http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

I probably should not bite at this but here goes:

This video talks about all the other anti AGW climate scientists that are
ignored. There are about 12 people who publish papers in peer-reviewed
journals that regularly question and criticize bits and pieces of other's
work in global warming. This is a good and heathy thing. Their criticisms
are answered in other papers and back and forth and so on. None have come
close to disproving AGW while there are THOUSANDS of papers supporting it.
The criticisms of certain research get distributed in the anti-AGW
propaganda. The responses do not.

Supposedly there is this vast conspiracy of scientists to promote AGW to get
funding. Have you ever considered that the coal and oil companies (and Saudi
Arabia who own most of Fox news)are already spending on lobbyists, think
tanks, and PR firms to try to promote a FUD (Fear Uncertianty Doubt)
marketing campaign against AGW. How much would they pay for some really
meaty, VALID research disproving AGW once and for all?

The only real scientist to testify in congress against AGW was a chemical
spectroscopist who claimed that since the atmosphere was already opaque in
the infrared due to CO2 that the effect was already as large as it could be
and more CO2 could not increase global warming (he never bothered to submit
this thesis for publication). Any undergraduate physics major will tell
(should be able to tell) you why that conclusion is bunk.

There is a real parallel here with what happened with tobacco research, only
in this case the stakes are much larger. Doctors knew since at least the
1930s that smoking was harmful and addictive. Yet even in 1994 the tobacco
CEOs testified that nicotine was not addictive. Today, some of the very same
PR firms that claimed smoking is not harmful are being used to influence
your opinion on AGW.

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

The "Scientific Method" has truly been replaced by the "Political Method"!

On Jan 13, 6:12*pm, "anorton"
wrote:
...
The only real scientist to testify in congress against AGW was a chemical
spectroscopist who claimed *that since the atmosphere was already opaque in
the infrared due to CO2 that the effect was already as large as it could be
and more CO2 could not increase global warming (he never bothered to submit
this thesis for publication). *Any undergraduate physics major will tell
(should be able to tell) you why that conclusion is bunk.
...


http://org.ntnu.no/solarcells/pages/Chap.2.php?part=1

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:20:26 -0500, "Tom Gardner" ihbfd@lhu wrote:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

The "Scientific Method" has truly been replaced by the "Political Method"!

I love the AGWK True Believers. They're quite humorous.

Catastrophe: Warmer climate
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Cooler climate
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Drought
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Excess rains
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Large number of hurricanes/tornadoes
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Small number of hurricanes/tornadoes
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Ice age coming
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Melting glaciers
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Mass bird kills
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Mass fish kills
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Increase in pregancies
Cause: Global Warming

Crom, what'll they think of next to blame on AGWK, Chicago gun crime?

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:20:26 -0500, "Tom Gardner" ihbfd@lhu wrote:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

The "Scientific Method" has truly been replaced by the "Political Method"!

I love the AGWK True Believers. They're quite humorous.

Catastrophe: Warmer climate
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Cooler climate
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Drought
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Excess rains
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Large number of hurricanes/tornadoes
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Small number of hurricanes/tornadoes
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Ice age coming
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Melting glaciers
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Mass bird kills
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Mass fish kills
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Increase in pregancies
Cause: Global Warming

Crom, what'll they think of next to blame on AGWK, Chicago gun crime?

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

I'm ashamed I didn't think of it! But then again, I do have SOME morals.
So, what do you think the leftists will try next? I did notice that they
had a bunch of gun related bills just waiting for a good murder spree (even
if it was by a leftist). It make me wonder if the leftists arranged it all.
They get rid of a moderate Blue Dog and pave the way for "A Good Crisis NOT
Going To Waste" legislation that benefits them greatly. And, they can blame
their enemies! A leftist win-win! We know that the useless eater liberal
'tards will gladly do their masters' bidding. Is this an example of their
strategy? Hmmmm.

On Jan 13, 5:12*pm, "anorton"
wrote:
"Jim Stewart" wrote in message

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

I probably should not bite at this but here goes:

This video talks about all the other anti AGW climate scientists that are
ignored. *There are about 12 people who publish papers in peer-reviewed
journals that regularly question and criticize bits and pieces of other's
work in global warming. *This is a good and heathy thing. Their criticisms
are answered in other papers and back and forth and so on. *None have come
close to disproving AGW while there are THOUSANDS of papers supporting it..
The criticisms of certain research get distributed in the anti-AGW
propaganda. The responses do not.

