On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring......

There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to
limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going
to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company
has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just
pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products
you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going
to pass the cost on to the consumer.

And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money
in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of
what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar.
Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy
field too.

ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. 40% of americanslive along the coasts. who will pay to relocate so many?

food prices can soar if the callifornia food production caused by drought continues.

and cleaner air may save everyone money. hopefully the rate of cancer causedby pollution will drop

and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:49:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Why would you put toast in your toaster? I only take it out.

...to reheat or make it darker. (don't make French toast in it)


I do reheat leftover blueberry pancakes in it.

Lucky guy. You have leftovers.

Right Brian you have replied to an obvious troll once too often, so Plonk.
Not that you care whether or not I see your stuff I just thought I'd let
you know.

On 03/04/2015 15:48, Brian Gaff wrote:
But we don't live in a glass of iced water do we,

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:54:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time.

What does it cost India and China? Yes. The mass alarm will cost
Americans. Why should we pay the price, eh?

Recycling was sold as a great idea when you were young. Went from free
to a monthly bill.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:55:02 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring......

There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to
limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going
to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company
has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just
pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products
you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going
to pass the cost on to the consumer.

And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money
in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of
what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar.
Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy
field too.

ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time.

Your central argument appeared to be that companies don't want
to do anything about global warming because of profits. I'm just
pointing out that while there are indeed companies on one side of
the battle, there is plenty of profit motive and big business
for those on the other side too.

As to global warming costing everyone, seems rather unlikely.
Just as there are people that will be negatively affected by it,
there are others that will likely be positively affected.

Ignoring it will only have negative consequences if:

1 - The prevailing scientific view is correct and global
warming continues for many decades

2 - It's actually caused by manmade CO2.

3 - That we can slow it down substantially or reverse it by steps
that enough world govts can all agree on. With folks like China, the
largest emitter, saying screw you, how likely do you think
that is going to be?

And if anyone of the above is not true, then we will have
poured God knows how many trillions down a rat hole.


40% of americanslive along the coasts. who will pay to relocate so many?

Sea levels have risen about 6" in the last 100 years.
Currently, they are rising about twice that rate. Seems like the
prospect of Americans fleeing the coast, if it happens, is still
a long way off. If it happens, IDK who will pay for it, but
I won't be alive by then to worry about it. Venice has been battling
flooding for centuries and somehow they've managed to maintain a
city built on water.



food prices can soar if the callifornia food production caused by drought continues.

Maybe they will. But food prices for the world have already soared
because of the massive diversion of crops to alcohol in pursuit of clean
energy. Just look at a box of cornflakes or a loaf of bread.



and cleaner air may save everyone money. hopefully the rate of cancer causedby pollution will drop

You're mixing apples and oranges. CO2 is a normal component of the
earth's atmosphere and isn't a carcinogen.



and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation

There weren't hurricanes and tornadoes until now? And even
if you're suggesting that they are somehow worse now, there have
been periods in past where hurricane activity was increased. They
sometimes increase for a decade or two, then decline again. I don't
even see most meteorologists trying to claim that global warming
is responsible for hurricanes and tornadoes.

I'm not opposed to reasonable, cost effective steps that can
reduce CO2 emissions. Higher efficiency furnaces, more insulation
in new homes, LED lighting, for example are all good things. But
going too far, too quickly, driving up costs everywhere, putting the
US at a disadvantage to places like China and India, I don't think
that's a good idea. And then you have to contend with the fact that
the forces that most want to limit CO2, are also dead set against
much of what could be used. For example, the hippies won't allow a
nuke to be built. In my world, you can't have it both ways. If global
warming is caused by CO2 and 40% of Americans are going to have to
flee the coast, then shouldn't we be building nukes? Instead, we're
closing them down.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 08:47:39 -0500, Mark Storkamp
wrote:

In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land.
When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying
experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right
wing thinking"

What is good left wing thinking then?

I'll let you know if there ever is any.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:54:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring......

There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to
limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going
to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company
has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just
pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products
you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going
to pass the cost on to the consumer.

And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money
in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of
what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar.
Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy
field too.

ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. 40% of americanslive along the coasts. who will pay to relocate so many?

food prices can soar if the callifornia food production caused by drought continues.

and cleaner air may save everyone money. hopefully the rate of cancer causedby pollution will drop

and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation

In other words, "The sky is falling!"

There are many that would argue the biggest threat to our planet today
resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:25:13 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation

In other words, "The sky is falling!"

There are many that would argue the biggest threat to our planet today
resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

....when he fumbles the football

"ISIS hunting Americans is like a sheep hunting a lion"
-- Dakota Meyer -- Medal of Honor

On 2015-04-03, Gordon Shumway wrote:
In other words, "The sky is falling!"

