Gunner Asch wrote:

For those of you who care one way or another, the reports of my death
are not true, albiet it was a very close thing.

Im damned glad I could write this to you...even the ones screaming and
pulling out their hair..."why didnt that son of a bitch die??!!!"

Well...I didnt die...And I plan on being around for a very long time to
be a pain in the ass to many people.

Gunner

Nah, wouldn't rejoice in your death, Gunner - far from it, your good
value, even if you are a Neanderthal in your politics. (and its too
far to go to the funeral, anyway), Look forward to more creative
political fantasies from you.

BTW - any near death experiences, did you see anything beyond an
astronomical medical bill?

Andrew VK3BFA.

wrote in message
...


Gunner Asch wrote:

For those of you who care one way or another, the reports of my death
are not true, albiet it was a very close thing.

Im damned glad I could write this to you...even the ones screaming and
pulling out their hair..."why didnt that son of a bitch die??!!!"

Well...I didnt die...And I plan on being around for a very long time to
be a pain in the ass to many people.

Gunner

Nah, wouldn't rejoice in your death, Gunner - far from it, your good
value, even if you are a Neanderthal in your politics. (and its too
far to go to the funeral, anyway), Look forward to more creative
political fantasies from you.

BTW - any near death experiences, did you see anything beyond an
astronomical medical bill?

Andrew VK3BFA.

Hey, Andrew, speaking of medical bills, here's some ammunition for you, when
you're arguing about your health care system versus ours: I have POA for my
mother and I received two bills for her two moderate hospital stays last
year. Combined bill: $734,000. Yes, I have the comma in the right place and
that's the right number of zeros. g

Apparently her insurance paid around $85,000 and the hospital was satisfied
with it. But if she had no insurance, the $700,000+ would have been her real
bill.

That ought to be good for a discussion or two over a beer in Oz.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:42:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

For those of you who care one way or another, the reports of my death
are not true, albiet it was a very close thing.

Im damned glad I could write this to you...even the ones screaming and
pulling out their hair..."why didnt that son of a bitch die??!!!"

Well...I didnt die...And I plan on being around for a very long time to
be a pain in the ass to many people.

Gunner

Nah, wouldn't rejoice in your death, Gunner - far from it, your good
value, even if you are a Neanderthal in your politics. (and its too
far to go to the funeral, anyway), Look forward to more creative
political fantasies from you.

BTW - any near death experiences, did you see anything beyond an
astronomical medical bill?

Andrew VK3BFA.

Nope...no NDEs that I recall, though dreaming..thats another thing.
Morphine and vicodin tend to make for some really unusual dreams and
chains of thinking when half awake.

One minute Id be watching the life flight helos coming in, and the next
Id be precipice jumping off the heliport which would segway into my
first jumps in airborne school...

Never boreing..but Im a guy who likes to live in Reality..and those
momentary flashes of elsewhere were distracting.


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Hey, Andrew, speaking of medical bills, here's some ammunition for you, when
you're arguing about your health care system versus ours: I have POA for my
mother and I received two bills for her two moderate hospital stays last
year. Combined bill: $734,000. Yes, I have the comma in the right place and
that's the right number of zeros. g

Apparently her insurance paid around $85,000 and the hospital was satisfied
with it. But if she had no insurance, the $700,000+ would have been her real
bill.


Ed,

I'm having a beer in the US atm. Now why is 85K good enough with insurance and 700K the
price w/o some sort of muscle behind you?

Now I'm thinking you are saying we need national health care to solve the problem. I may
be wrong so pipe up if I am wrong on that since my line of thought is based on that in
this thread.

Government forces health care to provide care at discounted rates and give urgent care to
those that show up in the emergincy room. That causes a transfer of expense to other
consumers.

Now some consumers are represented by insurance companies and have the clout to take
something close to US Government discounts. Not as close, but a good discount.

The only group of consumers left are those that have no powerful group to negotiate for
them. That is the guy that pays cash.

So as I see it, the distortions in health care are caused by government, fought by
insurance companies, and stuffed up the arse of people standing on their own.

I hope you are not advocating we need government to fix the mess government got us into.
Sounds too much like our current state of things in the financial industry.

Instead of single payer, I think we need single price. Paid by those that demand service
be given.

Wes

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:52:39 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...


Gunner Asch wrote:

For those of you who care one way or another, the reports of my death
are not true, albiet it was a very close thing.

Im damned glad I could write this to you...even the ones screaming and
pulling out their hair..."why didnt that son of a bitch die??!!!"

Well...I didnt die...And I plan on being around for a very long time to
be a pain in the ass to many people.

Gunner

Nah, wouldn't rejoice in your death, Gunner - far from it, your good
value, even if you are a Neanderthal in your politics. (and its too
far to go to the funeral, anyway), Look forward to more creative
political fantasies from you.

BTW - any near death experiences, did you see anything beyond an
astronomical medical bill?

Andrew VK3BFA.

Hey, Andrew, speaking of medical bills, here's some ammunition for you, when
you're arguing about your health care system versus ours: I have POA for my
mother and I received two bills for her two moderate hospital stays last
year. Combined bill: $734,000. Yes, I have the comma in the right place and
that's the right number of zeros. g

Apparently her insurance paid around $85,000 and the hospital was satisfied
with it. But if she had no insurance, the $700,000+ would have been her real
bill.

That ought to be good for a discussion or two over a beer in Oz.

Here, too. How in the **** can the hospitals get away with that kind
of ****? If you're -not- covered by insurance it costs EIGHT AND A
QUARTER TIMES MORE MONEY? insert sound of AK here

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Hey, Andrew, speaking of medical bills, here's some ammunition for you,
when
you're arguing about your health care system versus ours: I have POA for
my
mother and I received two bills for her two moderate hospital stays last
year. Combined bill: $734,000. Yes, I have the comma in the right place
and
that's the right number of zeros. g

Apparently her insurance paid around $85,000 and the hospital was
satisfied
with it. But if she had no insurance, the $700,000+ would have been her
real
bill.


Ed,

I'm having a beer in the US atm. Now why is 85K good enough with
insurance and 700K the
price w/o some sort of muscle behind you?

That's a very damned good question, Wes. It has an answer, but it's an
obscene and infuriating one.

The shorter answer, as I keep saying, is that the US health care system is
seriously broken. I didn't realize *how* broken it is until I started
editing in the pharma and medical field.


Now I'm thinking you are saying we need national health care to solve the
problem. I may
be wrong so pipe up if I am wrong on that since my line of thought is
based on that in
this thread.

I didn't say anything about it. National health care is about solving the
problem of people who don't have health care insurance or any other kind of
coverage. If you noticed, Gunner says he got a bill for $10K just for
getting checked out after chest pain. In some ways, that's worse than the
outrageous bill he'll get for the bypass surgery.

As for cutting medical costs, that's a separate problem that also needs to
be addressed. It's also by far the harder problem to deal with.


Government forces health care to provide care at discounted rates and give
urgent care to
those that show up in the emergincy room. That causes a transfer of
expense to other
consumers.

The discounted rates are also demanded by commercial insurers. The Medicare
rates and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield rates are not much different. In fact,
three local hospitals refused BC/BS insurance last year, while they were
still taking Medicare.

The individual rates for the uninsured are a joke. But they get all they
can. God help you if you're uninsured and you have some assets other than
your home, which usually will be protected when you declare bankruptcy.


Now some consumers are represented by insurance companies and have the
clout to take
something close to US Government discounts. Not as close, but a good
discount.

In my experience, they're very close. I've been through this a lot lately
with my mother.


The only group of consumers left are those that have no powerful group to
negotiate for
them. That is the guy that pays cash.

That guy is in trouble in today's health care environment.


So as I see it, the distortions in health care are caused by government,
fought by
insurance companies, and stuffed up the arse of people standing on their
own.

The distortions over relative payments are due to the mutually coercive and
noncompetitive nature of both health care providers and health care
insurers. The "market" is a complete joke, and it can't be otherwise. It's
in the nature of the industry, and of humans.

The high prices are due to a variety of things, and a much more complicated
issue.


I hope you are not advocating we need government to fix the mess
government got us into.
Sounds too much like our current state of things in the financial
industry.

The question you're asking is almost the same as the question about why we
need more nuclear power. And the answer to both is the same: Because there
is no viable alternative.


Instead of single payer, I think we need single price. Paid by those that
demand service
be given.

Wes

It sounds good, but it doesn't address the problem of high prices. They'd
still be high.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:52:39 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...


Gunner Asch wrote:

For those of you who care one way or another, the reports of my death
are not true, albiet it was a very close thing.

Im damned glad I could write this to you...even the ones screaming and
pulling out their hair..."why didnt that son of a bitch die??!!!"

Well...I didnt die...And I plan on being around for a very long time to
be a pain in the ass to many people.

Gunner

Nah, wouldn't rejoice in your death, Gunner - far from it, your good
value, even if you are a Neanderthal in your politics. (and its too
far to go to the funeral, anyway), Look forward to more creative
political fantasies from you.