Supposedly there is this vast conspiracy of scientists to promote AGW to get
funding. Have you ever considered that the coal and oil companies (and Saudi
Arabia who own most of Fox news)are already spending on lobbyists, think
tanks, and PR firms to try to promote a FUD (Fear Uncertianty Doubt)
marketing campaign against AGW. How much would they pay for some really
meaty, VALID research disproving AGW once and for all?

The only real scientist to testify in congress against AGW was a chemical
spectroscopist who claimed *that since the atmosphere was already opaque in
the infrared due to CO2 that the effect was already as large as it could be
and more CO2 could not increase global warming (he never bothered to submit
this thesis for publication). *Any undergraduate physics major will tell
(should be able to tell) you why that conclusion is bunk.

There is a real parallel here with what happened with tobacco research, only
in this case the stakes are much larger. *Doctors knew since at least the
1930s that smoking was harmful and addictive. Yet even in 1994 the tobacco
CEOs testified that nicotine was not addictive. Today, some of the very same
PR firms that claimed smoking is not harmful are being used to influence
your opinion on AGW.

Good post.

On Jan 14, 2:09*am, Hawke wrote:

You have to pick a side.

Or simply it's better to be
prepared for the worst than have it hit us at the worst possible moment.

Hawke

I think it is too early to pick a side. There is a lot a research
going on, but as far as I can tell no one has figured out a model that
tells how much of the change is anthropogenic and how much is caused
by other causes. I pay a lot of attention to John Christy at the U of
Ala. at Huntsville. He has done a lot to measure the global
temperature using satellites. And has pointed out the many problems
with using weather stations. But he is a realist. He agrees that
2010 was a hot year, just as hot as 1998 by his data.

We are kind of between a rock and a hard place as far a doing
anything. Alternate energy sources are still not economical. And if
we decided to act now, it would be many years before we could replace
the current sources of energy. So taking a few more years to
determine exactly what the causes are is not a bad idea.

Meanwhile if we have to do something, maybe it should be to help the
Chinese put out the underground coal fires. They consume twenty
million tons of coal a year. A major source of CO2 that produces no
benefits. We could practice on some of the underground coal fires in
the US.

Dan

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:20:03 -0500, "Tom Gardner" ihbfd@lhu wrote:


Pardon, sir, may I play devil's advocate for a sec? Thanks.



"anorton" wrote in message
news

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

I probably should not bite at this but here goes:

This video talks about all the other anti AGW climate scientists that are
ignored. There are about 12 people who publish papers in peer-reviewed
journals that regularly question and criticize bits and pieces of other's
work in global warming. This is a good and heathy thing. Their criticisms
are answered in other papers and back and forth and so on. None have come
close to disproving AGW while there are THOUSANDS of papers supporting it.
The criticisms of certain research get distributed in the anti-AGW
propaganda. The responses do not.

"Don't tell the deniers, but we planted those pseudo critics, giving
them easily explained doubts which we washed away with more bull****."


Supposedly there is this vast conspiracy of scientists to promote AGW to
get funding. Have you ever considered that the coal and oil companies (and
Saudi Arabia who own most of Fox news)are already spending on lobbyists,
think tanks, and PR firms to try to promote a FUD (Fear Uncertianty Doubt)
marketing campaign against AGW. How much would they pay for some really
meaty, VALID research disproving AGW once and for all?

"Just don't tell the evil conservatives and deniers that we use the
same FUD for our purposes in promoting AGWK."


The only real scientist to testify in congress against AGW was a chemical
spectroscopist who claimed that since the atmosphere was already opaque
in the infrared due to CO2 that the effect was already as large as it
could be and more CO2 could not increase global warming (he never bothered
to submit this thesis for publication). Any undergraduate physics major
will tell (should be able to tell) you why that conclusion is bunk.

"Just don't call us on that one (using the words of someone who is not
a real, God^Hre-sanctioned AGWK scientist with 400 years of experience
in the field), please.


There is a real parallel here with what happened with tobacco research,
only in this case the stakes are much larger. Doctors knew since at least
the 1930s that smoking was harmful and addictive. Yet even in 1994 the
tobacco CEOs testified that nicotine was not addictive. Today, some of the
very same PR firms that claimed smoking is not harmful are being used to
influence your opinion on AGW.

Is there a single scientist that doesn't get paid by somebody else?

"Yes, but those don't count. They're evil rich guys, and you know we
can't trust anyone with money. They all killed to get it. Well, except
for our politicians. They hired folks to kill for them."


Is all GW AGW?

"No, only the part which is."


Is it proven to be reversible?

"Sure, we'll just modify our climate model to fit whatever you want!"

