have guns.

Nutcases are found everywhere. Still, if you want to categorize evil-doers
by religious affiliation, you'd be hard-pressed to outdo Stalin, Mao,
Pol-Pot, and Pee-Wee Herman.

On 28 Jul 2011 01:58:42 GMT, (M.A. Stewart)
wrote:

Kurt Ullman ) writes:
In article ,
" wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:09:59 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...


To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

I recall last winter during some especially cold weather some right-wingnuts
were snickering about how that warming climate sure was a bitch, haw haw
haw. For some reason they don't seem to have much to say on the subject at
the moment.

Yeah, we've all noticed that it's only "climate" when it's hot; when it's cold
it's only "weather".

When it is cold, it because with climate change you should expect wide
deviations in the weather. So, anything the weather does is climate
change. My favorite was a few years ago when the weather guys
forecasted the worst hurricane season in years because climate change
was warming the waters. When it was one of the quietest in years, that
was because climate change had resulted in higher winds across the
African deserts which meant more particles which meant fewer hurricanes.

I also point to use of the word 'Climate Change'. It was global
warming. When things get a certain bad conotations attached to them, the
names are changed in an attempt to make them some how different. Global
warming is now climate change.

It's just more vague and ambiguous... especially the manner that the word
is used to brainwash people into thinking the word 'climate' means a
'singularity'. Define the climate.

In Canada when its hot, its called 'global warming'. When its cold its
called 'climate change'! They have all the bases covered.

Timeshares are now "interval ownership".
Liberals are now "progressives".

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz



Both Climate Change and Global Warming are accurate terms, but right
wing folks kept saying "oh, it's so cold, so much for Global Warming".
People who don't understand that more energy means more extreme
weather fell for that ****. Climate Change is a more meaningful term
in that it doesn't specify just one aspect of what a changing climate
will mean.

Do you actually think that the world isn't getting warmer? Virtually
all scientists know that. Some argue that human activity isn't
responsible, but most even agree that it is.

Changing a brand when it has a bad reputation (deservedly or not) is a
fairly standard practice. I, by the way, am not a Liberal. I am far to
the left of that. As Phil Ochs wrote, a "Liberal is 10 degrees to the
left of center in good times, and 10 degrees to the right if it
affects the personally". It's only with the complete takeover of our
media by corporate power that a Liberal is considered some sort of
radical.

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville,
AL 35899, USA;
E-Mail:
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail:
;
Tel.: +1-256-961-7960; Fax: +1-256-961-7751.
Received: 24 May 2011; in revised form: 13 July 2011 / Accepted: 15 July
2011 /
Published: 25 July 2011

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative
imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of
future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an
observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative
feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural
cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression
analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a
simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the
period 2000-2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled
climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not
possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the
feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved
problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative
forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget
observations.



http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
dgk wrote:
..

Both Climate Change and Global Warming are accurate terms, but right
wing folks kept saying "oh, it's so cold, so much for Global Warming".
People who don't understand that more energy means more extreme
weather fell for that ****. Climate Change is a more meaningful term
in that it doesn't specify just one aspect of what a changing climate
will mean.

And yet the article I posted a couple of minutes ago indicates that the
models are grossly wrong and the warming (at least from CO2) exagerated.


Do you actually think that the world isn't getting warmer? Virtually
all scientists know that. Some argue that human activity isn't
responsible, but most even agree that it is.
Nope to the first. As to the second "most" is hardly a really
technical term.




Changing a brand when it has a bad reputation (deservedly or not) is a
fairly standard practice. I, by the way, am not a Liberal. I am far to
the left of that. As Phil Ochs wrote, a "Liberal is 10 degrees to the
left of center in good times, and 10 degrees to the right if it
affects the personally". It's only with the complete takeover of our
media by corporate power that a Liberal is considered some sort of
radical.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

wrote:

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

But what happens when the observations don't line up with the
experimental/simulation/predicted data? A new report, just out today, shows:

Money quotes:
* Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space
than alarmist computer models have predicted

* The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United
Nations computer models have predicted

* supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

* real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple
assumptions fed into alarmist computer models

* there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the
climate models show

* the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations
computer models predicted

* The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the
global warming debate

* atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner
predicted by alarmist computer models

* carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less
heat than alarmist computer models have predicted

Article in Forbes:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

Research Paper (PDF, 11 pages)
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get about eight
molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.

Still think 8 is the right number?