These gullible maroons and useful idiots for the power brokers actually
think they are going to control the earth's climate. (I have a bridge
in Brooklyn to sell them.) This is probably rooted in the old Soviet
idea that the State would become so powerful that it would control the
very weather. That political ideology has now been enhanced in scope
in order for the State to take on the Earth's climate as a whole.

It is instructive to look at the predictions made by Warmists and other
environmentalists over the last 15 or 20 years. (Or the last 40+ years
for that matter.) How many of their dire predictions have actually come
to pass?

To really understand the phenomenon of human-caused "global warming,"
"climate change," or whatever they choose to call it next week you have
to follow the power and the money, same as always. It's really about
separating you from your money, your property, and whatever is left of
your freedoms.

"Global warming is a bunch of hooey."
-- Prof. Reid Bryson, father of scientific climatology

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level
and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your
mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on
land. When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying
experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right
wing thinking"

What is good left wing thinking then?

Doing a little basic research, and actually thinking about all the issues
involved in the problem. Not making rash conclusions and basing your thinking on
that, or basing your think on the desired results.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ice-melted-map

Mayhem wrote:
On 04/02/2015 07:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level
and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your
mark? In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on
land. When they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html



Hint: If you own inland property in Florida, you'll soon have an
ocean view.

If all the ice melts, Florida will be gone.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ice-melted-map

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:48:00 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:25:13 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation

In other words, "The sky is falling!"

There are many that would argue the biggest threat to our planet today
resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

...when he fumbles the football

....and Iran has recovered it on our 1 yard line.

Our fearless leader has probably dismissed the aide with the football
so he wouldn't "photo bomb" up any selfies for the prez.

wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:01:57 -0700, "Col. Edmund Burke"
wrote:

"Rebel 1" axes in message
...
I posting this here because there a good analytical
minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way(sic)
with ice
cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no
longer touch
the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark
at the
water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the
water rise
above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1



In the coming Hydrocene Era, life on planet Earth will be
forced to
adapt to a marine lifestyle or face extinction. London,
England
(aka: the tiny island nation) will be the first to submit
to rising
sea levels, forcing these buck-toothed pasty-faces to run
for higher
ground.

Discuss.........................

Essentially you are correct. Assuming nothing happens,
like a nuclear
war, that makes a fundamental change in the population and
the
atmosphere, the earth will get warmer. The science is
certainly
looking that way right now. If we are going to blame CO2
levels, it
needs to be pointed out that when you track CO2 for the
last 10,000
years, it tracks world population as closely as any other
metric, That
can easily be explained by agriculture. They cut down
forests and plow
up grasslands to grow crops. The plants they grow are
harvested as
soon as they are mature so they are not much of a CO2
sink.

Any global warming plan that is not going to scrub a few
billion off
the population is simply snake oil sold by hucksters like
Al Gore who
wants to make billions from a carbon tax by selling
worthless
"credits" for that money.

PLEASE don't feed the troll

On 4/3/2015 5:12 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:54:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time.

What does it cost India and China? Yes. The mass alarm will cost
Americans. Why should we pay the price, eh?

It will cost everyone. The one thing that may be different, in the US
we build expensive homes as close to the water as we can. I really
don'r care if you wnt to buld a $10million five feet from theovean, but
pay the premium and don't ask me to bail you out.


Recycling was sold as a great idea when you were young. Went from free
to a monthly bill.


No bill here. We get free pickup. Trash to energy makes a lot of sense
to reduce volume. Nor everything should be recycled. No can we keep
digging holes in the ground and fill them with trash.

On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:40:23 -0400, Rebel1 wrote:

I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add
enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they
are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the
cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1

Now do this again, but substitute a good whiskey or other hard liquor
for the water. Now put a mark at the "whiskey" level and wait until the
cubes all melt. I'll bet that the level in that glass will have gone
down at least 75%, and you'll be seeing TWO glasses!

What this proves:

If we fill all the oceans with booze, we'll have nothing to fear!
(except possibly liver damage)

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 17:01:00 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:


If all the ice melts, Florida will be gone.

No big loss......
Florida is the PENIS of the United States......
It sticks out, ready to FU_K other countries.

And that also explains while all the old people go to Florida.
Old men no longer have their own usable penis.
Old women no longer have a penis to satisfy them! [LOL]

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 02:40:53 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 23:24:56 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

No bill here. We get free pickup. Trash to energy makes a lot of sense
to reduce volume. Nor everything should be recycled. No can we keep
digging holes in the ground and fill them with trash.