BTW - any near death experiences, did you see anything beyond an
astronomical medical bill?

Andrew VK3BFA.

Hey, Andrew, speaking of medical bills, here's some ammunition for you,
when
you're arguing about your health care system versus ours: I have POA for
my
mother and I received two bills for her two moderate hospital stays last
year. Combined bill: $734,000. Yes, I have the comma in the right place
and
that's the right number of zeros. g

Apparently her insurance paid around $85,000 and the hospital was
satisfied
with it. But if she had no insurance, the $700,000+ would have been her
real
bill.

That ought to be good for a discussion or two over a beer in Oz.

Here, too. How in the **** can the hospitals get away with that kind
of ****? If you're -not- covered by insurance it costs EIGHT AND A
QUARTER TIMES MORE MONEY? insert sound of AK here

Look it up. It's been researched and written about. We're going to have to
learn more about it before long, anyway, because medical costs will be the
big issue once insurance is dealth with.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:06:43 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Here, too. How in the **** can the hospitals get away with that kind
of ****? If you're -not- covered by insurance it costs EIGHT AND A
QUARTER TIMES MORE MONEY? insert sound of AK here

Look it up. It's been researched and written about. We're going to have to
learn more about it before long, anyway, because medical costs will be the
big issue once insurance is dealth with.

Got any good keywords to suggest, Mr. Medical Editor? Googling "high
medical costs" gives me 49,000,000 entirely unusable hits.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:06:43 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

Here, too. How in the **** can the hospitals get away with that kind
of ****? If you're -not- covered by insurance it costs EIGHT AND A
QUARTER TIMES MORE MONEY? insert sound of AK here

Look it up. It's been researched and written about. We're going to have to
learn more about it before long, anyway, because medical costs will be the
big issue once insurance is dealth with.

Got any good keywords to suggest, Mr. Medical Editor? Googling "high
medical costs" gives me 49,000,000 entirely unusable hits.

For info on hospital charges and insurance, go to The New York Times and
search on "Uwe E. Reinhardt." Reinhardt is a Princeton economics professor
who has written some excellent articles that explain how it works. He's
currently running some short pieces in the NYT's "Economix" blog. Here's one
from last week that I think was the first. There was another one this past
Friday:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...paid-a-primer/

As for the components of health care costs, researching that is a BIG job.
You can go to _Health Affairs_ magazine:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/

Search on "cost of care" without the quotes. I got 4301 hits. You'll find
the important pieces of the puzzle there; you won't have to read much to get
the flavor of it.

If you want to see proposals for change from the medical establishment, go
to PubMed Central and search on things like "health care reform." As you're
using search terms, keep in mind that AMA style dictates "health care"
rather than "healthcare." That's how it's spelled in the better medical
journals. It usually doesn't matter but some search engines are pretty dumb.

Understanding insurance and hospital charges is pretty straightforward.
Understanding total health care costs is a lot more complicated, but an hour
or two will leave you better informed than 99% of the population.

Have fun.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:06:43 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

Here, too. How in the **** can the hospitals get away with that kind
of ****? If you're -not- covered by insurance it costs EIGHT AND A
QUARTER TIMES MORE MONEY? insert sound of AK here

Look it up. It's been researched and written about. We're going to have to
learn more about it before long, anyway, because medical costs will be the
big issue once insurance is dealth with.

Got any good keywords to suggest, Mr. Medical Editor? Googling "high
medical costs" gives me 49,000,000 entirely unusable hits.

I gave you the wrong URL for the first in that series of short articles.
This is it:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...o-much-part-i/

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:42:58 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:06:43 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Here, too. How in the **** can the hospitals get away with that kind
of ****? If you're -not- covered by insurance it costs EIGHT AND A
QUARTER TIMES MORE MONEY? insert sound of AK here

Look it up. It's been researched and written about. We're going to have to
learn more about it before long, anyway, because medical costs will be the
big issue once insurance is dealth with.

Got any good keywords to suggest, Mr. Medical Editor? Googling "high
medical costs" gives me 49,000,000 entirely unusable hits.

For info on hospital charges and insurance, go to The New York Times and
search on "Uwe E. Reinhardt." Reinhardt is a Princeton economics professor
who has written some excellent articles that explain how it works. He's
currently running some short pieces in the NYT's "Economix" blog. Here's one
from last week that I think was the first. There was another one this past
Friday:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...paid-a-primer/

Bueno, bwana. Danke.


As for the components of health care costs, researching that is a BIG job.

No doubt.


You can go to _Health Affairs_ magazine:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/

Search on "cost of care" without the quotes. I got 4301 hits. You'll find
the important pieces of the puzzle there; you won't have to read much to get
the flavor of it.

If you want to see proposals for change from the medical establishment, go
to PubMed Central and search on things like "health care reform." As you're
using search terms, keep in mind that AMA style dictates "health care"
rather than "healthcare." That's how it's spelled in the better medical
journals. It usually doesn't matter but some search engines are pretty dumb.

Good tips. Thanks again.


Understanding insurance and hospital charges is pretty straightforward.
Understanding total health care costs is a lot more complicated, but an hour
or two will leave you better informed than 99% of the population.

That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.


Have fun.

Thanks. I'll try.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.


Have fun.

Thanks. I'll try.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I still
can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for it. Oh, I
think I just got the answer.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.


Have fun.

Thanks. I'll try.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I still
can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for it. Oh,
I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling around
the sun, and the holocaust.

'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help us
discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for
it. Oh, I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling
around the sun, and the holocaust.

'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help us
discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.


And I always gave you credit for firing synapses! AGW is not a voting issue
for and by scientists, The fact that the AGW folks refuse to use the
"Scientific Method" and refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the
most. And, they push the "We're taking control of the energy, money and
political power!" position first and foremost.. It's not science anymore.
It's not denial, it's skepticism!

Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts and
data comes along. My mind can be changed with good evidence. That doesn't
exist yet.

Smoking is bad.
Earth orbits the Sun.
Jews were murdered.
Global Warming facts are not complete, the issue is not closed for debate.

(Does that clear it all up?)

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:43:45 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.


Have fun.

Thanks. I'll try.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I still
can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for it.

You can thank the Algores and Paul Ehrlichs of the world, "chicken
little" people who -lie- to get their agendas passed. Of course, I
can't believe the sheer numbers of suckers the religions of the world
take in for billions of dollars each year, either. Or how any known
politician could get reelected for a second, let alone tenth, term.
thud


Oh, I think I just got the answer.

If you're referring to my Tucker reference, that's small amounts of
radiation, not massive. People who have been regularly exposed to safe
doses routinely appear to have fewer incidences of cancer.

Did you know that the incidence of cancer in the general population of
the world is 45% now? I had no idea it was that high. But people
living in hot zones like (where background radiation is higher than
the surrounding areas) have lower cancer rates.

Low-dose Nagasaki and Hiroshima survivors are living longer than their
peers.

Kerala (state in India) has 8x the normal background radiation in the
rocks, Beach of Guarapari in Brazil 175x the normal levels, and the
Ramsar region of Iran radiates 18 rems, 400 times the world average.
From the book: Cancer rates among people living in the Rocky Mountain
states, which has the highest exposure in the country, are one-third
lower than the rest of the nation, while people living in the Lousiana
Delta, which has the lowest exposure, have the highest rates of cancer
in the country.

In the early '80s, a Taiwanese steel company accidentally mixed a
quantity of highly radioactive cobalt-60 into a commercial batch which
was used to build 1,700 apartments. Residents were exposed to 7,000
times the amount coming from your everyday nuke reactor next door. 15
years later, when they discovered the error, they checked for cancers.
Normally, 160 people out of 10,000 residences would have it. In this
case, only 5 did, a 97% drop in cancer cases in that area. From the
book: As one researcher phrased it, exposure to high levels of
background radiation had apparently bestowed upon residents "an
effective immunity from cancer."

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for
it. Oh, I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling
around the sun, and the holocaust.

'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help us
discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.


And I always gave you credit for firing synapses! AGW is not a voting
issue for and by scientists...

The legitimate climatologists appear to have weighed in and they would
disagree.

The fact that the AGW folks refuse to use the "Scientific Method" and
refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most.

I have no idea what you're talking about here but it sounds like a
cock-and-bull story.

And, they push the "We're taking control of the energy, money and
political power!" position first and foremost..

I've yet to hear a climate scientist say any of that. That's you're
interpretation of the politics, not the science.

It's not science anymore. It's not denial, it's skepticism!

It's self-serving politics.


Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts and
data comes along. My mind can be changed with good evidence.

Well, that's good to hear.

That doesn't exist yet.

Not you, not Larry, not me, nor anyone else I know -- certainly no one
here -- has the faintest clue about whether it does or not.


Smoking is bad.
Earth orbits the Sun.
Jews were murdered.
Global Warming facts are not complete, the issue is not closed for debate.

(Does that clear it all up?)

