"Bruce" wrote

I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was buried
to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm approximately. It
wasn't too difficult except where it crossed other buried services.

My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
relatively easy to find. A buried telephone cable was beyond my ability
(or that of the technique) to find.


Thanks Bruce, I might get out the old bent coat hangers at the weekend and
see how sensitive my "feel" at this can become.

Phil

"TheScullster" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote

I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was buried
to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm approximately. It
wasn't too difficult except where it crossed other buried services.

My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
relatively easy to find. A buried telephone cable was beyond my ability
(or that of the technique) to find.


Thanks Bruce, I might get out the old bent coat hangers at the weekend and
see how sensitive my "feel" at this can become.


No, you can't do that!

First, you have to prove it scientifically to several people sitting in
armchairs, criticising. ;-)

Bruce wrote:

Electromagnetic force is not beyond the scope of normal scientific
understanding.

I take it that by "electromagnetic force" you mean the Lorentz force

F = q (E + v x B)

It is very easy to measure E and B.

How does your electric drill rotate? You mean you don't understand?

Do you?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Bruce wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:20=A0am, Bruce wrote:
Lobster wrote:

Red herring - the term 'paranormal' is irrelevant. =A0Randi will
pay up = to anybody who can prove dowsing works.

But who would want to?

Someone who wants a million dollars. That is actually quite a lot of
people.


I think you meant "someone who wants a million dollars to do an
intricately contrived experiment that makes it impossible to prove
anything".

Its simply a scientifically controlled test that will prove a claim one way
or another. It would conclusively prove or disprove a claim, not make it
impossible.

Not surprisingly, the number of takers for that is vanishingly small.

Ferzacerly! Easy enough to claim you have certain abilities, very difficult
to prove that you have.

But my point is, who cares? Here's a technique that works quite
reliably, one that many people use successfully in their work. No-one
knows how or why it works, just that it does.

It doesn't work reliably. The Kassel Dowsing Test showed conclusively that
the results are no better than chance.

Who cares? Only the armchair critics. Ironically, some of those
critics might actually find it useful, but they let their prejudices
get in the way instead. ;-)

Give me a CAT scanner anyday thanks. We know how they work & can measure
results.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Easy enough to claim you have certain abilities


I make no such claim.

Bruce wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Easy enough to claim you have certain abilities


I make no such claim.

"I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was buried
to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm approximately. It
wasn't too difficult except where it crossed other buried services.

My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
relatively easy to find."

Sounds like a claim to me.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Bruce wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Easy enough to claim you have certain abilities


I make no such claim.

"I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was buried
to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm approximately. It
wasn't too difficult except where it crossed other buried services.

My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
relatively easy to find."

Sounds like a claim to me.


It's a statement of fact, not a claim of any kind.

The only person making claims is you. From your armchair, you claim
dowsing doesn't work.

Meanwhile, every day around Britain, people working for national
agencies, local authorities, major PLCs such as water companies,
consultants and contractors along with many smaller firms are routinely
using dowsing as a technique to help them find buried services. They
use other techniques too, but dowsing is a reliable and well established
method that has been shown to work very well in a wide range of
conditions.

Meanwhile, you claim it doesn't work. From an armchair!

You make me laugh. ;-)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:46:31 +0000, Bruce wrote:

The only person making claims is you. From your armchair, you claim
dowsing doesn't work.

Meanwhile, every day around Britain, people working for national
agencies, local authorities, major PLCs such as water companies,
consultants and contractors along with many smaller firms are routinely
using dowsing as a technique to help them find buried services. They
use other techniques too, but dowsing is a reliable and well established
method that has been shown to work very well in a wide range of
conditions.

Meanwhile, you claim it doesn't work. From an armchair!

You make me laugh. ;-)


Go ahead, go claim your $million. Should be easy.

Or at least say why you think the experiment isn't a valid test?

Here's the details http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/


BTW, compared to all the ghosty-crap that my other half avidly watches,
dowsing does seem to be the most plausible and least deliberate rip-off
of all the varieties of unexplained phenomenon. I'd love it to work, I
really would.

Show me a true double blind test, and I'll believe it. Anything less, and
it didn't happen.

PCPaul wrote:

BTW, compared to all the ghosty-crap that my other half avidly watches,
dowsing does seem to be the most plausible and least deliberate rip-off
of all the varieties of unexplained phenomenon. I'd love it to work, I
really would.

Show me a true double blind test, and I'll believe it. Anything less, and
it didn't happen.


Tell that to the thousands of people who do it, and to the major PLCs
and public bodies that they work for, who benefit from the results.

From the comfort of your armchair, of course. ;-)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:46:31 +0000, Bruce wrote:
The only person making claims is you. From your armchair, you claim
dowsing doesn't work.

Maybe there's no water under his armchair

Bruce wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Bruce wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Easy enough to claim you have certain abilities


I make no such claim.

"I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was
buried to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm
approximately. It wasn't too difficult except where it crossed
other buried services.