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

anorton wrote:
The only real scientist to testify in congress against AGW was a
chemical spectroscopist who claimed that since the atmosphere was
already opaque in the infrared due to CO2 that the effect was already as
large as it could be and more CO2 could not increase global warming (he
never bothered to submit this thesis for publication). Any
undergraduate physics major will tell (should be able to tell) you why
that conclusion is bunk.
And any one who has worked in the infrared field for quite a few years
would tell you it not "bunk" but the truth.
...lew...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:09:14 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 1/13/2011 8:20 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

Is there a single scientist that doesn't get paid by somebody else? Is all
GW AGW? Is it proven to be reversible?

Most of us know that nothing in science is 100%. That means no matter
how strong the evidence is that man is making the planet hotter there's
always a possibility something else is the cause. But science also
relies on probability. On that score the probability is that it is way
more than likely that man's activities, i.e. burning fossil fuels, is
the cause of it. It's not a proven scientific fact at this point but the
probability is so high that we should take it as a fact.

The problem is that there is a side in the debate that is dishonest and
doesn't care one bit what the truth is. That side has a huge financial
interest in what the truth is. That side is the corporations who produce
the vast quantities of greenhouse gasses that are considered to be the
culprit in the global warming story. Just as the tobacco companies did
in the past, because it was in their economic interest, it's completely
understandable that the energy producers would also try to cover up the
facts if it might cost them money. In reality, we all know companies
will do just about anything to protect their markets. So the idea that
energy companies and other gross polluters are actively putting on a
campaign of disinformation to cloud the facts on this issue is easy
enough to believe is true. But we don't have to guess that companies are
trying to convince the public that global warming doesn't exist. Because
we already know that companies like Koch Industries are spending
millions of dollars to make it look like global warming is a hoax. We
know other companies are doing this too. We have plenty of facts to
prove it.

So given that we know there is a group out there spending millions to
try to cover up the truth because it may cost them financially, and
given that we know most climate scientists say global warming is a fact.
You have to pick a side. To me it's easy. One side is the world's
foremost experts on the climate and the other side is the companies that
produce the pollution that is heating up the planet. Why anyone would
really not see the truth is the real question. But considering the
disastrous consequences that would occur if man is responsible for the
planet's heating up, why would anyone take the chance. It's like today's
version of what's known as Pascal's Wager. Or simply it's better to be
prepared for the worst than have it hit us at the worst possible moment.

Hawke


I agree. The world is definitively getting warmer and it could be from
a number of reasons. I've always imagined that the sun fluctuates in
many different scales, not basically static through the ages. It is
hard to imagine being blind to the fact that man has been contributing
to the fact. Maybe another cause is that we haven't been hit in awhile
and the earth is gradually getting warmer. I just got done with a book
and at the very end the author blurts out something like maybe we
should just all believe in god and live by the rules and god will not
be mad and send in objects from above. But, god can be negated with
reason and should have been done long ago if it weren't for the
lobbying charlatans wasting our precious time to advert the real
problem.

SW

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

You forgot the new gun law that a REPUBLICAN will be sponsering...and
it will become law.

Does this alleged Republican have a name, or are you just making this crap
up?

Thanks,
Rich

anorton wrote:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

I probably should not bite at this but here goes:

Nah, free speech and all that.
snip
None have come
close to disproving AGW while there are THOUSANDS of papers supporting it.

Well, for one thing, it's impossible to prove nonexistence. And there are
MILLIONS of religious zealots driven by faith, which also can't be
disproved.

The problem is, warmingism isn't science, because it's impossible to refute
any assertion - there's no way to test the hypothesis.

But one thing IS known - the costs of imposing the warmingist agenda are
already driving us into bankruptcy.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:20:26 -0500, "Tom Gardner" ihbfd@lhu wrote:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

The "Scientific Method" has truly been replaced by the "Political Method"!

I love the AGWK True Believers. They're quite humorous.

Catastrophe: Warmer climate
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Cooler climate
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Drought
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Excess rains
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Large number of hurricanes/tornadoes
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Small number of hurricanes/tornadoes
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Ice age coming
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Melting glaciers
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Mass bird kills
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Mass fish kills
Cause: Global Warming

Catastrophe: Increase in pregancies
Cause: Global Warming


Catastrophe: Chinese wire brushes
Cause: Global Warming


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

On Jan 14, 12:30*pm, Pete Snell wrote:
...
* *Interesting. Could you expand on that? If the co2 in the atmosphere
makes it opaque to infrared (that is; blocked entirely), how is it that
sunlight warms things?
Pete

I already posted the solar radiation spectrum:
http://org.ntnu.no/solarcells/pages/Chap.2.php?part=1

If a picture isn't good enough, notice that the radiant power peaks in
the visible region and atmospheric water absorbs large chunks of the
infrared. This also shows why a real greenhouse traps heat.

jsw

Rich Grise wrote:


But one thing IS known - the costs of imposing the warmingist agenda are
already driving us into bankruptcy.


