Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 03:26 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,529
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

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

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

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


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

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


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .com...
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 23:06:10 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in
message
news:[email protected] ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161
wrote:

I have a question.

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

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

Now, your answer:

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


Also see these books:

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

_The Skeptical Environmentalist_
Bjorn Lomborg (formerly of Greenpeace)

_The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and
Environmentalism_
Chris Horner

_Terrestrial Energy_
William Tucker

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

_Hard Green: Saving the Environment from Environmentalists_
by Peter Huber

_Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years_
Patrick J. Michaels

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

_The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science_
Tim Ball

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

http://joannenova.com.au/

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

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

--
Ed Huntress


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

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

--
Ed Huntress

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

--jsw

Are you saying that your economic philosophy trumps the science?

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

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

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

--
Ed Huntress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This means needing less rather than
having more.

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

--
Ed Huntress


--jsw

You AGW believers collectively.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


I'll bet it would.


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

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

--jsw


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

--
Ed Huntress


+5.

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


Ha-ha!


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


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

--
Ed Huntress

  #72   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 03:41 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,682
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

"Joe Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ignoramus1161 wrote:

On 2016-03-09, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Mar 9, 2016, Ignoramus1161 wrote
(in ):

I have a question.


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

Do you recall when the name went from Global Warming to Climate
Change? The
reason for the new name is that the predicted rise in temperature
is not
happening. Instead, the rate of rise flattened out, and the
deviation from
prediction keeps increasing. There are many articles in the
scientific
press
(here meaning Nature and Science, which I subscribe to) trying to
explain
the
anomaly, without much success so far.

The now common statement that current year is the warmest ever,
while
literally true, is misleading in that it does not address the
fact that the
rate of rise is not following the current models. The google
search term
for
this is ???climate hiatus???.


Here is a graph showing the climate hiatus that people are trying
to
explain.
The East Anglica folk were trying to obscure the toe of this
failure to
follow the models, and said if the hiatus continued for fifteen
years, it
would be a big problem. This was in 2009, but they were referring
to the
start of the divergence in 1995 or so.

.http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/cl...ersus-climate-
reality/#more-20667

Also lots of comparisons of various models with observation.


Judith Curry is an apostate in that she objected to the APS
becoming an
advocacy organization:

.http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/24/american-physical-society/


Joe Gwinn


Joe, I am far from a believer in global warming. I have not yet
made
up my mind on it. I look for anything that I can find to confirm or
disconfirm it. So far the best evidence for me was melting of
glaciers.


The argument is no longer if the Earth is warming - it is, a bit,
but
it's hard to measure it with great precision, because of natural
variation.

The argument is how much and how fast, and more importantly, if
humans
are the cause, and if humans can do anything about it.

The arguments for taking drastic (expensive) action NOW ultimately
rest
on how good the current models are. Things were going well until
1995
or so, when measured temperature started to diverge from predicted
temperature, and so far the divergence has become greater by the
year.

This failure of the best current models undermines the case for
doing
big things NOW, versus waiting until the various issues are sorted
out.

Nor is it obvious that it's cheaper to eliminate fossil fuels (if
this
is even possible) than to remedy the various consequences directly.
For this issue, Bjorn Lomberg (the Skeptical Environmentalist) is a
good place to start.

.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist


This all reminds me of the kerfuffle decades ago where in the
article
and later book "Currents of Death", Brodeur claimed that the
electric
and magnetic fields from the 60 Hz AC power system in the US caused
cancer.

.http://www.paulbrodeur.net/currents_of_death_119779.htm

He was quite wrong, having confused correlation with causation: Who
lives near high-tension power lines? Not the Rich for sure. It is
well known that the Rich enjoy better health by all measures than
the
Poor. Oops.

But even if Brodeur were correct, replacing the entire US power grid
with a well-shielded power grid (which is technically feasible) is
orders of magnitude more expensive than doubling the health care
system
(which is far more likely to improve health of the Poor than
fiddling
with power wires).


Joe Gwinn


True Believers are welcome to reduce their own fossil fuel dependency
and tell us how they did it. I have a long list of "You can't
expect -me- to do that" methods that work fine, for example the
clothesline that Ed rejected.
"I did that 40 years ago. Then I got a dryer. I'm not going back. g"

https://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/bi...r_r3_final.pdf
"For example, hang-drying clothes in the summer
instead of using a drying machine will save 35 MMtCO2e."

They dry just fine outdoors in the winter too, because the humidity is
very low. Insulated clothing that doesn't dry in a day can then be
hung indoors to dewrinkle and help raise the humidity to healthier
levels.