There is a bill, they just hide it in your property taxes and that
bill went up when they started recycling. The only thing that actually
makes economic sense to recycle is metal and the "scrappers" actually
will pick that up for free,

There is really no reason why we can't keep throwing stuff in a land
fill (the overall area used is insignificant) but burning what you can
to create energy makes more sense. With things like p[aper and
plastic, it probably makes more sense than recycling them in most
places. They were shipping plastics over 1000 miles from here to the
recycling plant. How is that ecologically sound? Without the tax payer
subsidy it would not have happened at all.

This thread has already had far too much politics and political name
calling in it. I personally HATE politics, politicians, and most of
all, people who turn every goddamn thing into a political discussion on
the internet.

Forgot about all the politics for one moment and look at the facts. We
as humans are dumping a lot of crap into the environment and many of
them are not natural substances. burning wood or paper is fairly
natural, but plastics and manmade chemicals are not. Although oil itself
is natural, it's buried deep in the ground and would not be burnt if we
did not pump it out. Burning as much oil as we use daily, MUST have an
impact on our planet. Anyone who can not understand this is either
stupid or very foolish, or they spend too much time listening to
politicians who are nothing but a bunch of liars, and who dont have a
clue what is really happening. I'll listen to scientists who get their
facts from actual science, not those who kiss ass to the government.

Initially, the phrase "global warming" was not exactly accurate, because
when one part of the planet gets warmer, another part gets colder.
Climate change is a far more accurate phrase. And it's obvious we are
changing the climate with all the crap we are dumping into the air,
water, landfills, and so on. It's just a matter of HOW MUCH impact we
are causing. After all, there is really nothing to base the changes on.
Our recorded history of weather and climate changes mostly only go back
to the late 1800's. However scientists can determine weather and
climate impacts based on carbon, layers of ice, rings on trees, and much
more.

I've seen several of those PBS documentaries on global warming, and I
will tend to believe then before any politicians, since there are real
scientists involved. According to them, we are seeing the glaciers
melting faster than they were in the past. Yet, even they admit it's not
100% certain if these changes are caused by human related pollution or
just another change in the earth's "cycles". Apparently there have been
other major changes in the earth's environment going back hundreds or
thousands of years. But we dont know enough from way back in history to
really know the actual patterns.

It's obvious that there have been major changes ever since the earth
began, but how much is natural patterns of change and how much is caused
by humans, is the question which is not fully answered.

Although humans have existed on earth for many years, so have other
species. All living creatures create waste products, and all of them
create methane gas as a byproduct. But this is a natural process, as
well as the burning of wood and other vegetation.

It's our industrial age that has existed for less than 200 years, which
is the concern. Never before was oil pumped from the ground, burned in
massive amounts, and turned into plastics and unstable or even harmful
chemicals. Since we dont have thousand of years of history to base our
change, no one really knows exactly how much change we are causing to
the planet.

But one thing that is obvious, is that we are dumping a lot of
pollution, and must of it has never occurred on earth. That makes it
pretty apparent that we are having a negative impact to some degree.

Therefore, it only makes sense to do as much as possible to eliminate as
much pollution as possible. It's aparent how badly air pollution once
affected Los Angeles, and none of that is good for us, and for the
planet.

A big part of the problem is that we're going about much of this all
wrong. We want to control and eliminate this pollution, yet we are
producing more of it than ever. We are supposed to recycle, and that is
a good thing, but MORE than half of the problem is to STOP MAKING
GARBAGE, before we have to recycle it. Packaging is one of the biggest
problems. Every goddamn thing we buy in the store is encased in plastic
and has paper tags, labels, and so much more. Most of that packaging is
NOT needed. Worse yet, we consumers are paying for all that garbage, and
then we pay again, to get rid of it.

For example, I used to go to a store to buy a plumbing washer. It was
in bulk containers and the price was about half a dollar. Now, they are
wrapped in a clamshell, with a cardboard insert which has a picture of
it and some words. Final cost $2.00, for the same items that used to
cost 50 cents. That's $1.50 for the package. Then we have to spend 10
minutes fighting to open the ****ing thing, and finally have to dispose
of it, and are supposed to recycle it, which often requires 20 pages of
information to determine if it's recyclable plastic or not, and then we
may have to either pay to get it removed by garbage collectors, or we
have to burn gas to drive to a recycling place.

If the government is so concerned about pollution, how come they never
go after the INPUT side, meaning those who produce all the garbage,
especailly those in the packaging industry. It appears they are only
concerned abotu the OUTPUT side, meaning the trash we have to get rid
of. They got it all wrong.

Per :
In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to
places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but
not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast
as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and
most of Florida.