My feeling is that the global warming facts will never be complete to a
sufficient degree to satisfy you. Nor will you ever know when and if it is.
I'd have more confidence in your judgments about the validity of string
theory or the existence of naked singularities or dark energy.

With all due respect, Tom, you don't have enough knowledge to be skeptical
about it. Neither do any of the rest of us. For you to engage in the
"debate" implies that you would know enough to debate. You don't, and it's
likely that you never will. Neither will Larry, I, or 99.99% of the
population. We're no more able to engage in the "debate," nor to understand
those who can, than we are to engage in the debate about the evolution of
black holes. The idea that we could is ludicrous.

All we have to go on is the reputation of the people who *can* engage in the
"debate," if there really is a debate. I don't know if there really is. What
passes for "debate" sounds an awful lot like the "debate" over evolution
versus creationism -- it contains some of the same elements, and even the
politics are not dissimilar.

The one thing I can see about it is the history of the conflict. First,
mainstream science began to coalesce around the idea that the Earth is
warming and that greenhouse gases are largely responsible for the current
pattern. Then there was a reaction from the right, because the right is
worried about the economic implications if it's all true. This provoked a
defense from the left. So now it's a left/right issue.

But not really. It's still mainstream science versus the reaction. That the
left has taken up science's banner is just an artifact of the political
basis of reaction. It has nothing to do with the science, which is still
clearly on the side of greenhouse-gas-induced global warming. The con game
that's telling us that there is no general agreement in favor of it is
EXACTLY like the con game that's telling us there is no general agreement in
favor of evolution. It's coming from the same political angle, in fact, only
the con game on global warming is a lot more sophisticated. It's one hell of
a good shell game, and none of us knows where the pea is.

So that's all you're doing, and all you can do -- argue the politics,
disguised as science. You can't understand the science. Neither can I. It is
many years of study over our heads.

I don't have an opinion on it of my own. If I have to engage the issue, at
the level of voting or whatever, I'll do what I did about landing a man on
the moon, or what I'm doing now about nuclear power -- I'll try to separate
the mainstream science from the quacks and cranks with political motivations
on the fringes, and I'll go with the mainstream science. It's not easy now,
since the issue has been politically polarized, but I'll throw out the Al
Gores and the Michael Crichtons, along with the other outliers and the
freaks on both sides, and take my best shot.

It won't be because I have an opinion on the science. Opinions are what one
has when he has exhausted the known facts; I can't even read the facts.
Neither can anyone else posting here. Your opinion, and Larry's, and mine,
apply only to whom we believe, not to the science. All you're reading and
learning, and Larry, is polarized arguments that are indistinguishable from
con games. In that regard, you could take all of our opinions, add them up
and calculate their value, and we'd find that they're worth less than the
powder it would take to blow them all to hell.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 00:14:31 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Buerste" wrote in message
.. .

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.


Have fun.

Thanks. I'll try.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I still
can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for it. Oh,
I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling around
the sun, and the holocaust.

What, no "Halelujah!"?


'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help us
discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology? Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics. They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer atmospheric scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels 27+ yrs climatologist

Look at the twenty and thirty page biblios in the back of Crichton's
and Lomborg's books. They, too, have done their homework. You appear
to be like the herd here, Ed; Happy to accept what the masses do. How
much have you studied the subject? What all did you discuss with your
climatologist friend or acquaintance?


I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.

Please hold your breath. We'll get back to you, Ed.

While you wait, why not get back to your copy of _Inconvenient Truth_,
or Friedman's book, _Hot, Flat, and Crowded_, eh?

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 00:14:31 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Buerste" wrote in message
. ..

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.


Have fun.

Thanks. I'll try.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still
can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for it.
Oh,
I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling
around
the sun, and the holocaust.

What, no "Halelujah!"?


'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help us
discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics.

There's two. Ten-thousand to go. d8-)

They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.

Thank you. Now, would you care to weigh in on diamond nanoparticles in
layers of the Earth's crust dating from 12,000 years ago, and its relation
to the extinction of the Clovis culture? Your opinion about that should be
equally valuable.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer atmospheric scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels 27+ yrs climatologist

Look at the twenty and thirty page biblios in the back of Crichton's
and Lomborg's books. They, too, have done their homework.

I read Crichton's book, you may recall, at your request. I also read several
counterarguments from real climatologists. They tore him a new asshole.

There were two points made in that book that even I could understand and
that were obvious horse****; one because it's simple logic (the business
about the extra ice floating in south polar seas; of course, you idiot
Crichton. That's what happens when an ice sheet breaks up!) and the other
because I happened once upon a time to have studied the statistics of
diffused reflection and refraction. I won't go into that (I couldn't
remember it at this point, anyway), except to say that it raised a red flag
when he brought up the football-field analogy to explain the thickness of a
solid layer of CO2. That was calculated to convince the layman who doesn't
understand the math. Not that I know enough to apply it to atmospheric
warming, either. But I recognize a bull**** argument in that narrow little
instance.

The book was a novel. As science, it was a con job. Or, more likely, much of
it was really over his head. He was an genre novelist and a physician, not a
climatologist, any more than you are or I am. But he could write a good
page-turner, so reading it wasn't a complete waste of time.

You appear
to be like the herd here, Ed; Happy to accept what the masses do. How
much have you studied the subject? What all did you discuss with your
climatologist friend or acquaintance?

My "climatologist friend"? I don't have any. Do you mean my PhD.
meteorologist neighbor down the street, who works for NOAA? Mostly we
laughed about the idiocy of the political arguments. He's the first to admit
that climatology is over his head. But he does have an opinion about global
warming, as I've mentioned to you before. He agrees with you. Then he says,
"but I really don't know, and couldn't know." Meteorology is not
climatology.



I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.

Please hold your breath. We'll get back to you, Ed.

While you wait, why not get back to your copy of _Inconvenient Truth_...

'Never saw it, and I'm unlikely ever to read it. It's of no more interest to
me than the selective polemics written by the politicos on either side of
the issue. The idea that they could be trusted to write a complete and
unbiased account of the mainstream science is too much to believe.

or Friedman's book, _Hot, Flat, and Crowded_, eh?

I haven't read it. I'm not impressed by Thomas Friedman. I read his columns
every week and consider it worthwhile if one out of ten is a good read.
Otherwise, I read him for style, which is interesting, because I know he's
smarter than his style reflects. That's interesting to a writer, especially
when it's so commercially successful.

So, since you're into really heavy thinking here, what do you think about
the Clovis extinction? Any opinion on the truth about naked singularities?
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical. I've known a number of them, having
worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career.
These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and
they were strongly disinclined to do so. Management might push for
that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

I've known a number of them, having
worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career.
These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and
they were strongly disinclined to do so.
Management might push for
that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.

I agree, and I've known several of them personally. The type Larry is
talking about sounds like the bottom layer, not top scientists.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for
it. Oh, I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling
around the sun, and the holocaust.

'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help
us discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.


And I always gave you credit for firing synapses! AGW is not a voting
issue for and by scientists...

The legitimate climatologists appear to have weighed in and they would
disagree.

The fact that the AGW folks refuse to use the "Scientific Method" and
refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most.

I have no idea what you're talking about here but it sounds like a
cock-and-bull story.

And, they push the "We're taking control of the energy, money and
political power!" position first and foremost..

I've yet to hear a climate scientist say any of that. That's you're
interpretation of the politics, not the science.

It's not science anymore. It's not denial, it's skepticism!

It's self-serving politics.


Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts and
data comes along. My mind can be changed with good evidence.

Well, that's good to hear.

That doesn't exist yet.

Not you, not Larry, not me, nor anyone else I know -- certainly no one
here -- has the faintest clue about whether it does or not.


Smoking is bad.
Earth orbits the Sun.
Jews were murdered.
Global Warming facts are not complete, the issue is not closed for
debate.

(Does that clear it all up?)

My feeling is that the global warming facts will never be complete to a
sufficient degree to satisfy you. Nor will you ever know when and if it
is. I'd have more confidence in your judgments about the validity of
string theory or the existence of naked singularities or dark energy.

With all due respect, Tom, you don't have enough knowledge to be skeptical
about it. Neither do any of the rest of us. For you to engage in the
"debate" implies that you would know enough to debate. You don't, and it's
likely that you never will. Neither will Larry, I, or 99.99% of the
population. We're no more able to engage in the "debate," nor to
understand those who can, than we are to engage in the debate about the
evolution of black holes. The idea that we could is ludicrous.

All we have to go on is the reputation of the people who *can* engage in
the "debate," if there really is a debate. I don't know if there really
is. What passes for "debate" sounds an awful lot like the "debate" over
evolution versus creationism -- it contains some of the same elements, and
even the politics are not dissimilar.

The one thing I can see about it is the history of the conflict. First,
mainstream science began to coalesce around the idea that the Earth is
warming and that greenhouse gases are largely responsible for the current
pattern. Then there was a reaction from the right, because the right is
worried about the economic implications if it's all true. This provoked a
defense from the left. So now it's a left/right issue.