I switched from 200W desktops to 40W laptops, high-end business
models I bought cheaply second-hand, mainly to cut their power demand
to what my small solar system can handle during a prolonged ice storm
blackout. We suffered an hour-long blackout a few days ago. They are
becoming more common as our infrastructure ages, population grows, and
improvement is fiercely opposed
https://www.eversource.com/NSTAR/outage/OutageMap.aspx
As I type this there are outages in Bellingham and Somerville MA.

What was hot in 2010 is still powerful enough to browse the Internet
or record two TV programs simultaneously, unless you obsessively need
to keep up with the neighbors.

The thicker, heavier older business-class laptops are very versatile.
I can plug in a terabyte second hard drive to keep the primary boot
SSD affordably small, and have USB3 on an ExpressCard adapter, plus
extra serial ports for my datalogging meters on a PCMCIA card, and use
the HDTV to extend the desktop. Batteries are plentiful for some
models, a problem for others.

--jsw


  #73   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 03:48 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,682
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:12:50 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


And I question whether you really know what evidence is being
tampered
with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about
anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too
complex,
and
too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel.

Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather
basic
and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to
learn.

Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you
certainly know.

We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases
first because it is so much easier to understand there than in
liquids
or solids.

Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate.


Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult
intensively,
at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry.
The
original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers
investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars.

One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure
the
properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at
the
low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer
operating
and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became
pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical
interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra.

The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from
places
we
don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere
over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest.

The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The
models are based on probability-density functions.


"You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about
which
way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of
measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole
puzzle fits together."

Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and
interpret the data.

Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate
propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating
transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar.

You've only shown how little your own opinions
mean.

I have no opinions about the science, except that the real
scientists
are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than
anyone
here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet.

--
Ed Huntress



--jsw


Okay, I get that you are annoyed by attacks on your sacred cow that
you lack the scientific education to directly respond to.


You never know, Jim. Despite the fact that isolating and compoudning
deterministic phenomena for explaining climate was abandoned in the
1950s, you may yet, through application of high-altitude quantum
mechanics and data-gathering, be the first one to solve the problem
with deterministic physics that you learned during your internships.

--
Ed Huntress


Are you warming up to enter politics?



  #74   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 04:00 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,529
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800,
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into
this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many
where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the
experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained
people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly
by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages.
While digging into the details might be work, finding the
well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who
insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently
birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry
state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them.


Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is
tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they
don't even read their own "cites."

There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today:

http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf

As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough
about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to
blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and
conspiracies.


The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long
time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next
level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly
educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be
done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's
missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate
change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support
repeal and replacement of peer review. The obvious and sure to be
popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected
minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the
death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this
movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and
more like a documentary, to see where we're headed.


Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a
second life and get into general distribution.

I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my
thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour
Hoffman died.

--
Ed Huntress
  #75   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 04:03 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,529
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:26:00 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:29:49 -0600, Ignoramus26799
wrote:

On 2016-03-10, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:44:09 -0600, Ignoramus26799
wrote:

On 2016-03-09, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161
wrote:

I have a question.

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

i

You mean this ice?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...e-caps-melting

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...ecord-maximum/

Check the second link...see who it is? Might want to review your
choices in data a bit more...carefully.

Yeah, like the second link. Do you EVER read the stuff you link to?
Iggy asks about Arctic ice, and Gunner posts a link from NASA that
says:

"Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square
miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has
gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).

"The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of
the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."

Sometimes I wonder how Gunner made it through high school.


Ed, I did see that, but when one place is shrinking and another is
growing, you have to wonder what is going on.


It's called "wind", Ig. Mother Nature' various-temperatured wind
patterns evolve and things shift, maintaining the balance of things
globally. This was happening long before mankind came around, and it
will continue long after we're gone.


And the "balance of things globally" apparently is melting polar sea
ice three times faster than ice is growing. Right?

--
Ed Huntress


  #76   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 04:06 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,529
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:48:46 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:12:50 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


And I question whether you really know what evidence is being
tampered
with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about
anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too
complex,
and
too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel.

Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather
basic
and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to
learn.

Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you
certainly know.

We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases
first because it is so much easier to understand there than in
liquids
or solids.

Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate.


Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult
intensively,
at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry.
The
original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers
investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars.

One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure
the
properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at
the
low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer
operating
and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became
pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical
interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra.

The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from
places
we
don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere
over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest.

The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The
models are based on probability-density functions.


"You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about
which
way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of
measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole
puzzle fits together."

Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and
interpret the data.

Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate
propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating
transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar.

You've only shown how little your own opinions
mean.

I have no opinions about the science, except that the real
scientists
are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than
anyone
here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet.