Barrier Islands. Ocean City NJ's official height above sea level is
something like 36 inches. "A few feet" and they're gone.

Ocean Islands. Whole Pacific island populations are already having to
relocate and the handwriting is on the wall for others like the
nation of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean.

U.S. Navy. I cannot cite, maybe somebody else can; but IIRC the Navy
is building something like 5 feet of sea level rise into it's plans over
the next so-many years - and I think the number is way less than 100.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:54:45 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level
and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your
mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on
land. When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying
experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right
wing thinking"

What is good left wing thinking then?

Doing a little basic research, and actually thinking about all the issues
involved in the problem. Not making rash conclusions and basing your thinking on
that, or basing your think on the desired results.

Is that what lib Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva was doing
a couple weeks ago when he sent letters to universities where
there were scientists who had done research that cast doubt
on global warming, demanding all their records, papers, emails
going back years?

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 2:41:02 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 23:24:56 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

No bill here. We get free pickup. Trash to energy makes a lot of sense
to reduce volume. Nor everything should be recycled. No can we keep
digging holes in the ground and fill them with trash.

There is a bill, they just hide it in your property taxes and that
bill went up when they started recycling. The only thing that actually
makes economic sense to recycle is metal and the "scrappers" actually
will pick that up for free,

There is really no reason why we can't keep throwing stuff in a land
fill (the overall area used is insignificant) but burning what you can
to create energy makes more sense. With things like p[aper and
plastic, it probably makes more sense than recycling them in most
places. They were shipping plastics over 1000 miles from here to the
recycling plant. How is that ecologically sound? Without the tax payer
subsidy it would not have happened at all.

IDK what the overall economic equation is regarding recycling
today. At least with newspapers, even 40 years ago, it was
marginally profitable to recycle them, most of the time. Prices
paid fluctuated though, so sometimes it wasn't. Plastics, IDK.
They do turn most of that into carpet, whether it could entirely
survive on it's own economics, IDK. Here for example, they collect
it separately together with newspaper, paper, cardboard, glass,
cans, etc. It all goes to a sort facility. I think the sort facility
is private, the pickup is the township. Township might be paying
the sort facility something though. But if they had to dispose of
it a landfill, that would cost as well.

Burning it was a big battle fought here and lost in the 80s.
County wanted to build an electric generation facility at the
landfill site. It made sense to me. Turn the trash into
electricity, generate energy that gets sold, save landfill
space. You know what happened.
The usual hippies that are against anything and everything
got it killed. So, the landfill is filling up....

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:23:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:

This thread has already had far too much politics and political name
calling in it. I personally HATE politics, politicians, and most of
all, people who turn every goddamn thing into a political discussion on
the internet.

Forgot about all the politics for one moment and look at the facts. We
as humans are dumping a lot of crap into the environment and many of
them are not natural substances. burning wood or paper is fairly
natural, but plastics and manmade chemicals are not. Although oil itself
is natural, it's buried deep in the ground and would not be burnt if we
did not pump it out. Burning as much oil as we use daily, MUST have an
impact on our planet.

If I light a match, flush a toilet, or buy a sofa, it MUST
have an impact on our planet. Having an effect is not the issue.
The question is what the effect is, what's the extent of it,
does it require more immediate action.




Anyone who can not understand this is either
stupid or very foolish, or they spend too much time listening to
politicians who are nothing but a bunch of liars, and who dont have a
clue what is really happening. I'll listen to scientists who get their
facts from actual science, not those who kiss ass to the government.

See above.



Initially, the phrase "global warming" was not exactly accurate, because
when one part of the planet gets warmer, another part gets colder.
Climate change is a far more accurate phrase.

Oh please. It was perfectly clear what global warming meant.
It was changed to climate change because it's more dramatic and
easier to instill fear in people. And because the global temp has
been going sideways now for 15 years.


And it's obvious we are
changing the climate with all the crap we are dumping into the air,
water, landfills, and so on.

Really, exactly how is this climate change cause and effect obvious to you?
Where you alive in say 1900 and have a great memory for comparison?
Even the big climate change proponents say the earth has warmed about
1 deg in the last century. And the temp has been going sideways now
for the last 15 years.


It's just a matter of HOW MUCH impact we
are causing. After all, there is really nothing to base the changes on.

Then how did you just say that the fact that we're changing
the climate is obvious?


Our recorded history of weather and climate changes mostly only go back
to the late 1800's. However scientists can determine weather and
climate impacts based on carbon, layers of ice, rings on trees, and much
more.