But not really. It's still mainstream science versus the reaction. That
the left has taken up science's banner is just an artifact of the
political basis of reaction. It has nothing to do with the science, which
is still clearly on the side of greenhouse-gas-induced global warming. The
con game that's telling us that there is no general agreement in favor of
it is EXACTLY like the con game that's telling us there is no general
agreement in favor of evolution. It's coming from the same political
angle, in fact, only the con game on global warming is a lot more
sophisticated. It's one hell of a good shell game, and none of us knows
where the pea is.

So that's all you're doing, and all you can do -- argue the politics,
disguised as science. You can't understand the science. Neither can I. It
is many years of study over our heads.

I don't have an opinion on it of my own. If I have to engage the issue, at
the level of voting or whatever, I'll do what I did about landing a man on
the moon, or what I'm doing now about nuclear power -- I'll try to
separate the mainstream science from the quacks and cranks with political
motivations on the fringes, and I'll go with the mainstream science. It's
not easy now, since the issue has been politically polarized, but I'll
throw out the Al Gores and the Michael Crichtons, along with the other
outliers and the freaks on both sides, and take my best shot.

It won't be because I have an opinion on the science. Opinions are what
one has when he has exhausted the known facts; I can't even read the
facts. Neither can anyone else posting here. Your opinion, and Larry's,
and mine, apply only to whom we believe, not to the science. All you're
reading and learning, and Larry, is polarized arguments that are
indistinguishable from con games. In that regard, you could take all of
our opinions, add them up and calculate their value, and we'd find that
they're worth less than the powder it would take to blow them all to hell.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


A few points that you might rethink. "The left that you portray as "taking
up science's banner." due to the reaction from the right." Maybe from the
left's point of view, but I tend to believe the right is reacting to the
attempted seizure of power and money by putting a strangle hold on energy.

The left ridicules the belief in God because there is no proof yet believes
in AGW with less proof! My only point is the AGW folks won't tolerate even
proven experts to debate the issue.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall
for it. Oh, I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of
denial covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth
traveling around the sun, and the holocaust.

'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to
believe anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts
to help us discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.


And I always gave you credit for firing synapses! AGW is not a voting
issue for and by scientists...

The legitimate climatologists appear to have weighed in and they would
disagree.

The fact that the AGW folks refuse to use the "Scientific Method" and
refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most.

I have no idea what you're talking about here but it sounds like a
cock-and-bull story.

And, they push the "We're taking control of the energy, money and
political power!" position first and foremost..

I've yet to hear a climate scientist say any of that. That's you're
interpretation of the politics, not the science.

It's not science anymore. It's not denial, it's skepticism!

It's self-serving politics.


Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts and
data comes along. My mind can be changed with good evidence.

Well, that's good to hear.

That doesn't exist yet.

Not you, not Larry, not me, nor anyone else I know -- certainly no one
here -- has the faintest clue about whether it does or not.


Smoking is bad.
Earth orbits the Sun.
Jews were murdered.
Global Warming facts are not complete, the issue is not closed for
debate.

(Does that clear it all up?)

My feeling is that the global warming facts will never be complete to a
sufficient degree to satisfy you. Nor will you ever know when and if it
is. I'd have more confidence in your judgments about the validity of
string theory or the existence of naked singularities or dark energy.

With all due respect, Tom, you don't have enough knowledge to be
skeptical about it. Neither do any of the rest of us. For you to engage
in the "debate" implies that you would know enough to debate. You don't,
and it's likely that you never will. Neither will Larry, I, or 99.99% of
the population. We're no more able to engage in the "debate," nor to
understand those who can, than we are to engage in the debate about the
evolution of black holes. The idea that we could is ludicrous.

All we have to go on is the reputation of the people who *can* engage in
the "debate," if there really is a debate. I don't know if there really
is. What passes for "debate" sounds an awful lot like the "debate" over
evolution versus creationism -- it contains some of the same elements,
and even the politics are not dissimilar.

The one thing I can see about it is the history of the conflict. First,
mainstream science began to coalesce around the idea that the Earth is
warming and that greenhouse gases are largely responsible for the current
pattern. Then there was a reaction from the right, because the right is
worried about the economic implications if it's all true. This provoked a
defense from the left. So now it's a left/right issue.

But not really. It's still mainstream science versus the reaction. That
the left has taken up science's banner is just an artifact of the
political basis of reaction. It has nothing to do with the science, which
is still clearly on the side of greenhouse-gas-induced global warming.
The con game that's telling us that there is no general agreement in
favor of it is EXACTLY like the con game that's telling us there is no
general agreement in favor of evolution. It's coming from the same
political angle, in fact, only the con game on global warming is a lot
more sophisticated. It's one hell of a good shell game, and none of us
knows where the pea is.

So that's all you're doing, and all you can do -- argue the politics,
disguised as science. You can't understand the science. Neither can I. It
is many years of study over our heads.

I don't have an opinion on it of my own. If I have to engage the issue,
at the level of voting or whatever, I'll do what I did about landing a
man on the moon, or what I'm doing now about nuclear power -- I'll try to
separate the mainstream science from the quacks and cranks with political
motivations on the fringes, and I'll go with the mainstream science. It's
not easy now, since the issue has been politically polarized, but I'll
throw out the Al Gores and the Michael Crichtons, along with the other
outliers and the freaks on both sides, and take my best shot.

It won't be because I have an opinion on the science. Opinions are what
one has when he has exhausted the known facts; I can't even read the
facts. Neither can anyone else posting here. Your opinion, and Larry's,
and mine, apply only to whom we believe, not to the science. All you're
reading and learning, and Larry, is polarized arguments that are
indistinguishable from con games. In that regard, you could take all of
our opinions, add them up and calculate their value, and we'd find that
they're worth less than the powder it would take to blow them all to
hell.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


A few points that you might rethink. "The left that you portray as
"taking up science's banner." due to the reaction from the right." Maybe
from the left's point of view, but I tend to believe the right is reacting
to the attempted seizure of power and money by putting a strangle hold on
energy.

I haven't seen an explicit history of the whole thing, but I know it was
triggered by a report from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at
Princeton sometime in the '70s. It was an academic subject until Hansen's
(of the Goddard Institute) famous, and inflammatory, testimony before Al
Gore's Senate committee in the late '80s. The right reacted reflexively and,
as I recall, immediately. After that, it quickly became political.

Maybe it was getting political earlier; maybe the left was pushing for it
even before Hansen, I don't know. But the bottom line is that it was
politicized. We're having a discussion about the politics, not the science.

The science has been debated in the normal course of scientific study since
the Princeton report. There are some top scientists who argue against it.
There are many more who argue in favor of it. I wouldn't claim that the
truth is simply a matter of counting heads, and it's true that the more
recent debate has become so highly politicized that it's hard to sort out
the objective science from the biased science.

In fact, it's more than hard. For you and me, it's impossible. I once tried
reading a couple of articles about it in the professional journals and I
almost went blind. g The English isn't hard to read, but it assumes a
great deal of knowledge about fluid dynamics. You probably know that's a
killer subject, if you went through the full mechanical engineering program.
Taken on a global scale, it's impenetrable to most of us.

What we read -- even Larry, who has spent a great deal of time with it -- is
dumbed-down science for the layman. That is, assuming Larry isn't into
complex systems of fluid dynamics and the accompanying math. Dumbed-down
science can be a very good thing and I read it all the time. But it's
potentially dangerous, because you have to trust the integrity as well as
the skills of the...dumber. g

I've done a fair amount of dumbing-down myself. When people asked me what I
did for a living, I used to say "I vulgarize technology." I know how that
works and how dependent it is on the quality of the...dumber...and on his or
her good intentions. And I don't mean their intentions to select evidence
for "our own good."

Most of it does select evidence; when politics is involved, the selection is
likely to be highly biased. They're doing it for our good, of course. So I
discount all of it regarding global warming.

This leaves us with an obvious dilemma. I remain hopeful that science itself
will sort it out before we stick our feet up our butts, one way or the
other, but it's going to be hard to tell if and when it comes. I trust the
scientific institution more than most, however, so I keep my eye on them for
signals.

But I want to emphasize that there's no way any of us can sort out the
science at this point, IMO, and I doubt if we ever will be able to. What we
have to do is to choose whom we believe. I hope that will, at some point,
stop being a political question.


The left ridicules the belief in God because there is no proof yet
believes in AGW with less proof!

I don't think I'd agree with that. The problem with AGW (I hate the
abbreviation -- it sounds like a feed store) is that the evidence is too
complex for most of us to absorb. But the evidence, no matter what it really
tells us, is tangible and measurable.

My only point is the AGW folks won't tolerate even proven experts to
debate the issue.