As far as I know the global warming agenda thus far consists of nothing
but talk and vague projections into the fut6ure. How does talking about
global warming cause bankruptcy?

On Jan 14, 10:42*am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

But one thing IS known - the costs of imposing the warmingist agenda are
already driving us into bankruptcy.

As far as I know the global warming agenda thus far consists of nothing
but talk and vague projections into the fut6ure. How does talking about
global warming cause bankruptcy?

Tell that to the guys that lost their jobs at the last GE lamp plant
last year because of the incandescent lamp ban, THAT was definitely on
Bush's watch. Crap and Trade is pending here, already a fact in
Europe. So NOT just talk... Billions and potentially trillions of
bucks on the line, MAJOR cost increases in manufacturing. Anything
that needs more than just sun's heat to make is probably going to be
shuffled off to India or China if the proposed regs take effect. They
aren't going along with the gag.

Stan

wrote:

On Jan 14, 10:42 am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

But one thing IS known - the costs of imposing the warmingist agenda are
already driving us into bankruptcy.

As far as I know the global warming agenda thus far consists of nothing
but talk and vague projections into the fut6ure. How does talking about
global warming cause bankruptcy?

Tell that to the guys that lost their jobs at the last GE lamp plant
last year because of the incandescent lamp ban, THAT was definitely on
Bush's watch.

I wasn't aware of any incandescent light ban in the USA.
They sell incandescent where I live.

And anyway even if some day there is a ban,
doesn't the replacement lamps require
as much or more manufacturing input?

How does the light bulbs thing connect to the claim that
"warmingist agenda are already driving us into bankruptcy"



Crap and Trade is pending here, already a fact in
Europe. So NOT just talk...

Pending means it is just talk.
You have failed to make any connection
between this talk and your claim
that it is " already driving us into bankruptcy"



Billions and potentially trillions of
bucks on the line, MAJOR cost increases in manufacturing.

Blah Blah Blah
It's all just talk.
How is this talk about what may happen
"already driving us into bankruptcy"?


Anything
that needs more than just sun's heat to make is probably going to be
shuffled off to India or China if the proposed regs take effect.

India and China have regulations to save energy.
The USA has essentially none.
It looks to me like the warmingest agenda
is working in their favor because
India and China are the ones embracing it.


They
aren't going along with the gag.

Stan

On Jan 14, 12:53*am, "Tom Gardner" ihbfd@lhu wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message

m...





For what it's worth to anyone...

Dec. 13, 2010: *On August 1, 2010, an entire hemisphere of the sun
erupted. Filaments of magnetism snapped and exploded, shock waves raced
across the stellar surface, billion-ton clouds of hot gas billowed into
space. Astronomers knew they had witnessed something big.

It was so big, it may have shattered old ideas about solar activity.

"The August 1st event really opened our eyes," says Karel Schrijver of
Lockheed Martin's Solar and Astrophysics Lab in Palo Alto, CA. "We see
that solar storms can be global events, playing out on scales we
scarcely imagined before."

For the past three months, Schrijver has been working with fellow
Lockheed-Martin solar physicist Alan Title to understand what happened
during the "Great Eruption." They had plenty of data: The event was
recorded in unprecedented detail by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory
and twin STEREO spacecraft. With several colleagues present to offer
commentary, they outlined their findings at a press conference today at
the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

Explosions on the sun are not localized or isolated events, they
announced. Instead, solar activity is interconnected by magnetism over
breathtaking distances. Solar flares, tsunamis, coronal mass
ejections--they can go off all at once, hundreds of thousands of miles
apart, in a dizzyingly-complex concert of mayhem.

"To predict eruptions we can no longer focus on the magnetic fields of
isolated active regions," says Title, "we have to know the surface
magnetic field of practically the entire sun."

This revelation increases the work load for space weather forecasters,
but it also increases the potential accuracy of their forecasts.

"The whole-sun approach could lead to breakthroughs in predicting solar
activity," commented Rodney Viereck of NOAA's Space Weather Prediction
Center in Boulder, CO. "This in turn would provide improved forecasts to
our customers such as electric power grid operators and commercial
airlines, who could take action to protect their systems and ensure the
safety of passengers and crew."

In a paper they prepared for the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR),
Schrijver and Title broke down the Great Eruption into more than a dozen
significant shock waves, flares, filament eruptions, and CMEs spanning
180 degrees of solar longitude and 28 hours of time. At first it seemed
to be a cacophony of disorder until they plotted the events on a map of
the sun's magnetic field.