That's true, to some extent. Some of it is sound science. Some
of it is more like tea leave reading. For example, do you really
think typical thermometers in the late 1800s that were recording the
temperature in central park were accurate to .01 deg? The
typical one today isn't that accurate. Do you think anyone was
recording the temperature all over the globe then, or even 50 years
ago. So, to make up for all that, you have to make "adjustments"
to create a continuous data stream for comparison. How you do the
adjustments varies and you don't think personal bias, the fact that
your funding is coming from govts that say global climate change is
real, can bias the outcome?

If you find global climate change is occurring fast, you get more
money, promotions, accolades. If you publish a paper that casts
doubt on it, even doubt about how fast it's occurring, you get
Congressmen demanding all your emails, records, contacts, ie a
witchhunt. And you don't get promoted or get fired. Think that
might have an effect?


I've seen several of those PBS documentaries on global warming, and I
will tend to believe then before any politicians, since there are real
scientists involved.

There are real scientists on the other side too. BTW, who funds
PBS? Think about that.


According to them, we are seeing the glaciers
melting faster than they were in the past. Yet, even they admit it's not
100% certain if these changes are caused by human related pollution or
just another change in the earth's "cycles". Apparently there have been
other major changes in the earth's environment going back hundreds or
thousands of years. But we dont know enough from way back in history to
really know the actual patterns.


It's obvious that there have been major changes ever since the earth
began, but how much is natural patterns of change and how much is caused
by humans, is the question which is not fully answered.

Now it sounds like you're saying there is merit to the arguments
that you spent the last 5 paragraphs disparaging.



Although humans have existed on earth for many years, so have other
species. All living creatures create waste products, and all of them
create methane gas as a byproduct. But this is a natural process, as
well as the burning of wood and other vegetation.

It's our industrial age that has existed for less than 200 years, which
is the concern. Never before was oil pumped from the ground, burned in
massive amounts, and turned into plastics and unstable or even harmful
chemicals. Since we dont have thousand of years of history to base our
change, no one really knows exactly how much change we are causing to
the planet.

But one thing that is obvious, is that we are dumping a lot of
pollution, and must of it has never occurred on earth. That makes it
pretty apparent that we are having a negative impact to some degree.

You do realize that global warming is attributed to CO2, which
is a natural component of the atmosphere? It's only recently that
the EPA managed to call it a pollutant. It's kind of like saying
if I produced pure water and released it into the atmosphere that
it's a pollutant.



Therefore, it only makes sense to do as much as possible to eliminate as
much pollution as possible. It's aparent how badly air pollution once
affected Los Angeles, and none of that is good for us, and for the
planet.


Again your conflating CO2 with pollutants like NO2, CO, particulates,
which are toxic.




A big part of the problem is that we're going about much of this all
wrong. We want to control and eliminate this pollution, yet we are
producing more of it than ever. We are supposed to recycle, and that is
a good thing, but MORE than half of the problem is to STOP MAKING
GARBAGE, before we have to recycle it. Packaging is one of the biggest
problems. Every goddamn thing we buy in the store is encased in plastic
and has paper tags, labels, and so much more. Most of that packaging is
NOT needed. Worse yet, we consumers are paying for all that garbage, and
then we pay again, to get rid of it.

For example, I used to go to a store to buy a plumbing washer. It was
in bulk containers and the price was about half a dollar. Now, they are
wrapped in a clamshell, with a cardboard insert which has a picture of
it and some words. Final cost $2.00, for the same items that used to
cost 50 cents. That's $1.50 for the package. Then we have to spend 10
minutes fighting to open the ****ing thing, and finally have to dispose
of it, and are supposed to recycle it, which often requires 20 pages of
information to determine if it's recyclable plastic or not, and then we
may have to either pay to get it removed by garbage collectors, or we
have to burn gas to drive to a recycling place.

If the government is so concerned about pollution, how come they never
go after the INPUT side, meaning those who produce all the garbage,
especailly those in the packaging industry. It appears they are only
concerned abotu the OUTPUT side, meaning the trash we have to get rid
of. They got it all wrong.

They have gone after the input side. The ban on light bulbs,
the CAFE auto standards, low flush toilets, rebates for energy efficient
furnaces, reqts for more insulation in new houses, low water usage
washer standards are some examples. We even have more concentrated
laundry detergent that's 2X what the regular stuff is. There is a lot
that could be eliminated. One good example is bottled water that is
shipped in from anywhere from several states away to Fiji. But are
you prepared to tell people that Poland spring water is now illegal?

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per :
In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to
places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but
not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast
as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and
most of Florida.

Barrier Islands. Ocean City NJ's official height above sea level is
something like 36 inches. "A few feet" and they're gone.