I don't have to tell you that sounds EXACTLY like the creation science
argument. My feeling is that's why a lot of people object to it. Although
mainstream science isn't always right, most of us recognize that there are
crank scientists, even brilliant ones with tenure, and that the scientific
community itself is better at calling them out than we are. If they're any
good, they'll get their hearing. And if one complains that he's not being
listened to, like Lester Lave or Richard Lindzen, and if the scientific
community doesn't pick them up and support them, the most likely reason is
that they're out in left field -- or right field, as the case may be. g

Sometimes that doesn't work. I go with the numbers. Usually it works. And
that's all we have.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:41:18 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

Skeptical means "disbelieving". That's a bit different from "not
convinced but willing to be." A few didn't "suffer fools well" but
most of them didn't make a point of behaving thusly. Hell, they
suffered me quite cheerfully -- still do!

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:41:18 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just
means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

Skeptical means "disbelieving". That's a bit different from "not
convinced but willing to be." A few didn't "suffer fools well" but
most of them didn't make a point of behaving thusly. Hell, they
suffered me quite cheerfully -- still do!

Well, then, Don, it's likely that you're not a fool. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 00:14:31 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.


Have fun.

Thanks. I'll try.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still
can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for it.
Oh,
I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling
around
the sun, and the holocaust.

What, no "Halelujah!"?


'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help us
discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Then why aren't more being heard? Because it's too political and they
want their funding, maybe?


Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics.

There's two. Ten-thousand to go. d8-)

Then there were the 17k+ scientists who signed the skeptic's paper...


They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.

Thank you. Now, would you care to weigh in on diamond nanoparticles in
layers of the Earth's crust dating from 12,000 years ago, and its relation
to the extinction of the Clovis culture? Your opinion about that should be
equally valuable.

Easily, in two words. No comment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer atmospheric scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels 27+ yrs climatologist

Look at the twenty and thirty page biblios in the back of Crichton's
and Lomborg's books. They, too, have done their homework.

I read Crichton's book, you may recall, at your request. I also read several
counterarguments from real climatologists. They tore him a new asshole.

I hope you can remember who those two were or where you read that.
Politics-R-Us Hansen and who else?


There were two points made in that book that even I could understand and
that were obvious horse****; one because it's simple logic (the business
about the extra ice floating in south polar seas; of course, you idiot
Crichton. That's what happens when an ice sheet breaks up!) and the other
because I happened once upon a time to have studied the statistics of
diffused reflection and refraction. I won't go into that (I couldn't
remember it at this point, anyway), except to say that it raised a red flag
when he brought up the football-field analogy to explain the thickness of a
solid layer of CO2. That was calculated to convince the layman who doesn't
understand the math. Not that I know enough to apply it to atmospheric
warming, either. But I recognize a bull**** argument in that narrow little
instance.

The book was a novel. As science, it was a con job. Or, more likely, much of
it was really over his head. He was an genre novelist and a physician, not a
climatologist, any more than you are or I am. But he could write a good
page-turner, so reading it wasn't a complete waste of time.

What I liked about the book, apart from it being a good novel, was
that it got people questioning the 'The Climate is Falling" scare
tactics of the Left.


You appear
to be like the herd here, Ed; Happy to accept what the masses do. How
much have you studied the subject? What all did you discuss with your
climatologist friend or acquaintance?

My "climatologist friend"? I don't have any. Do you mean my PhD.
meteorologist neighbor down the street, who works for NOAA? Mostly we
laughed about the idiocy of the political arguments. He's the first to admit
that climatology is over his head. But he does have an opinion about global
warming, as I've mentioned to you before. He agrees with you. Then he says,
"but I really don't know, and couldn't know." Meteorology is not
climatology.

OK.


I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.

Please hold your breath. We'll get back to you, Ed.

While you wait, why not get back to your copy of _Inconvenient Truth_...

'Never saw it, and I'm unlikely ever to read it. It's of no more interest to
me than the selective polemics written by the politicos on either side of
the issue. The idea that they could be trusted to write a complete and
unbiased account of the mainstream science is too much to believe.

or Friedman's book, _Hot, Flat, and Crowded_, eh?

I haven't read it. I'm not impressed by Thomas Friedman. I read his columns
every week and consider it worthwhile if one out of ten is a good read.
Otherwise, I read him for style, which is interesting, because I know he's
smarter than his style reflects. That's interesting to a writer, especially
when it's so commercially successful.

Judging by his book titles, I doubt I'd like his style or anything he
wrote. He's apparently an Ehrlich groupie. Feh!


So, since you're into really heavy thinking here, what do you think about
the Clovis extinction? Any opinion on the truth about naked singularities?
d8-)

I love dem black hos but doubt one was caused by the Clovis comet.
Does this type of deep critique help you, Ed?

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:41:18 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

I've known a number of them, having
worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career.
These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and
they were strongly disinclined to do so.
Management might push for
that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.

I agree, and I've known several of them personally. The type Larry is
talking about sounds like the bottom layer, not top scientists.

Ed, I follow the skeptics because they've uncovered the dirty laundry
of the GWk scientists. The incomplete and skewed models (I dare you to
find anyone say that he climate models are complete and totally
trustworthy. If you can find one to say that, have them track it back
through our history as a test. Betcha they can't do it.) are only one
part of the vast scam they're trying to pawn off on us.

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
snip
Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics. They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.


GWk...I love it!

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

snip


Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Then why aren't more being heard? Because it's too political and they
want their funding, maybe?

I have no idea. Because there aren't that many who don't agree with the
skeptics, and their arguments are easily dismantled, maybe?



Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics.

There's two. Ten-thousand to go. d8-)

Then there were the 17k+ scientists who signed the skeptic's paper...

Were those the Doctors of Herbology, or the quantum mechanics?



They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.

I'm glad you're convinced. Now you can leave me alone about climatology. g


Thank you. Now, would you care to weigh in on diamond nanoparticles in
layers of the Earth's crust dating from 12,000 years ago, and its relation
to the extinction of the Clovis culture? Your opinion about that should be
equally valuable.

Easily, in two words. No comment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer atmospheric scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels 27+ yrs climatologist

Look at the twenty and thirty page biblios in the back of Crichton's
and Lomborg's books. They, too, have done their homework.

I read Crichton's book, you may recall, at your request. I also read
several
counterarguments from real climatologists. They tore him a new asshole.

I hope you can remember who those two were or where you read that.
Politics-R-Us Hansen and who else?

Good grief. I gave you the links then. You mean that you lost them AGAIN??
g


There were two points made in that book that even I could understand and
that were obvious horse****; one because it's simple logic (the business
about the extra ice floating in south polar seas; of course, you idiot
Crichton. That's what happens when an ice sheet breaks up!) and the other
because I happened once upon a time to have studied the statistics of
diffused reflection and refraction. I won't go into that (I couldn't
remember it at this point, anyway), except to say that it raised a red
flag
when he brought up the football-field analogy to explain the thickness of
a
solid layer of CO2. That was calculated to convince the layman who doesn't
understand the math. Not that I know enough to apply it to atmospheric
warming, either. But I recognize a bull**** argument in that narrow little
instance.

The book was a novel. As science, it was a con job. Or, more likely, much
of
it was really over his head. He was an genre novelist and a physician, not
a
climatologist, any more than you are or I am. But he could write a good
page-turner, so reading it wasn't a complete waste of time.

What I liked about the book, apart from it being a good novel, was
that it got people questioning the 'The Climate is Falling" scare
tactics of the Left.

I think it fizzled. People read his book about the buckeyballs, or whatever
they were, that swarmed like mosquitos, and realized he was just telling an
extended joke.



You appear
to be like the herd here, Ed; Happy to accept what the masses do. How
much have you studied the subject? What all did you discuss with your
climatologist friend or acquaintance?

My "climatologist friend"? I don't have any. Do you mean my PhD.
meteorologist neighbor down the street, who works for NOAA? Mostly we
laughed about the idiocy of the political arguments. He's the first to
admit
that climatology is over his head. But he does have an opinion about
global
warming, as I've mentioned to you before. He agrees with you. Then he
says,
"but I really don't know, and couldn't know." Meteorology is not
climatology.

OK.


I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.

Please hold your breath. We'll get back to you, Ed.

While you wait, why not get back to your copy of _Inconvenient Truth_...

'Never saw it, and I'm unlikely ever to read it. It's of no more interest
to
me than the selective polemics written by the politicos on either side of
the issue. The idea that they could be trusted to write a complete and
unbiased account of the mainstream science is too much to believe.

or Friedman's book, _Hot, Flat, and Crowded_, eh?

I haven't read it. I'm not impressed by Thomas Friedman. I read his
columns
every week and consider it worthwhile if one out of ten is a good read.
Otherwise, I read him for style, which is interesting, because I know he's
smarter than his style reflects. That's interesting to a writer,
especially
when it's so commercially successful.

Judging by his book titles, I doubt I'd like his style or anything he
wrote. He's apparently an Ehrlich groupie. Feh!

Listen to him on a news/talk show sometime and you'll realize he's a smart
and knowledgable guy. Why he writes the way he does is an open question.


So, since you're into really heavy thinking here, what do you think about
the Clovis extinction? Any opinion on the truth about naked singularities?
d8-)

I love dem black hos but doubt one was caused by the Clovis comet.
Does this type of deep critique help you, Ed?