Title describes the Eureka! moment: "We saw that all the events of
substantial coronal activity were connected by a wide-ranging system of
separatrices, separators, and quasi-separatrix layers." A "separatrix"
is a magnetic fault zone where small changes in surrounding plasma
currents can set off big electromagnetic storms.

Researchers have long suspected this kind of magnetic connection was
possible. "The notion of 'sympathetic' flares goes back at least three
quarters of a century," they wrote in their JGR paper. Sometimes
observers would see flares going off one after another--like
popcorn--but it was impossible to prove a link between them. Arguments
in favor of cause and effect were statistical and often full of doubt.

"For this kind of work, SDO and STEREO are game-changers," says Lika
Guhathakurta, NASA's Living with a Star Program Scientist. "Together,
the three spacecraft monitor 97% of the sun, allowing researchers to see
connections that they could only guess at in the past."

To wit, barely two-thirds of the August event was visible from Earth,
yet all of it could be seen by the SDO-STEREO fleet. Moreover, SDO's
measurements of the sun's magnetic field revealed direct connections
between the various components of the Great Eruption - no statistics
required.

Much remains to be done. "We're still sorting out cause and effect,"
says Schrijver. "Was the event one big chain reaction, in which one
eruption triggered another--bang, bang, bang--in sequence? Or did
everything go off together as a consequence of some greater change in
the sun's global magnetic field?"

Further analysis may yet reveal the underlying trigger; for now, the
team is still wrapping their minds around the global character of solar
activity. One commentator recalled the old adage of three blind men
describing an elephant--one by feeling the trunk, one by holding the
tail, and another by sniffing a toenail. Studying the sun one sunspot at
a time may be just as limiting.

"Not all eruptions are going to be global," notes Guhathakurta. "But the
global character of solar activity can no longer be ignored."

As if the sun wasn't big enough already...

Author: Dr. Tony Phillips
Credit: Science@NASA

But most importantly, is it Bush's fault?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes.

TMT

On Jan 14, 1:09*am, Hawke wrote:
On 1/13/2011 8:20 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

Is there a single scientist that doesn't get paid by somebody else? *Is all
GW AGW? *Is it proven to be reversible?

Most of us know that nothing in science is 100%. That means no matter
how strong the evidence is that man is making the planet hotter there's
always a possibility something else is the cause. But science also
relies on probability. On that score the probability is that it is way
more than likely that man's activities, i.e. burning fossil fuels, is
the cause of it. It's not a proven scientific fact at this point but the
probability is so high that we should take it as a fact.

The problem is that there is a side in the debate that is dishonest and
doesn't care one bit what the truth is. That side has a huge financial
interest in what the truth is. That side is the corporations who produce
the vast quantities of greenhouse gasses that are considered to be the
culprit in the global warming story. Just as the tobacco companies did
in the past, because it was in their economic interest, it's completely
understandable that the energy producers would also try to cover up the
facts if it might cost them money. In reality, we all know companies
will do just about anything to protect their markets. So the idea that
energy companies and other gross polluters are actively putting on a
campaign of disinformation to cloud the facts on this issue is easy
enough to believe is true. But we don't have to guess that companies are
trying to convince the public that global warming doesn't exist. Because
we already know that companies like Koch Industries are spending
millions of dollars to make it look like global warming is a hoax. We
know other companies are doing this too. We have plenty of facts to
prove it.

So given that we know there is a group out there spending millions to
try to cover up the truth because it may cost them financially, and
given that we know most climate scientists say global warming is a fact.
You have to pick a side. To me it's easy. One side is the world's
foremost experts on the climate and the other side is the companies that
produce the pollution that is heating up the planet. Why anyone would
really not see the truth is the real question. But considering the
disastrous consequences that would occur if man is responsible for the
planet's heating up, why would anyone take the chance. It's like today's
version of what's known as Pascal's Wager. Or simply it's better to be
prepared for the worst than have it hit us at the worst possible moment.

Hawke

Very good post.

TMT

On Jan 14, 9:05*am, Rich Grise wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

You forgot the new gun law that a REPUBLICAN will be sponsering...and
it will become law.

Does this alleged Republican have a name, or are you just making this crap
up?

Thanks,
Rich

Read the news...and do your homework.

And enjoy the new laws coming.

And mourn the senseless deaths that have occurred.

TMT

On Jan 14, 9:09*am, Rich Grise wrote:
anorton wrote:

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

I probably should not bite at this but here goes:

Nah, free speech and all that.
snip

*None have come
close to disproving AGW while there are THOUSANDS of papers supporting it.