Fortunately the sea level only rose 6" in the last 100 years.
It's currently rising at twice that rate, but still it's a long
way from a few feet.


Ocean Islands. Whole Pacific island populations are already having to
relocate and the handwriting is on the wall for others like the
nation of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean.

U.S. Navy. I cannot cite, maybe somebody else can; but IIRC the Navy
is building something like 5 feet of sea level rise into it's plans over
the next so-many years - and I think the number is way less than 100.
--
Pete Cresswell

Yes, I'd like to see that cite too.

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:43:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per :
In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to
places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but
not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast
as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and
most of Florida.

Barrier Islands. Ocean City NJ's official height above sea level is
something like 36 inches. "A few feet" and they're gone.

Fortunately the sea level only rose 6" in the last 100 years.
It's currently rising at twice that rate, but still it's a long
way from a few feet.


Ocean Islands. Whole Pacific island populations are already having to
relocate and the handwriting is on the wall for others like the
nation of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean.

U.S. Navy. I cannot cite, maybe somebody else can; but IIRC the Navy
is building something like 5 feet of sea level rise into it's plans over
the next so-many years - and I think the number is way less than 100.
--
Pete Cresswell

Yes, I'd like to see that cite too.

even a small increase in sea level can cause great grief for communities along the ocean. its called storm surge and rising sea levels dont help.

just look at new york and new jersey

"soup" wrote in message
...
Right Brian you have replied to an obvious troll once too often, so Plonk.
Not that you care whether or not I see your stuff I just thought I'd let
you know.

On 03/04/2015 15:48, Brian Gaff wrote:
But we don't live in a glass of iced water do we,


WELL! Now you've gone and done it, Brian. You went and got *PLONKED* by a
buck-toothed, pasty-faced limey. LOL

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:01:57 -0700, "Col. Edmund Burke"
wrote:

"Rebel 1" axes in message
...
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way(sic) with ice cubes.
Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e.,
they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until
the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1



In the coming Hydrocene Era, life on planet Earth will be forced to adapt
to
a marine lifestyle or face extinction. London, England (aka: the tiny
island nation) will be the first to submit to rising sea levels, forcing
these buck-toothed pasty-faces to run for higher ground.

Discuss.........................

Essentially you are correct. Assuming nothing happens, like a nuclear
war, that makes a fundamental change in the population and the
atmosphere, the earth will get warmer. The science is certainly
looking that way right now. If we are going to blame CO2 levels, it
needs to be pointed out that when you track CO2 for the last 10,000
years, it tracks world population as closely as any other metric, That
can easily be explained by agriculture. They cut down forests and plow
up grasslands to grow crops. The plants they grow are harvested as
soon as they are mature so they are not much of a CO2 sink.

Any global warming plan that is not going to scrub a few billion off
the population is simply snake oil sold by hucksters like Al Gore who
wants to make billions from a carbon tax by selling worthless
"credits" for that money.


I would like to see a decrease of about 5 billion arseholes from the face of
the earth.
I pray for that every nite.

And here is my god: http://tinyurl.com/qztqd9t

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:23:10 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:43:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per :
In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to
places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but
not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast
as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and
most of Florida.

Barrier Islands. Ocean City NJ's official height above sea level is
something like 36 inches. "A few feet" and they're gone.

Fortunately the sea level only rose 6" in the last 100 years.
It's currently rising at twice that rate, but still it's a long
way from a few feet.


Ocean Islands. Whole Pacific island populations are already having to
relocate and the handwriting is on the wall for others like the
nation of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean.

U.S. Navy. I cannot cite, maybe somebody else can; but IIRC the Navy
is building something like 5 feet of sea level rise into it's plans over
the next so-many years - and I think the number is way less than 100.
--
Pete Cresswell

Yes, I'd like to see that cite too.

even a small increase in sea level can cause great grief for communities along the ocean. its called storm surge and rising sea levels dont help.

just look at new york and new jersey

I look at NJ every day. Looking at it right now.
Nothing much new here, so far. We had serious
hurricanes here in the past. The first half of the last century
was a period of increased and more severe hurricanes. Last half,
1960s on, was more subdued, until Sandy. I've been saying for decades
that a big one was inevitable. Anyone with a lick of sense knew it.
We've had a huge influx of city folks move to the shore here in the last
two decades. People who have no concept of a hurricane, how destructive
they can be. They want to live on the water, so now they learned.
It's hard to tell me that the 6" rise in sea level over the last
100 years was a dominant or significant cause of what happened in NJ/NYC.
Then you have headlines like "most destructive hurricane ever.
Costliest hurricane ever." You think maybe the fact that there is 10X
the housing and commercial development here that there was in 1940 has
anything to do with that? Big, destructive storms have happened before.
They will happen again.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 16:58:55 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ice-melted-map


_" If all the ice melts"_

Beer gets hot. Nevada will never be an ocean again or a portion of a
glacier.. My land is a former salt water ocean.