--
Ed Huntress



--jsw

Okay, I get that you are annoyed by attacks on your sacred cow that
you lack the scientific education to directly respond to.


You never know, Jim. Despite the fact that isolating and compoudning
deterministic phenomena for explaining climate was abandoned in the
1950s, you may yet, through application of high-altitude quantum
mechanics and data-gathering, be the first one to solve the problem
with deterministic physics that you learned during your internships.

--
Ed Huntress


Are you warming up to enter politics?


'Just doing the same kind of unblinking analysis I've done for 40
years on my job.

--
Ed Huntress
  #77   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 04:07 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,682
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800,
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason
into
this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many
where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the
experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about
small-brained
people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge
mostly
by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web
pages.
While digging into the details might be work, finding the
well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who
insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently
birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a
sorry
state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them.

Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is
tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years,
they
don't even read their own "cites."

There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today:

http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf

As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know
enough
about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take
to
blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and
conspiracies.


The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long
time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next
level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly
educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't
be
done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's
missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review.
Climate
change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support
repeal and replacement of peer review. The obvious and sure to be
popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected
minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the
death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this
movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and
more like a documentary, to see where we're headed.


Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a
second life and get into general distribution.

I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my
thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour
Hoffman died.

--
Ed Huntress


"Bernie Sanders is Donald Trump for people that still live in their
parents basement" - Michael O'Donoghue



  #78   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 04:09 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2016
Posts: 99
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:00:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800,
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into
this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many
where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the
experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained
people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly
by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages.
While digging into the details might be work, finding the
well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who
insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently
birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry
state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them.

Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is
tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they
don't even read their own "cites."

There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today:

http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf

As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough
about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to
blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and
conspiracies.


The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long
time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next
level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly
educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be
done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's
missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate
change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support
repeal and replacement of peer review. The obvious and sure to be
popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected
minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the
death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this
movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and
more like a documentary, to see where we're headed.


Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a
second life and get into general distribution.

I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my
thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour
Hoffman died.


The best upside, according to a GOP interviewee who intends to vote
for Trump, is that the party will hit rock bottom and implode, and
members will no longer be able to deny the obvious. According to him,
it will only be then that useful rebuilding can take place.
  #79   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 04:10 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,529
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

Philip Seymour Hoffman On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:07:21 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800,
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason
into
this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many
where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the
experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about
small-brained
people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge
mostly
by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web
pages.
While digging into the details might be work, finding the
well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who
insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently
birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a
sorry
state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them.

Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is
tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years,
they
don't even read their own "cites."

There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today:

http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf

As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know
enough
about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take
to
blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and
conspiracies.

The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long
time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next
level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly
educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't
be
done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's
missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review.
Climate
change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support
repeal and replacement of peer review. The obvious and sure to be
popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected
minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the
death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this
movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and
more like a documentary, to see where we're headed.


Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a
second life and get into general distribution.

I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my
thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour
Hoffman died.

--
Ed Huntress


"Bernie Sanders is Donald Trump for people that still live in their
parents basement" - Michael O'Donoghue


I love that line. I heard it a week ago when it was quoted on
Hardball.

--
Ed Huntress
  #80   Report Post  
Old March 11th 16, 05:07 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,529
Default No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:09:04 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:00:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800,
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800,
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into
this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many
where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the
experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained
people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly
by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages.
While digging into the details might be work, finding the
well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who
insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently
birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry
state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them.

Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is
tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they
don't even read their own "cites."

There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today:

http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf

As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough
about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to
blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and
conspiracies.

The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long
time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next
level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly
educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be
done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's
missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate
change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support
repeal and replacement of peer review. The obvious and sure to be
popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected
minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the
death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this
movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and
more like a documentary, to see where we're headed.


Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a
second life and get into general distribution.

I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my
thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour
Hoffman died.


The best upside, according to a GOP interviewee who intends to vote
for Trump, is that the party will hit rock bottom and implode, and
members will no longer be able to deny the obvious. According to him,
it will only be then that useful rebuilding can take place.


Ya' see? I knew there was a reason to keep my party registration as a
Republican. The moderates shall rise again. g

--
Ed Huntress


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs.... Larry Jaques[_4_] Metalworking 28 March 26th 16 04:06 AM
OT Global warming harryagain[_2_] UK diy 49 January 13th 14 09:44 PM
Global Warming and what you can do to against it ..[_2_] UK diy 29 December 19th 09 09:53 AM
Musing about warming up. Arch Woodturning 5 February 7th 06 06:45 PM
Warming up daler Home Repair 1 January 25th 05 01:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017