Well, for one thing, it's impossible to prove nonexistence. And there are
MILLIONS of religious zealots driven by faith, which also can't be
disproved.

The problem is, warmingism isn't science, because it's impossible to refute
any assertion - there's no way to test the hypothesis.

But one thing IS known - the costs of imposing the warmingist agenda are
already driving us into bankruptcy.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Or provide us new business opportunities...like progressive companies
have recognized and are pursuing.

Change or be left behind.

TMT

On Jan 14, 1:10*pm, wrote:
On Jan 14, 10:42*am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

But one thing IS known - the costs of imposing the warmingist agenda are
already driving us into bankruptcy.

As far as I know the global warming agenda thus far consists of nothing
but talk and vague projections into the fut6ure. How does talking about
global warming cause bankruptcy?

Tell that to the guys that lost their jobs at the last GE lamp plant
last year because of the incandescent lamp ban, THAT was definitely on
Bush's watch. *Crap and Trade is pending here, already a fact in
Europe. *So NOT just talk... *Billions and potentially trillions of
bucks on the line, MAJOR cost increases in manufacturing. *Anything
that needs more than just sun's heat to make is probably going to be
shuffled off to India or China if the proposed regs take effect. *They
aren't going along with the gag.

Stan

We are talking global warming...not cheap labor.

Work for a dollar a day like your Republican handlers want you to and
the jobs would stay here.

TMT

On Jan 14, 1:41*pm, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
wrote:

On Jan 14, 10:42 am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

But one thing IS known - the costs of imposing the warmingist agenda are
already driving us into bankruptcy.

As far as I know the global warming agenda thus far consists of nothing
but talk and vague projections into the fut6ure. How does talking about
global warming cause bankruptcy?

Tell that to the guys that lost their jobs at the last GE lamp plant
last year because of the incandescent lamp ban, THAT was definitely on
Bush's watch. *

I wasn't aware of any incandescent light ban in the USA.
They sell incandescent where I live.

And anyway even if some day there is a ban,
doesn't the replacement lamps require
as much or more manufacturing input?

How does the light bulbs thing connect to the claim that
"warmingist agenda are already driving us into bankruptcy"

Crap and Trade is pending here, already a fact in
Europe. *So NOT just talk...

Pending means it is just talk.
You have failed to make any connection
between this talk and *your claim
that it is " already driving us into bankruptcy"

Billions and potentially trillions of
bucks on the line, MAJOR cost increases in manufacturing.

Blah Blah Blah
It's all just talk.
How is this talk about what may happen
"already driving us into bankruptcy"?

*Anything
that needs more than just sun's heat to make is probably going to be
shuffled off to India or China if the proposed regs take effect.

India and China have regulations to save energy.
The USA has essentially none.
It looks to me like the warmingest agenda
is working in their favor because
India and China are the ones embracing it.



They
aren't going along with the gag.

Stan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly...the developing nations have no preexisting infrastructure to
deal with.

They will have the "new" technology at the starting gate while
countries like the United States will be and is held back by older
infrastructure and political interests trying to protect it.

It is why China is far ahead of us...and will remain so.

TMT

On Jan 13, 5:12*pm, "anorton"
wrote:
"Jim Stewart" wrote in message

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

I probably should not bite at this but here goes:

This video talks about all the other anti AGW climate scientists that are
ignored. *There are about 12 people who publish papers in peer-reviewed
journals that regularly question and criticize bits and pieces of other's
work in global warming. *This is a good and heathy thing. Their criticisms
are answered in other papers and back and forth and so on. *None have come
close to disproving AGW while there are THOUSANDS of papers supporting it..
The criticisms of certain research get distributed in the anti-AGW
propaganda. The responses do not.

Supposedly there is this vast conspiracy of scientists to promote AGW to get
funding. Have you ever considered that the coal and oil companies (and Saudi
Arabia who own most of Fox news)are already spending on lobbyists, think
tanks, and PR firms to try to promote a FUD (Fear Uncertianty Doubt)
marketing campaign against AGW. How much would they pay for some really
meaty, VALID research disproving AGW once and for all?

The only real scientist to testify in congress against AGW was a chemical
spectroscopist who claimed *that since the atmosphere was already opaque in
the infrared due to CO2 that the effect was already as large as it could be
and more CO2 could not increase global warming (he never bothered to submit
this thesis for publication). *Any undergraduate physics major will tell
(should be able to tell) you why that conclusion is bunk.

There is a real parallel here with what happened with tobacco research, only
in this case the stakes are much larger. *Doctors knew since at least the
1930s that smoking was harmful and addictive. Yet even in 1994 the tobacco
CEOs testified that nicotine was not addictive. Today, some of the very same
PR firms that claimed smoking is not harmful are being used to influence
your opinion on AGW.