You lib's are too worried.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


If the government is so concerned about pollution, how come they never
go after the INPUT side, meaning those who produce all the garbage,
especailly those in the packaging industry. It appears they are only
concerned abotu the OUTPUT side, meaning the trash we have to get rid
of. They got it all wrong.

They have gone after the input side. The ban on light bulbs,
the CAFE auto standards, low flush toilets, rebates for energy efficient
furnaces, reqts for more insulation in new houses, low water usage
washer standards are some examples. We even have more concentrated
laundry detergent that's 2X what the regular stuff is. There is a lot
that could be eliminated. One good example is bottled water that is
shipped in from anywhere from several states away to Fiji. But are
you prepared to tell people that Poland spring water is now illegal?

If you had actually read what I posted, I was NOT speaking about
products. I was speaking about PACKAGING. Packaging is Garbage the
moment it's produced. Sure, some of it is needed, like you cant sell
soda or beer, or milk without the can or bottle. But why does a rubber
washer need to be in a plastic clamshell? IT DONT. Almost every piece
and part of a home repair job these days is in some sort of package.
Granted, a box of nails, needs the box, and as long as it's made of
paper, it has little environmental impact. But why does every single
copper elbow, tee, and plmbg fitting need to be wrapped in plastic? Why
does a 50ft roll of romex need to be in plastic? How about electrical
boxes. Yea, some of them are now in plastic, as well as romex
connectors. Think about all the time you as a home repair person, or as
a contractor, has to spend opening packages. I probably waste an hour
opening packages of copper pipe fittings, BEFORE I can begin the job.
And I could go on for hours listing all the UNNEEDED packaging in
building supplies.

But it's not just building supplies. Much food is over packaged, why
does a kids stuffed animal need to be in a package? Why does a simple
replacement connector for a cable tv coax need to be in a hard to open
clamshell package? THere again, I could go on and on...

And since you mentioned it.... Bottled water is one of the biggest scams
of all time. People are brainwashed into believing it's healthy. Most
of the time it's the same stuff that comes out of your tap. Sure, there
are places where water is not safe to drink, and people need to buy
water, but most of the time it's just a waste of money. Last summer I
was at a Fair, and they were selling soda for $2 a bottle and water for
$3 a bottle. WTF????? This just shows how many stupid people live in
this world! I have never bought a bottle of water in my life, and never
will....

And also since you mentioned it, low flush toilets are a joke. I have
one and I flush it at least twice per use. But whether I'm using ONE
gallon, or 20 gallons per flush, dont matter. I have adaquate water.
Low flush toilets may help in California and Nevada, where water is
short, but are not needed in most parts of the country. The govt does a
better job if ****ing stuff up than they do saving resources. Those new
idiot gas cans are a perfect example.

On 04/04/2015 06:23 PM, wrote:
And also since you mentioned it, low flush toilets are a joke. I have
one and I flush it at least twice per use. But whether I'm using ONE
gallon, or 20 gallons per flush, dont matter. I have adaquate water.
Low flush toilets may help in California and Nevada, where water is
short, but are not needed in most parts of the country. The govt does a
better job if ****ing stuff up than they do saving resources. Those new
idiot gas cans are a perfect example.

True of most of the junk toilets you can buy at McLowesDepot.

Butt I've never had to flush either of my Toto G-Max toilets more than once.

On 4/5/2015 10:48 AM, wrote:


We had an early model Kohler 1.6 GPF that never worked right but the
American Standard I replaced it with works every time. Now the problem
is that 1.6 gallons of water is not enough to get the load all the way
to the septic tank.
As long as you wash your hands after the flush, it is OK. .-)


I have two Kohlers at home and we have four more at work and they all
work one flush, every time. These are 7 years and newer models.

I've not had a problem with getting things out to the sewer, but it is
always in the back of my mind. I did have a backup, but it was roots,
not the freight going out. You still need a certain amount of water to
fload things along the way.

On 2015-04-03 9:47 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land.
When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying
experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right
wing thinking"

What is good left wing thinking then?


All partisanship is, by definition, NOT thinking at all.

Left or right, if you are following a dogma, you are not thinking.

This is why Col. Edmond Burke is more intelligent than politicians.

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:25:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


If the government is so concerned about pollution, how come they never
go after the INPUT side, meaning those who produce all the garbage,
especailly those in the packaging industry. It appears they are only
concerned abotu the OUTPUT side, meaning the trash we have to get rid
of. They got it all wrong.