I think it gives me some insight into your research. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:41:18 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just
means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

I've known a number of them, having
worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career.
These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and
they were strongly disinclined to do so.
Management might push for
that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.

I agree, and I've known several of them personally. The type Larry is
talking about sounds like the bottom layer, not top scientists.

Ed, I follow the skeptics because they've uncovered the dirty laundry
of the GWk scientists. The incomplete and skewed models (I dare you to
find anyone say that he climate models are complete and totally
trustworthy. If you can find one to say that, have them track it back
through our history as a test. Betcha they can't do it.) are only one
part of the vast scam they're trying to pawn off on us.

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or what?

As I said, neither you nor I is going to understand what all of the numbers
mean. I'm a little surprised that you think you can reach conclusions from
reading popularized accounts of some very complex science.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:40:00 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

snip


Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Then why aren't more being heard? Because it's too political and they
want their funding, maybe?

I have no idea. Because there aren't that many who don't agree with the
skeptics, and their arguments are easily dismantled, maybe?

It's about time you agreed that the skeptics are right. (Reread your
statement, Ed. giggle)


Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics.

There's two. Ten-thousand to go. d8-)

Then there were the 17k+ scientists who signed the skeptic's paper...

Were those the Doctors of Herbology, or the quantum mechanics?

Full gamut, just like yours.


They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.

I'm glad you're convinced. Now you can leave me alone about climatology. g

Why are you going on about this one?


Thank you. Now, would you care to weigh in on diamond nanoparticles in
layers of the Earth's crust dating from 12,000 years ago, and its relation
to the extinction of the Clovis culture? Your opinion about that should be
equally valuable.

Easily, in two words. No comment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer atmospheric scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels 27+ yrs climatologist

Look at the twenty and thirty page biblios in the back of Crichton's
and Lomborg's books. They, too, have done their homework.

I read Crichton's book, you may recall, at your request. I also read
several
counterarguments from real climatologists. They tore him a new asshole.

I hope you can remember who those two were or where you read that.
Politics-R-Us Hansen and who else?

Good grief. I gave you the links then. You mean that you lost them AGAIN??
g

If I viewed them whenever you purport to have given them to me, then I
wasn't impressed. AAMOF, I must have been so unimpressed that I forgot
about it altogether.


There were two points made in that book that even I could understand and
that were obvious horse****; one because it's simple logic (the business
about the extra ice floating in south polar seas; of course, you idiot
Crichton. That's what happens when an ice sheet breaks up!) and the other
because I happened once upon a time to have studied the statistics of
diffused reflection and refraction. I won't go into that (I couldn't
remember it at this point, anyway), except to say that it raised a red
flag
when he brought up the football-field analogy to explain the thickness of
a
solid layer of CO2. That was calculated to convince the layman who doesn't
understand the math. Not that I know enough to apply it to atmospheric
warming, either. But I recognize a bull**** argument in that narrow little
instance.

The book was a novel. As science, it was a con job. Or, more likely, much
of
it was really over his head. He was an genre novelist and a physician, not
a
climatologist, any more than you are or I am. But he could write a good
page-turner, so reading it wasn't a complete waste of time.

What I liked about the book, apart from it being a good novel, was
that it got people questioning the 'The Climate is Falling" scare
tactics of the Left.

I think it fizzled. People read his book about the buckeyballs, or whatever
they were, that swarmed like mosquitos, and realized he was just telling an
extended joke.

He got me interested. The rest is RCM history. guffaw


You appear
to be like the herd here, Ed; Happy to accept what the masses do. How
much have you studied the subject? What all did you discuss with your
climatologist friend or acquaintance?

My "climatologist friend"? I don't have any. Do you mean my PhD.
meteorologist neighbor down the street, who works for NOAA? Mostly we
laughed about the idiocy of the political arguments. He's the first to
admit
that climatology is over his head. But he does have an opinion about
global
warming, as I've mentioned to you before. He agrees with you. Then he
says,
"but I really don't know, and couldn't know." Meteorology is not
climatology.

OK.


I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.

Please hold your breath. We'll get back to you, Ed.

While you wait, why not get back to your copy of _Inconvenient Truth_...

'Never saw it, and I'm unlikely ever to read it. It's of no more interest
to
me than the selective polemics written by the politicos on either side of
the issue. The idea that they could be trusted to write a complete and
unbiased account of the mainstream science is too much to believe.

or Friedman's book, _Hot, Flat, and Crowded_, eh?

I haven't read it. I'm not impressed by Thomas Friedman. I read his
columns
every week and consider it worthwhile if one out of ten is a good read.
Otherwise, I read him for style, which is interesting, because I know he's
smarter than his style reflects. That's interesting to a writer,
especially
when it's so commercially successful.

Judging by his book titles, I doubt I'd like his style or anything he
wrote. He's apparently an Ehrlich groupie. Feh!

Listen to him on a news/talk show sometime and you'll realize he's a smart
and knowledgable guy. Why he writes the way he does is an open question.

So were Carter and Clintoon, but...


So, since you're into really heavy thinking here, what do you think about
the Clovis extinction? Any opinion on the truth about naked singularities?
d8-)

I love dem black hos but doubt one was caused by the Clovis comet.
Does this type of deep critique help you, Ed?

I think it gives me some insight into your research. d8-)

You could tell I spent a whopping 2.175 minutes on the two subjects at
Wikipedia? Thot so. :-)

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:38:51 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
snip
Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics. They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.

GWk...I love it!

Yeah, I can be lazy, can't I? Wait, I meant to say that I'm saving
keystrokes and the resultant energy used and reducing the planetary
warming from having those extra characters on a CRT screen. Yeah,
that's it.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:43:45 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

That's the way I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) issue, and
I've invested far more than a few hours (try: man-weeks) on that,
doing reading and debunking on both sides. And I'm not convinced that
man could make any changes in the global environment even if he tried,
though I'm much more comfy with nuke than coal powerplants. I used to
live almost downwind from one (1-3 units @ San Onofre) for 35 years.
As a coinkydink, Tucker's _Terrestrial Energy_ showed me some
interesting tidbits on the benefits of radiation on the human body,
with reduced incidences of cancer in exposed people. The health care
system could benefit.


Have fun.

Thanks. I'll try.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I still
can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for it.

You can thank the Algores and Paul Ehrlichs of the world, "chicken
little" people who -lie- to get their agendas passed. Of course, I
can't believe the sheer numbers of suckers the religions of the world
take in for billions of dollars each year, either. Or how any known
politician could get reelected for a second, let alone tenth, term.
thud


Oh, I think I just got the answer.

If you're referring to my Tucker reference, that's small amounts of
radiation, not massive. People who have been regularly exposed to safe
doses routinely appear to have fewer incidences of cancer.

Did you know that the incidence of cancer in the general population of
the world is 45% now? I had no idea it was that high. But people
living in hot zones like (where background radiation is higher than
the surrounding areas) have lower cancer rates.

Low-dose Nagasaki and Hiroshima survivors are living longer than their
peers.

Kerala (state in India) has 8x the normal background radiation in the
rocks, Beach of Guarapari in Brazil 175x the normal levels, and the
Ramsar region of Iran radiates 18 rems, 400 times the world average.
From the book: Cancer rates among people living in the Rocky Mountain
states, which has the highest exposure in the country, are one-third
lower than the rest of the nation, while people living in the Lousiana
Delta, which has the lowest exposure, have the highest rates of cancer
in the country.

In the early '80s, a Taiwanese steel company accidentally mixed a
quantity of highly radioactive cobalt-60 into a commercial batch which
was used to build 1,700 apartments. Residents were exposed to 7,000
times the amount coming from your everyday nuke reactor next door. 15
years later, when they discovered the error, they checked for cancers.
Normally, 160 people out of 10,000 residences would have it. In this
case, only 5 did, a 97% drop in cancer cases in that area. From the
book: As one researcher phrased it, exposure to high levels of
background radiation had apparently bestowed upon residents "an
effective immunity from cancer."

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

That's very interesting! It's the first I heard of it.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall
for it. Oh, I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of
denial covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth
traveling around the sun, and the holocaust.

'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to
believe anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts
to help us discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.


And I always gave you credit for firing synapses! AGW is not a voting
issue for and by scientists...

The legitimate climatologists appear to have weighed in and they would
disagree.

The fact that the AGW folks refuse to use the "Scientific Method" and
refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most.

I have no idea what you're talking about here but it sounds like a
cock-and-bull story.

And, they push the "We're taking control of the energy, money and
political power!" position first and foremost..

I've yet to hear a climate scientist say any of that. That's you're
interpretation of the politics, not the science.

It's not science anymore. It's not denial, it's skepticism!

It's self-serving politics.


Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts
and data comes along. My mind can be changed with good evidence.

Well, that's good to hear.

That doesn't exist yet.

Not you, not Larry, not me, nor anyone else I know -- certainly no one
here -- has the faintest clue about whether it does or not.