Again...good post.

Also noting the extreme flooding/snow we are now seeing worldwide, I
expect to see some serious flooding in the United States this year.

TMT

John R. Carroll wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

You forgot the new gun law that a REPUBLICAN will be sponsering...and
it will become law.

Does this alleged Republican have a name, or are you just making this
crap up?

Peter King.
Are you dumb, lazy, or do you just enjoy handing out homework assignments?

You're the one making the outrageous claim, therefore it's your job to back
it up.

I'm lazy, but that's irrelevant - I'm not going to to your job for you, you
nincompoop.

Thanks,
Rich

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:05*am, Rich Grise wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

You forgot the new gun law that a REPUBLICAN will be sponsering...and
it will become law.

Does this alleged Republican have a name, or are you just making this
crap up?

Read the news...and do your homework.

GFY. You're the one making the outrageous claim. Backing it up
is _your_ job.

Good Luck!
Rich

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:30*pm, Pete Snell wrote:
...
Interesting. Could you expand on that? If the co2 in the atmosphere
makes it opaque to infrared (that is; blocked entirely), how is it that
sunlight warms things?

I already posted the solar radiation spectrum:
http://org.ntnu.no/solarcells/pages/Chap.2.php?part=1

If a picture isn't good enough, notice that the radiant power peaks in
the visible region and atmospheric water absorbs large chunks of the
infrared. This also shows why a real greenhouse traps heat.

Actually, I think the part that traps the heat is the glass ceiling.

Thanks,
Rich

Pete Snell wrote:
On 1/14/2011 12:41 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:30 pm, Pete wrote:
...
Interesting. Could you expand on that? If the co2 in the atmosphere
makes it opaque to infrared (that is; blocked entirely), how is it that
sunlight warms things?
Pete

I already posted the solar radiation spectrum:
http://org.ntnu.no/solarcells/pages/Chap.2.php?part=1

If a picture isn't good enough, notice that the radiant power peaks in
the visible region and atmospheric water absorbs large chunks of the
infrared. This also shows why a real greenhouse traps heat.

Sure, the diagram is clear enough, but it surely doesn't show that
the atmosphere is 'opaque' to infrared. It sure attenuates it, but it
doesn't totally block it. In fact at 800nm the spectral radiance is
about 3/4 of the peak. That's an awful long way from opaque. Co2
certainly takes a narrow chunk out at about 2000nm, but not much before
that.

Ever been at a picnic or something and a cloud blows over and blocks
the sun? But The Church of Warmingism apparently doesn't believe in
clouds.

Thanks,
Rich

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:10:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 14, 10:42*am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

But one thing IS known - the costs of imposing the warmingist agenda are
already driving us into bankruptcy.

As far as I know the global warming agenda thus far consists of nothing
but talk and vague projections into the fut6ure. How does talking about
global warming cause bankruptcy?

Tell that to the guys that lost their jobs at the last GE lamp plant
last year because of the incandescent lamp ban, THAT was definitely on
Bush's watch.

Yeah, Republicans have always been the go-to people for
environmentalism, haven't they? http://tinyurl.com/6go2jja REPs
tried to save 'em, but I think everyone agrees that reduced
electricity use is a good thing. Cheaper for the user, and it can
reduce oil importation. Shrub signed it after the DEMs wrote and
pushed the ban through. The originator didn't sign the final bill!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ty_Act_of_2007

Do you mean to tell me that things like incandescent light bulbs were
still made here in the USA? That amazes me, given the cost of union
labor + benefits.


Crap and Trade is pending here, already a fact in
Europe. So NOT just talk... Billions and potentially trillions of
bucks on the line, MAJOR cost increases in manufacturing. Anything
that needs more than just sun's heat to make is probably going to be
shuffled off to India or China if the proposed regs take effect. They
aren't going along with the gag.

Things aren't looking up, that's for sure. LED replacements are still
20 (minimum) to 100 times more expensive for the same number of
lumens.


--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On Jan 14, 4:11*pm, Pete Snell wrote:
On 1/14/2011 3:59 PM, Rich Grise wrote:



Ever been at a picnic or something and a cloud blows over and blocks
the sun? But The Church of Warmingism apparently doesn't believe in
clouds.

Thanks,
Rich

* *Sure have experienced that! But clouds aren't CO2........., and I've
noticed that visible light decreases as well when that cloud passes
over. And I don't know what the church of warmingism has to do with it,
I thought we were talking about CO2 blocking all IR, which is what had
been implied.