They have gone after the input side. The ban on light bulbs,
the CAFE auto standards, low flush toilets, rebates for energy efficient
furnaces, reqts for more insulation in new houses, low water usage
washer standards are some examples. We even have more concentrated
laundry detergent that's 2X what the regular stuff is. There is a lot
that could be eliminated. One good example is bottled water that is
shipped in from anywhere from several states away to Fiji. But are
you prepared to tell people that Poland spring water is now illegal?

If you had actually read what I posted, I was NOT speaking about
products. I was speaking about PACKAGING.

I read what you posted and while you were focused on packaging, you
said that "they" haven't gone after the input side. The thread was
about sea levels rising due to global warming. The input side of CO2
global warming involves a lot more than packaging materials and many
of those probably have a higher impact.


Packaging is Garbage the
moment it's produced. Sure, some of it is needed, like you cant sell
soda or beer, or milk without the can or bottle. But why does a rubber
washer need to be in a plastic clamshell? IT DONT. Almost every piece
and part of a home repair job these days is in some sort of package.
Granted, a box of nails, needs the box, and as long as it's made of
paper, it has little environmental impact. But why does every single
copper elbow, tee, and plmbg fitting need to be wrapped in plastic?

IDK where you're shopping, but at HD, Lowes, the local plumbing supply,
ACE hardware elbows, tees and most other plumbing fittings aren't wrapped
in plastic. They are in bins.


Why
does a 50ft roll of romex need to be in plastic?

I guess you could put 8 cable ties or similar around it,
to keep it from being a tangled up mess,
but I bet the difference in plastic used, isn't much. That
wrapper is mighty thin. Plus you need something to put the
brand, product info on it, make it attractive to sell. A
thin plastic wrapper does that, cable ties, not so much....


How about electrical
boxes. Yea, some of them are now in plastic, as well as romex
connectors.

Some of the specialty boxes, like outdoor ones are. But the highest
volume ones again, are in bins around here.


Think about all the time you as a home repair person, or as
a contractor, has to spend opening packages. I probably waste an hour
opening packages of copper pipe fittings, BEFORE I can begin the job.
And I could go on for hours listing all the UNNEEDED packaging in
building supplies.

Here those copper fittings, if you want 2 or 6 are in bins. If you
want 25, 50 etc, then they are in bags or bins. I find that convenient
and don't see the problem.



But it's not just building supplies. Much food is over packaged, why
does a kids stuffed animal need to be in a package?

Probably so it doesn't get dirty, contaminated by the 50 people that
pick it up before they buy it. I would think many consumers, concerned
about their kids, would prefer it packaged. But again, some are
packaged, some aren't.


Why does a simple
replacement connector for a cable tv coax need to be in a hard to open
clamshell package? THere again, I could go on and on...

Probably works better than having bins where all kinds of parts
wind up mixed up. That is a real problem with the existing bins
at HD, Lowes, etc. Many times 1/3 or more of the parts in there
are not what the bin says, because customers screw it up. So....
from a stores perspective, as well as a customer's perspective,
having items packaged probably makes sense in most cases. Also
the packaging usually has the install instructions for the consumer
on the back.




And since you mentioned it.... Bottled water is one of the biggest scams
of all time. People are brainwashed into believing it's healthy. Most
of the time it's the same stuff that comes out of your tap. Sure, there
are places where water is not safe to drink, and people need to buy
water, but most of the time it's just a waste of money. Last summer I
was at a Fair, and they were selling soda for $2 a bottle and water for
$3 a bottle. WTF????? This just shows how many stupid people live in
this world! I have never bought a bottle of water in my life, and never
will....

I agree that if you wanted to cut the input side, bottled water is a
good place to start. Certainly a lot of CO2 is generated hauling
it around. But you didn't answer the question. What should
"they" do? Govt ban it? Tax it?




And also since you mentioned it, low flush toilets are a joke. I have
one and I flush it at least twice per use. But whether I'm using ONE
gallon, or 20 gallons per flush, dont matter. I have adaquate water.
Low flush toilets may help in California and Nevada, where water is
short, but are not needed in most parts of the country. The govt does a
better job if ****ing stuff up than they do saving resources. Those new
idiot gas cans are a perfect example.

Water takes energy to produce, energy to process the waste. Reducing
it is one input to reducing CO2. Not saying that all those toilets
work great, just that if you want to work the input side, it's one way
you do it.

replying to trader_4, Been There wrote:
Yea, Trader_4 got it right! Increase in storm destruction caused by coastal
development, not weather, no SL rise

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/mainte...lt-827479-.htm