Smoking is bad.
Earth orbits the Sun.
Jews were murdered.
Global Warming facts are not complete, the issue is not closed for
debate.

(Does that clear it all up?)

My feeling is that the global warming facts will never be complete to a
sufficient degree to satisfy you. Nor will you ever know when and if it
is. I'd have more confidence in your judgments about the validity of
string theory or the existence of naked singularities or dark energy.

With all due respect, Tom, you don't have enough knowledge to be
skeptical about it. Neither do any of the rest of us. For you to engage
in the "debate" implies that you would know enough to debate. You don't,
and it's likely that you never will. Neither will Larry, I, or 99.99% of
the population. We're no more able to engage in the "debate," nor to
understand those who can, than we are to engage in the debate about the
evolution of black holes. The idea that we could is ludicrous.

All we have to go on is the reputation of the people who *can* engage in
the "debate," if there really is a debate. I don't know if there really
is. What passes for "debate" sounds an awful lot like the "debate" over
evolution versus creationism -- it contains some of the same elements,
and even the politics are not dissimilar.

The one thing I can see about it is the history of the conflict. First,
mainstream science began to coalesce around the idea that the Earth is
warming and that greenhouse gases are largely responsible for the
current pattern. Then there was a reaction from the right, because the
right is worried about the economic implications if it's all true. This
provoked a defense from the left. So now it's a left/right issue.

But not really. It's still mainstream science versus the reaction. That
the left has taken up science's banner is just an artifact of the
political basis of reaction. It has nothing to do with the science,
which is still clearly on the side of greenhouse-gas-induced global
warming. The con game that's telling us that there is no general
agreement in favor of it is EXACTLY like the con game that's telling us
there is no general agreement in favor of evolution. It's coming from
the same political angle, in fact, only the con game on global warming
is a lot more sophisticated. It's one hell of a good shell game, and
none of us knows where the pea is.

So that's all you're doing, and all you can do -- argue the politics,
disguised as science. You can't understand the science. Neither can I.
It is many years of study over our heads.

I don't have an opinion on it of my own. If I have to engage the issue,
at the level of voting or whatever, I'll do what I did about landing a
man on the moon, or what I'm doing now about nuclear power -- I'll try
to separate the mainstream science from the quacks and cranks with
political motivations on the fringes, and I'll go with the mainstream
science. It's not easy now, since the issue has been politically
polarized, but I'll throw out the Al Gores and the Michael Crichtons,
along with the other outliers and the freaks on both sides, and take my
best shot.

It won't be because I have an opinion on the science. Opinions are what
one has when he has exhausted the known facts; I can't even read the
facts. Neither can anyone else posting here. Your opinion, and Larry's,
and mine, apply only to whom we believe, not to the science. All you're
reading and learning, and Larry, is polarized arguments that are
indistinguishable from con games. In that regard, you could take all of
our opinions, add them up and calculate their value, and we'd find that
they're worth less than the powder it would take to blow them all to
hell.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


A few points that you might rethink. "The left that you portray as
"taking up science's banner." due to the reaction from the right." Maybe
from the left's point of view, but I tend to believe the right is
reacting to the attempted seizure of power and money by putting a
strangle hold on energy.

I haven't seen an explicit history of the whole thing, but I know it was
triggered by a report from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at
Princeton sometime in the '70s. It was an academic subject until Hansen's
(of the Goddard Institute) famous, and inflammatory, testimony before Al
Gore's Senate committee in the late '80s. The right reacted reflexively
and, as I recall, immediately. After that, it quickly became political.

Maybe it was getting political earlier; maybe the left was pushing for it
even before Hansen, I don't know. But the bottom line is that it was
politicized. We're having a discussion about the politics, not the
science.

The science has been debated in the normal course of scientific study
since the Princeton report. There are some top scientists who argue
against it. There are many more who argue in favor of it. I wouldn't claim
that the truth is simply a matter of counting heads, and it's true that
the more recent debate has become so highly politicized that it's hard to
sort out the objective science from the biased science.

In fact, it's more than hard. For you and me, it's impossible. I once
tried reading a couple of articles about it in the professional journals
and I almost went blind. g The English isn't hard to read, but it
assumes a great deal of knowledge about fluid dynamics. You probably know
that's a killer subject, if you went through the full mechanical
engineering program. Taken on a global scale, it's impenetrable to most of
us.

What we read -- even Larry, who has spent a great deal of time with it --
is dumbed-down science for the layman. That is, assuming Larry isn't into
complex systems of fluid dynamics and the accompanying math. Dumbed-down
science can be a very good thing and I read it all the time. But it's
potentially dangerous, because you have to trust the integrity as well as
the skills of the...dumber. g

I've done a fair amount of dumbing-down myself. When people asked me what
I did for a living, I used to say "I vulgarize technology." I know how
that works and how dependent it is on the quality of the...dumber...and on
his or her good intentions. And I don't mean their intentions to select
evidence for "our own good."

Most of it does select evidence; when politics is involved, the selection
is likely to be highly biased. They're doing it for our good, of course.
So I discount all of it regarding global warming.

This leaves us with an obvious dilemma. I remain hopeful that science
itself will sort it out before we stick our feet up our butts, one way or
the other, but it's going to be hard to tell if and when it comes. I trust
the scientific institution more than most, however, so I keep my eye on
them for signals.

But I want to emphasize that there's no way any of us can sort out the
science at this point, IMO, and I doubt if we ever will be able to. What
we have to do is to choose whom we believe. I hope that will, at some
point, stop being a political question.


The left ridicules the belief in God because there is no proof yet
believes in AGW with less proof!

I don't think I'd agree with that. The problem with AGW (I hate the
abbreviation -- it sounds like a feed store) is that the evidence is too
complex for most of us to absorb. But the evidence, no matter what it
really tells us, is tangible and measurable.

My only point is the AGW folks won't tolerate even proven experts to
debate the issue.

I don't have to tell you that sounds EXACTLY like the creation science
argument. My feeling is that's why a lot of people object to it. Although
mainstream science isn't always right, most of us recognize that there are
crank scientists, even brilliant ones with tenure, and that the scientific
community itself is better at calling them out than we are. If they're any
good, they'll get their hearing. And if one complains that he's not being
listened to, like Lester Lave or Richard Lindzen, and if the scientific
community doesn't pick them up and support them, the most likely reason is
that they're out in left field -- or right field, as the case may be. g

Sometimes that doesn't work. I go with the numbers. Usually it works. And
that's all we have.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, you have eloquently summed up the position of most right thinking (
right as in correct, not as in right wing) people. We have neither the time
or the background to evaluate the data, nor even the access to it. We have
to base our decisions on our respect for those who put the arguments.
Respect for politicians is at an all time low so their positions can be
largely discounted as being self serving or the result of instruction from
the party whip.
Unfortunately, the evidence as I see it, tends to indicate that climate
change is a fact, and it is probably caused by an increased concentration of
carbon dioxide( and other gases such as methane) in the atmosphere. This is
a result of fossil fuels being burned and retuning their carbon to the
atmosphere faster than it can be sequestered in coral rock, and the shells
of minute sea creatures which eventually become limestone.
Basically it comes as a result of too many people using too many resources.
The most useful thing we can do for future generations is restrict their
numbers by limiting ourselves to two children per family

Grumpy wrote:


Ed, you have eloquently summed up the position of most right thinking (
right as in correct, not as in right wing) people. We have neither the time
or the background to evaluate the data, nor even the access to it. We have
to base our decisions on our respect for those who put the arguments.
Respect for politicians is at an all time low so their positions can be
largely discounted as being self serving or the result of instruction from
the party whip.
Unfortunately, the evidence as I see it, tends to indicate that climate
change is a fact, and it is probably caused by an increased concentration of
carbon dioxide( and other gases such as methane) in the atmosphere. This is
a result of fossil fuels being burned and retuning their carbon to the
atmosphere faster than it can be sequestered in coral rock, and the shells
of minute sea creatures which eventually become limestone.


Basically it comes as a result of too many people using too many resources.
The most useful thing we can do for future generations is restrict their
numbers by limiting ourselves to two children per family



What if that's not enough, Grumpy?

What if the problem is a result of global over population by a factor of 2 or 3?

Simply holding the status quo would not fix the problem (if that were indeed the
case).

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:07:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:41:18 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just
means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

I've known a number of them, having
worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career.
These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and
they were strongly disinclined to do so.
Management might push for
that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.

I agree, and I've known several of them personally. The type Larry is
talking about sounds like the bottom layer, not top scientists.

Ed, I follow the skeptics because they've uncovered the dirty laundry
of the GWk scientists. The incomplete and skewed models (I dare you to
find anyone say that he climate models are complete and totally
trustworthy. If you can find one to say that, have them track it back
through our history as a test. Betcha they can't do it.) are only one
part of the vast scam they're trying to pawn off on us.

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or what?

My choices are fluid and I change my position on a subject when I find
overwhelming evidence to do so.


As I said, neither you nor I is going to understand what all of the numbers
mean. I'm a little surprised that you think you can reach conclusions from
reading popularized accounts of some very complex science.