--
Dan Espen

"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

But what happens when the observations don't line up with the
experimental/simulation/predicted data? A new report, just out today, shows:

Money quotes:
* Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space
than alarmist computer models have predicted
....

That's the great thing about science.
It adapts to the new data.

Notice that it doesn't start out with a conclusion that it defends at
any cost. More data comes in, new conclusions emerge.

Personally, I think it would be great if we found that CO2 levels
don't cause any problems. As soon as that's the scientifically accepted
conclusion, I'll accept it too.

Meanwhile, I'm not about to take my science from political leaders
including Al Gore and Dick Cheney.

--
Dan Espen

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Except that the employees were _already_ covered w/ health care at
less cost and higher benefits than are allowed under the new rules
so that in fact they have less care available and higher costs than
before.

--

Except since they were covered with health care already, and that
health care meets the minimums, which you acknowledge, they wouldn't
incur any additional charges

(Giggle)

What about the bar down the street that doesn't cover his employees. Those
employees will get coverage from tax money. And where will that tax money
come from?

From the fines imposed on those that don't meet the law

From the savings to the health care system because they catch/diagnose cirrhosis
of the liver earlier thus preventing unnecessary liver transplants

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:



From the fines imposed on those that don't meet the law

SInce the fines as currently structured are less than the likely
premiums, how is that supposed to work?

From the savings to the health care system because they catch/diagnose
cirrhosis
of the liver earlier thus preventing unnecessary liver transplants

I ahve followed these things professionally for nearly 3 decades and
the next study that shows this will be the first. Even in insured
populations this doesn't show up.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 7/27/2011 2:05 AM, harry wrote:
....

Most Americans are Godless.

That's certainly not what polling data indicates...while historic
organized denominations (of all stripes) are losing market share to the
nondenominational and that ilk, individuals indicate a personal belief
at roughly 70% overall US population. Down some, but not "most" on the
side of no belief or belief in none by any stretch.

[No value judgment implied either way, simply observation...]

--

"HeyBub" writes:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Except that the employees were _already_ covered w/ health care at
less cost and higher benefits than are allowed under the new rules
so that in fact they have less care available and higher costs than
before.

--

Except since they were covered with health care already, and that
health care meets the minimums, which you acknowledge, they wouldn't
incur any additional charges

(Giggle)

What about the bar down the street that doesn't cover his employees. Those
employees will get coverage from tax money. And where will that tax money
come from?

Employers that don't currently pay for coverage will have to.
The premiums will come partly from the employer, partly from the
employee. If there is tax money involved, I believe it plays a minor
role.

But that's not the question you should be asking.

Currently if one of those uncovered bar employees gets cancer or has a car
accident, who pays for their treatment?

--
Dan Espen

wrote:

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a
standard aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the
earth's atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get
about eight molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.

Still think 8 is the right number?

A cubic meter is 1 million cubic centimeters (milliliters). To approximate
the earth's CO2 concentration, it would need 300 milliliters of CO2.

"DGDevin" ) writes:
"M.A. Stewart" wrote in message ...

You praise his language and then you denigrate him.

His language is often amusing; the claims he makes here have a way of
imploding when examined closely, as even he will admit on occasion.

Your predictably
following the GlobalWarmers script and language to a tee, including the
hyperbole, via various adjectives etc..


It is noteworthy that you think there is a "script" to be followed.


I have heard the same lame regurgitation's of the "script" for more than
a decade and half.


Every
President in living memory has called for the U.S. to end its dependence on
imported oil, were they all part of the conspiracy too, including the
Republicans?


Whoooosh... off on a whole different tangent.




The people who recognize when science has been politicized, and won't buy
the agitprop.

Another irony meter bursts into flames.



But is it burning clean? You know... burning clean, which is when all the
carbon (C) atoms contained in the meter are properly oxidized and the
final product is a colourless, odourless, non-toxic gas called carbon
dioxide (CO2), a gas, when dissolved in beer, makes beer taste good.

Kurt Ullman ) writes:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...


First ya gotta define 'climate scientist', and then you have to see the
paper trail of whatever survey the article is quoting.


I'm not talking about an article, but about the overall consensus of the
scientific community.


Consensus of the scientific community? 99.9% of the scientific community
won't _participate_ in it, because it's science that has been politicized!

In science 101 it is learned, when sciences are politicize, a person of
science must be very careful, the person could be cornered, and no matter
what, they will be a loser. Solution to not being a loser... don't
participate. The propagandists know this... that's why they are bold with
their science fiction. This is a destruction of knowledge. Of course this
is nothing new... it goes back for centuries... pick up a history book and
study Galileo Galilie.