Pete

Fig 3 shows the absorption spectra of other IR absorbers:
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccours.../spectrum.html
You can see the double peak for CO2 at 2 microns here and on the solar
radiation spectrum, and also how overwhelmingly important water is in
the total.

The Earth radiates back to space at 10 microns and longer, where CO2
absorption is significant. This suggests to me that the nighttime
cooling rate should be watched. However AFAIK the dew point, water
again, sets the nighttime low temperature. This may be the absorption
he was talking about.

Glass keeps a greenhouse warm because glass passes the largely visible-
light energy from the sun but blocks infrared re-radiation from
within.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:56:04 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:05*am, Rich Grise wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

You forgot the new gun law that a REPUBLICAN will be sponsering...and
it will become law.

Does this alleged Republican have a name, or are you just making this
crap up?

Read the news...and do your homework.

GFY. You're the one making the outrageous claim. Backing it up
is _your_ job.

PLEASE, just plonk him. You don't even have to post that you did it,
honest! We're sick of seeing his posts.

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

Pete Snell wrote:
And any one who has worked in the infrared field for quite a few years
would tell you it not "bunk" but the truth.
...lew...

Interesting. Could you expand on that? If the co2 in the atmosphere
makes it opaque to infrared (that is; blocked entirely), how is it that
sunlight warms things?

Pete

If I have to explain that to you, I wonder just what you do
at that college in the physics dept.
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada

...lew...

On Jan 14, 4:48*pm, "Tom Gardner" ihbfd@lhu wrote:
...
A far more likely scenario is that since "climate scientists" are paid by
people that want specific findings to perpetuate grants, gov. money, carbon
trading commissions, wealth redistribution, social justice, political and
economic control, etc., etc., etc., that their "findings" fit what they are
paid to "find". *

Is it a coincidence that Global Warming appeared when the anti-nuclear-
power crowd got their wish and then discovered that a thousand-year
supply of coal and shale oil could replace the petroleum we were about
to run out of?

One group that stands to benefit is nations with submarines that can
interdict oil tanker traffic in a crisis. Solar cells and windmills
won't fuel the Air Force.

I personally use very little electricity or fossil fuel. If you
advocate imposing restrictions try rationing your own electric
consumption to 10 KWH per person per day, and tell us how you did
it.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Do you mean to tell me that things like incandescent light bulbs were
still made here in the USA? That amazes me, given the cost of union
labor + benefits.


Who in their right mind would manufacture anything in the states?
(Go ahead, say it!) -- I rest my case!

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...

Do you mean to tell me that things like incandescent light bulbs were
still made here in the USA? That amazes me, given the cost of union
labor + benefits.


Who in their right mind would manufacture anything in the states?
(Go ahead, say it!) -- I rest my case!

I guess just you an me...

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:54:50 -0500, "Tom Gardner" ihbfd@lhu wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Do you mean to tell me that things like incandescent light bulbs were
still made here in the USA? That amazes me, given the cost of union
labor + benefits.

Who in their right mind would manufacture anything in the states?
(Go ahead, say it!) -- I rest my case!

No, I'm just talking about 1 cheap commodity which had been produced
abroad for a couple decades, I thought. It's not cost-effective to
produce here. Several thousand of the little buggers could be produced
daily for the difference in bennies alone. Add several thousand more
for the wage difference.

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:56:04 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:05 am, Rich Grise wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

You forgot the new gun law that a REPUBLICAN will be sponsering...and
it will become law.

Does this alleged Republican have a name, or are you just making this
crap up?

Read the news...and do your homework.

GFY. You're the one making the outrageous claim. Backing it up
is _your_ job.

PLEASE, just plonk him. You don't even have to post that you did it,
honest! We're sick of seeing his posts.

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

I thought I knew how that worked but on occasion somebody gets out of the
bin. Howdaydodat?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:09:48 -0500, "Tom Gardner" ihbfd@lhu wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
PLEASE, just plonk him. You don't even have to post that you did it,
honest! We're sick of seeing his posts.

I thought I knew how that worked but on occasion somebody gets out of the
bin. Howdaydodat?

The weasly little Group W father rapers change their email addresses,
probably because yet another host canned their spamming ass.

--
Threee days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the
tea party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that
has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of
lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse,
Dean smeared tea partiers as racists: They oppose Obama's
agenda, Obama is African-American, ergo...

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation
of liberals whose default position in any argument is to
indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left
-- devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data --
is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding
engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for
the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing
liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral
weakness and bad sociology. --George Will 14 JAN 2011
Article titled "Tragedies often spark plenty of analysis"

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

The weasly little Group W father rapers change their email addresses,
probably because yet another host canned their spamming ass.

--
Ah-HA! I din no dat, tanks!