Ed, I'm a little surprised that you haven't. For nearly 4 decades,
people have been dying around the world from the bad decisions leaders
(starting in this country and going global) have made concerning the
environment. From DDT bans, to choosing coal over nuke, to the use of
ethanol. I stand with the side which would stop that, wasting
trillions on a loose "maybe". I'm for _sane_ actions. Why aren't you?

What have the Wars on X (drugs, poverty, terror, GWk, etc.) cost the
world? Entire -countries- are now opting out of the pursuit of
controlling their waste because it's too costly to get every last
ten-billionth of it according to the Gospel of the EPA and other such
idiocracies. Something about that seems wrong to me. You?

--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:40:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:07:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:41:18 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just
means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

I've known a number of them, having
worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career.
These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and
they were strongly disinclined to do so.
Management might push for
that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.

I agree, and I've known several of them personally. The type Larry is
talking about sounds like the bottom layer, not top scientists.

Ed, I follow the skeptics because they've uncovered the dirty laundry
of the GWk scientists. The incomplete and skewed models (I dare you to
find anyone say that he climate models are complete and totally
trustworthy. If you can find one to say that, have them track it back
through our history as a test. Betcha they can't do it.) are only one
part of the vast scam they're trying to pawn off on us.

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or what?

My choices are fluid and I change my position on a subject when I find
overwhelming evidence to do so.


As I said, neither you nor I is going to understand what all of the numbers
mean. I'm a little surprised that you think you can reach conclusions from
reading popularized accounts of some very complex science.

Ed, I'm a little surprised that you haven't. For nearly 4 decades,
people have been dying around the world from the bad decisions leaders
(starting in this country and going global) have made concerning the
environment. From DDT bans, to choosing coal over nuke, to the use of
ethanol. I stand with the side which would stop that, wasting
trillions on a loose "maybe". I'm for _sane_ actions. Why aren't you?

What have the Wars on X (drugs, poverty, terror, GWk, etc.) cost the
world? Entire -countries- are now opting out of the pursuit of
controlling their waste because it's too costly to get every last
ten-billionth of it according to the Gospel of the EPA and other such
idiocracies. Something about that seems wrong to me. You?

Id be surprised of ol Ed even had an odd feeling about the whole thing,
as idologoically hitched to the Leftist bandwagon as he is.


"Not so old as to need virgins to excite him,
nor old enough to have the patience to teach one."

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

snip

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or
what?

My choices are fluid and I change my position on a subject when I find
overwhelming evidence to do so.

Well, that's good.



As I said, neither you nor I is going to understand what all of the
numbers
mean. I'm a little surprised that you think you can reach conclusions from
reading popularized accounts of some very complex science.

Ed, I'm a little surprised that you haven't. For nearly 4 decades,
people have been dying around the world from the bad decisions leaders
(starting in this country and going global) have made concerning the
environment. From DDT bans, to choosing coal over nuke, to the use of
ethanol. I stand with the side which would stop that, wasting
trillions on a loose "maybe". I'm for _sane_ actions. Why aren't you?

Yeah, things are rough all over. Now, how are you determining which actions
are sane? We know you have a general distrust of government. But do you have
the same distrust of science? If so, why do you believe some scientists over
others?


What have the Wars on X (drugs, poverty, terror, GWk, etc.) cost the
world? Entire -countries- are now opting out of the pursuit of
controlling their waste because it's too costly to get every last
ten-billionth of it according to the Gospel of the EPA and other such
idiocracies. Something about that seems wrong to me. You?

What is it you think is wrong? The science, or the politics?

I'm curious about something you said above, which I let pass the first time,
but maybe it's become relevant. You seem to feel it's important that CO2
makes up only 385 ppm or so of the atmosphere. Crichton said as much in his
book, which I recognized as evidence that he either didn't understand the
gas greenhouse effect, or he was being intentionally misleading. Do you
understand it? It's nothing like the principle on which a conventional
greenhouse operates; the physics are entirely different. The gas greenhouse
effect was discovered around 170 years ago so it's not new science. They
have it nailed down to the level of quantum mechanics today.

It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking you to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm (what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it will
be very shortly.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:11:11 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or
what?

My choices are fluid and I change my position on a subject when I find
overwhelming evidence to do so.

Well, that's good.



As I said, neither you nor I is going to understand what all of the
numbers
mean. I'm a little surprised that you think you can reach conclusions from
reading popularized accounts of some very complex science.

Ed, I'm a little surprised that you haven't. For nearly 4 decades,
people have been dying around the world from the bad decisions leaders
(starting in this country and going global) have made concerning the
environment. From DDT bans, to choosing coal over nuke, to the use of
ethanol. I stand with the side which would stop that, wasting
trillions on a loose "maybe". I'm for _sane_ actions. Why aren't you?

Yeah, things are rough all over. Now, how are you determining which actions
are sane?

Logic. Got a better idea?


We know you have a general distrust of government.

Si!


But do you have the same distrust of science?

Primarily, I trust scientists, but, yes, too many are apparently
seeking funding so they can do what they want to do. It's -they- who
have abandoned science for politics and funding.


If so, why do you believe some scientists over others?

Because of the things they have overlooked or settled for. I don't
feel that the models they're using are worthy of anything more than
predicting general trends, and I'm hesitant to go even that far from
what I've read and heard from people in the niche. I feel they're just
tools, not God's word, as some scientists feel. It's times like these
when I wish I'd kept a log of who said what, and when, so I could
present it to you. Luckily, Lomborg, Horner, and Tucker all have
pretty good reviews of all that in their books.


What have the Wars on X (drugs, poverty, terror, GWk, etc.) cost the
world? Entire -countries- are now opting out of the pursuit of
controlling their waste because it's too costly to get every last
ten-billionth of it according to the Gospel of the EPA and other such
idiocracies. Something about that seems wrong to me. You?

What is it you think is wrong? The science, or the politics?

The politics presenting "bad science", e.g. Algore's movie. Also, the
use of the worst case scenarios (unfounded, usually) in combination to
create an even worse outlook which is then taken up by the media to
scare us even more.

Wasting everyone's money in the pursuit of non-issues, while people
die as a result, is wrong. Peter Huber puts that facet in context in
_Hard Green_. Highly recommended reading.


I'm curious about something you said above, which I let pass the first time,
but maybe it's become relevant. You seem to feel it's important that CO2
makes up only 385 ppm or so of the atmosphere. Crichton said as much in his
book, which I recognized as evidence that he either didn't understand the
gas greenhouse effect, or he was being intentionally misleading. Do you
understand it? It's nothing like the principle on which a conventional
greenhouse operates; the physics are entirely different. The gas greenhouse
effect was discovered around 170 years ago so it's not new science. They
have it nailed down to the level of quantum mechanics today.

I'm sure that I do not have a full understanding of the physics. I'm
relying on scientists who do and have made their similified data
available.


It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking you to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm (what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it will
be very shortly.

Well, that's disputable. On one hand, the alarmists say it's a linear
thing, where x amount of increase in CO2 gives you x effect. On the
other hand, the skeptics say it would take an order of magnitude more
gas to make the same incremental effect. Then we have the possibility
that CO2 is merely the indicator, not the cause. Hmmm, what to do?

Additionally, I believe the skeptics when they say that not all of the
greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been researched fully, i.e. we weren't
measuring global water vapor way back when, and it makes up the vast
majority of the GHGs.

The discussion and "crisis" would be moot if the PTBs would simply let
everyone generate power via nuclear fusion, recycle the fuel rods,
etc. Electric cars will become the main transpo for local driving,
coal will be abandoned (removing the worst pollutant used by man
today) and everyone would live happily ever after.

Finis.

--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:11:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip a bunch of stuff
It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking you to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm (what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it will
be very shortly.

--
Ed Huntress
---------------
I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

And on and on and on.

You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

As long as we have had humans we have had the "yes buts," back to
the people against fire, animal husbandry and agriculture. [It's
not natural and it's dangerous...]

It is one thing to identify a problem, it is another to "yes but"
*EVERY* attempt or suggestion to solve the problem. Try asking
how much money/prestige they are making {Nobel Prize anyone} and
how "yes but" keeps their grift going. Also what these people
would do if the problem were magically solved. [I.e. on to the
next cause]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:11:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip a bunch of stuff
It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking you
to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm
(what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it
will
be very shortly.

--
Ed Huntress
---------------
I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

And on and on and on.

You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

As long as we have had humans we have had the "yes buts," back to
the people against fire, animal husbandry and agriculture. [It's
not natural and it's dangerous...]

It is one thing to identify a problem, it is another to "yes but"
*EVERY* attempt or suggestion to solve the problem. Try asking
how much money/prestige they are making {Nobel Prize anyone} and
how "yes but" keeps their grift going. Also what these people
would do if the problem were magically solved. [I.e. on to the
next cause]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Screw the fanatics. How about the climate scientists? Are they part of
"these people"?

--
Ed Huntress