Toronto Canada has a population of 2.5 mill, there is maybe 40,000
scientist there. Think that number is too big?... divide it in two. 20,000
of 2.5 mill is 0.8%. Canada has a population of 35 mill. 0.8% of 35 mill is
280,000. California has a population of 35 mill also. Half a million
scientists in just Canada and California. Do the math for the rest of the
USA, don't forget Western Europe with it's population of 320 mill,
then Eastern Europe/Russia all the way over to China, Japan, Australia,
India, Middle East, Africa, Mexico, South America, and I hear there is an
extremely high percentage at the South Pole... but they really don't stay
there very long... something to do with -100F and colder wind chills.



Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
already settled.
Michael Crichton (1942 - 2008), Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17,
2003


Bingo. Add to that scientists who work for organizations funded by the
fossil fuel industry (as prominent climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen
has) and you have cause to wonder how they came to their conclusions. It's
amusing that some folks insist scientists will back a phony climate change
theory to get research funding, but apparently it's no problem if a
scientist who denies manmade climate change has a history of being funded by
OPEC and EXXON.


Yet nobody gets all upset about the governmental grants that focus on
climate change. WHen was the last time any hypothesis that CC isn't real
got any funding from the Feds. People note that and change behaviors
accordingly. Governmental funding can be every bit of skewed as that of
Exxon.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get about eight
molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.


Ya forgot the free atoms.



Still think 8 is the right number?


--
Dan Espen

"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a
standard aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the
earth's atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get
about eight molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.

Still think 8 is the right number?

A cubic meter is 1 million cubic centimeters (milliliters). To approximate
the earth's CO2 concentration, it would need 300 milliliters of CO2.

Cool.

Since CO2 is around 400PPM I think we're talking about 400 cubic
centimeters? Somewhere around 24 cubic inches. Sounds like easy
quantities to measure and work with.

--
Dan Espen

(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.

Ya forgot the free atoms.

Free atoms? Definition:

(atomic physics) An atom, as in a gas, whose properties, such as
spectrum and magnetic moment, are not significantly affected by other
atoms, ions, or molecules nearby.

Not significant.

--
Dan Espen

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a
standard aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the
earth's atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get
about eight molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.

Still think 8 is the right number?

A cubic meter is 1 million cubic centimeters (milliliters). To approximate
the earth's CO2 concentration, it would need 300 milliliters of CO2.

Cool.

Since CO2 is around 400PPM I think we're talking about 400 cubic
centimeters? Somewhere around 24 cubic inches. Sounds like easy
quantities to measure and work with.


That's the same as a small handful of aggregate in a cubic yard of concrete.



--
Dan Espen

"harry" wrote in message
...


Went through a whole box of tissues on that one, didn't you, Harry. But
nothing further to say about how Japan was occupied for fifty years?
Just
smart enough to know when to shut your mouth, at least on some issues.
What
a sap.

I see you snipped the relevant bit.

The part where you jammed your foot in your mouth over Japan being occupied
for fifty years? There was no need to repeat it, everybody knows you didn't
know what you were talking about, as usual.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Keep cool? Fran Liebowitz observed that "... the outdoors is something
through which I pass between my apartment and my car." In your case, if
you never go outside, you should be okay.

I'd never thought of you as a NYC Jewish kind of person, one learns
something every day. I get a kick out of her recurring role on Law & Order
as a crusty arraignment judge, she's perfect for the role.

Adam Smith settled this "selfishness" hash in 1776 with the publication of
"Wealth of Nations." When everybody operates in their own self interest,
society overall benefits.

Except when somebody's self-interest causes enormous harm. The clowns at
the big investment banks who were getting paid many millions a year by
placing insanely risky bets on behalf of their firms were certainly taking
care of their personal self-interest, but they brought down huge companies
and guess who ended up paying the tab for that? In order for Smith's
*theory* to be tolerable you have to be willing to ignore massive harm that
unrestrained self-interest can cause. On the low end that means a
restaurant saves time and money by not cooking hamburger thoroughly enough
and gives food poisoning to the lunchtime customers; on the high end it
means international bankers figure out they can make a bundle arranging for
Greece to borrow money (with cooked books) it won't be able to pay back,
trashing the economy of a nation and perhaps a continent in the process--but
the bankers did just fine. So long as you're willing to overlook all the
damage caused then the theory looks great especially from a distance. But
I'm still glad the health dept. inspects the restaurants I dine at and I
wish nations would put the banks on a shorter leash, there has been some
progress on that since the most recent crash, but of course the bankers are
always chipping away at the law.

Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion given
us by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for the gall
bladder).

Did you feed your children, or keep all the food for yourself and tell the
kids to go catch themselves a cat and cook it up?

BTW, you're forgetting the appendix, and strictly speaking your knees and
spine aren't the greatest work either.

(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a
standard aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the
earth's atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get
about eight molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.

Still think 8 is the right number?

A cubic meter is 1 million cubic centimeters (milliliters). To approximate
the earth's CO2 concentration, it would need 300 milliliters of CO2.

Cool.

Since CO2 is around 400PPM I think we're talking about 400 cubic
centimeters? Somewhere around 24 cubic inches. Sounds like easy
quantities to measure and work with.

That's the same as a small handful of aggregate in a cubic yard of concrete.

Back to alt.home.repair at last!

--
Dan Espen

In article , HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get about eight
molecules of CO2 into the tank?

A common smaller aquarium size is 20 gallons, which is about 70 liters.
Earth's atmosphere is currently about 390 parts per million CO2 by volume,
so 76 liters of air has about .03 liter of CO2. That's about 2.4 billion
billion molecules of CO2.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
harry wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:21*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , M.A. Stewart wrote in part:

You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!

* This was before all of the fossil fuels that existed 2 centuries ago
were formed from biomass. *Also at this time, there were no continents at
the poles, making the world freer of ice and reflecting less sunlight,
absorbing more. *Plus there is a feedback from CO2 being less soluble in
warmer oceans. *Sea level was something like 600 feet higher then than
now.

*- Don Klipstein )

What wordy ******** you spout. There was massive glaciation and low
sea levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

Shows lack of a glacial period at 200 million years ago.

Coal deposites were laid down a hundred million years before the
dinosaurs appeared

All of it? All other fossil fuels?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologi...ical_timelines

- Don Klipstein )

In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
Don Klipstein ) writes:
In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:

SNIP to angle of incidence stuff

Have you heard of 'Angle Of Incident' re the sun? That's one reason why
the pole areas are colder on Earth... and Mars.

Look at the global insolation (year-round long-term average solar
irradiance) maps in the Wikipedia article on insolation.

Wikipedia?? Are you kidding me?

Though the poles get much less than the equator and tropical areas do,
it's still significant. Also, the polar and subpolar areas (especially
the Arctic and near-Arctic when Antarctica has stable ice coverage) are
where the ice albedo / surface albedo positive feedback is most
significant.

Hmmmm.... what if it's overcast in the Arctic? It does get overcast there
you know. Especially so in the summertime, much more than in the winter
time "when the sun just don't [sic] shine!".

You attempt to discount "angle of incidence of the sun" and it's effect
(NOBODY GOT THAT IT WAS THE WRONG WORD, WHICH I PUT IN ON PURPOSE!!) in the
arctic. It's more than the less energy (less per square foot, metre etc.)
penetrating the arctic sea as a function of the lesser angle of the sun in
the sky, it's also because less energy reaches the surface (to penetrate),
because it travels through more atmosphere than if the sun was bolt
upright 90 Deg. at the equator on March 21st noonish.

Don't like Wikipedia? How about...

http://www.solar-facts.com/world-sol...insolation.php

There is also
another negative at work. Reflection of energy off of the surface of the
water. The lower the sun is in the sky, there is more energy reflection
off the surface of the water, hence less energy penetrating the water.

90 degrees - about 3% reflected

20 degrees - about 11% reflected

It's like one, two, three, strikes... all working together to make the "Oh
my God... if the arctic ice melts at the north shore of Baffin Island, it
will turn as hot as the Caribbean Sea!... Oh my God!" a leading bogus
concept.

--
- Don Klipstein )

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:3v-
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

From the fines imposed on those that don't meet the law

SInce the fines as currently structured are less than the likely
premiums, how is that supposed to work?

"Currently structured" answers your own question. If too many companies
decide to pay the fine but not provide health care, the fines can be
adjusted until they do. This law *should* have been passed when so many
businesses *began* ditching health care and the problem hadn't become a
nationwide epidemic.

Fixing healthcare is going to be a tough, ugly job because too many people
make oodles of money with things just the way they are. MRSA is a perfectly
example of the built in lack of incentives to actually *improve* healthcare.
With 30 years experience, Kurt, surely you can tell us how hospitals made
buckets of blood money making sick people even sicker from iatrogenic MRSA
infections. At least until the Feds stepped in, that is. And even that
will be a long, uphill battle.

By definition the free market cannot operate fairly in a system where you're
buying a future service of unknown quality that can KILL you if poorly
performed. What are your free market options when the market has killed
you? To not buy THAT insurance again? A basic Federal minimum
Medicare-like plan for everyone who's a citizen with the ability to buy all
the Cadillac "gap" insurance for those who feel that the minimum is not good
enough for them is where we are headed and will end up. It will just take a
while.
From the savings to the health care system because they catch/diagnose
cirrhosis
of the liver earlier thus preventing unnecessary liver transplants

I ahve followed these things professionally for nearly 3 decades and
the next study that shows this will be the first. Even in insured
populations this doesn't show up.

But the concept is sound. The current structure of the health care system
does very little to prevent ill health because that would rob them of
expensive "Hail Mary" procedures downstream. Mal's point is still valid
even if the example is not - and I don't even know if that's true. Just
because something isn't studied doesn't make it false. It's just unstudied.

On the other hand, I can direct you to old journals full of studies showing
ulcers were stress induced (they're not - they are bacterially caused). So
even a study showing X is cause by Y has to be taken with a grain of salt -
or some antibiotics. That's especially true when so darn many studies are
funded by the drug makers themselves with the express intent to prove a
product's efficacy or non-lethality. Common sense tells us that there are
likely to be some conflicts of interest in those studies.

Looking for myself, it seems to be now "common wisdom" that early detection
and treatment of cirrhosis can reduce the need for transplants:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cirrh...er+transplants

Makes sense to me, too, studied, unstudied, understudied or overstudied. Is
your objection simply that no studies have confirmed this? Or are you
actually saying that catching liver diseases earlier than where we tend to
catch them now would have NO effect on the liver transplant rates?

--
Bobby G.

DGDevin and HeyBub" dueled:

stuff snipped

I'm still glad the health dept. inspects the restaurants I dine at and I
wish nations would put the banks on a shorter leash, there has been some
progress on that since the most recent crash, but of course the bankers
are
always chipping away at the law.

The ferocity at which banks are trying to undo any return to sane regulation
is a testament to how much money they rake in when doing something like AIG
did: selling insurance in the form of "credit default swaps" without a
license or the proper reserves to back up their transactions.

Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion
given
us by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for the gall
bladder).

Did you feed your children, or keep all the food for yourself and tell the
kids to go catch themselves a cat and cook it up?

I don't think HB has any kids, but if he did, I am sure they would be eating
armadillos that they shot using HB's mini-arsenal and not cats.

--
Bobby G.

"M.A. Stewart" wrote in message
...
stuff snipped

You attempt to discount "angle of incidence of the sun" and it's effect
(NOBODY GOT THAT IT WAS THE WRONG WORD, WHICH I PUT IN ON PURPOSE!!) in

Was "it's" another "on purpose" mistake? (-:

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Did you feed your children, or keep all the food for yourself and
tell the kids to go catch themselves a cat and cook it up?

I don't think HB has any kids, but if he did, I am sure they would be
eating armadillos that they shot using HB's mini-arsenal and not cats.

You don't have to shoot armadillos. You can just trot up alongside one and
lift it up (it's feet keep moving) and dump it in the pot, much like a
lobster.

Interesting aside:

A couple of years ago the head of the Tennessee Highway Commission issued a
press release informing the citizens of the state that the Nine-Banded
Armadillo had migrated as far as The Volunteer State. He cautioned drivers
that, upon seeing one in the road, to NOT honk at it.

When startled, armadillos leap about four feet straight up and the driver
would experience a twelve-pound bowling ball striking his windshield at 30
to 60 miles per hour.

Probably wouldn't hurt the 'diller.

Interesting aside #2

A long time back, I did some work for the Audubon Society of Western
Pennsylvania. I saw an animal I didn't recognize trundling around the
building.

"What's that?" I asked the executive director.

"Oh, that's Harriet, our pet ground hog. Don't you have ground hogs in
Texas?" he replied.

"Not in my part of the state," I said. "We do have armadillos, though. Tell
you what, I'll trade you an armadillo for a ground hog."

"Good God, absolutely not!" was his hurried response.

"Why not?"

"Can you imagine what would happen if several granny-ladies walking our
nature trails suddenly see an armadillo bearing down on them? There aren't
enough ambulances in this part of the state to handle the results!"

I had to admit he had a point...

DGDevin wrote:

Did you feed your children, or keep all the food for yourself and
tell the kids to go catch themselves a cat and cook it up?


I eat, then their mother. The kids get the leftovers.

When they turn 18, I break their plate.