My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
relatively easy to find."

Sounds like a claim to me.


It's a statement of fact, not a claim of any kind.

????? You are clearly claiming the ability to find water pipes & cables.
If you can do that under controlled conditions you are in for a load of
money. But you can't. That you chose to delude yourself doesn't provide
any evidence that dowsing works.


The only person making claims is you. From your armchair, you claim
dowsing doesn't work.

Why would I use a PC from an armchair? I don't actually have an armchair.

Meanwhile, every day around Britain, people working for national
agencies, local authorities, major PLCs such as water companies,
consultants and contractors along with many smaller firms are
routinely using dowsing as a technique to help them find buried
services. They use other techniques too, but dowsing is a reliable
and well established method that has been shown to work very well in
a wide range of conditions.

Dowsing has been subjected to scientific studies where the dowsers
themselves chose the conditions. They acheived results no better than
chance. It does not work reliably.

Meanwhile, you claim it doesn't work. From an armchair!

You make me laugh. ;-)

I'd rather make you think.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Bruce wrote:
PCPaul wrote:

BTW, compared to all the ghosty-crap that my other half avidly
watches, dowsing does seem to be the most plausible and least
deliberate rip-off of all the varieties of unexplained phenomenon.
I'd love it to work, I really would.

Show me a true double blind test, and I'll believe it. Anything
less, and it didn't happen.


Tell that to the thousands of people who do it, and to the major PLCs
and public bodies that they work for, who benefit from the results.

Evidence? Other that apocryphal stories?

From the comfort of your armchair, of course. ;-)

Ad hominem attack on an armchair. Very good. Are you willing to be
subjected to a double blind test or not?

The answer will be no, and you will justify that with weasel words about how
it can't be tested.

I have the ability to fly around the room a foot above the floor. Done it
loads of times. All my mates confirm I can do it. Do you believe me?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jules
saying something like:

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:46:31 +0000, Bruce wrote:
The only person making claims is you. From your armchair, you claim
dowsing doesn't work.

Maybe there's no water under his armchair

Fresh incontinence bag.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying
something like:

Meanwhile, every day around Britain, people working for national
agencies, local authorities, major PLCs such as water companies,
consultants and contractors along with many smaller firms are routinely
using dowsing as a technique to help them find buried services.

Yada yada yada.
Half the time the dowsers turn up and don't find what they're supposed
to. You never mentioned that.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for thousands of
years. I don't believe its man made.

Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Or do you believe that it has, but that this has had no effect?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.

Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Not necessarily no.

Or do you believe that it has, but that this has had no effect?

I think the climate is changing because it does so every now & then and
always has. The Thames used to freeze over regularly for example & we
didn't have 20+ million cars on the roads. Thats the black swan IMV.

If the carbon dioxide levels are increasing, that might be caused by climate
change, but I don't believe its causing climate change.

I'm highly skeptical of the environmental lobby which has now become an
industry.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.

Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Not necessarily no.

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50 years
from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to 386ppm:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human activity.
If the activity were periodic then the period must be much shorter
than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.

I think the climate is changing because it does so every now & then and
always has. The Thames used to freeze over regularly for example & we
didn't have 20+ million cars on the roads.

Not really relevant, but I don't think the Thames used to freeze regularly
within historical records.
Pepys records it freezing over, but it seems pretty clear from his diary
that this was a very unusual event.

Having said that, there is obviously a periodic variation in temperature.
There are ice-ages roughly every 100,000 years,
with warm periods of about 10,000 years in between.
(See eg http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
for a very interesting article by Freeman Dyson,
who is a well-known sceptic on the global warming issue,
but who accepts that human activity has made a big difference.
He points out incidentally that we are on the point of a new ice age.
His view - roughly - is that the effects of global warming are not as bad
as the pessimists say.)





--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.

Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Not necessarily no.

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
386ppm: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
shorter
than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.

I think the climate is changing because it does so every now & then
and always has. The Thames used to freeze over regularly for
example & we didn't have 20+ million cars on the roads.

Not really relevant, but I don't think the Thames used to freeze
regularly within historical records.

AD250, 903, 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635,
1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, 1768, 1776,
1785, 1788, 1795, and 1814.
1666 drought which exacerbated great fire of London, 1697 hailstones 60 mm
in diameter, 1703
Britain's worst ever storm, 17,000 trees down in Kent, 1836 avalanche of
snow killed eight people at Lewes, 1902 - 56 hours of continuous rain.

UK population (approximate figures) in 1570 was around 4.8 million rising to
8.3 million in 1801. Certainly not enough human activity to make much
difference.

Mr Benz didn't invent the infernal combustion engine till 1885, so I don't
think we can blame vehicle polution.

Climate change is nothing new at all and occurs regardless of the size of
the human population.

This 'black swan' is of course inconvenient to those who earn their living
from Eco - FUD, so is ignored.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.

Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Not necessarily no.

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
386ppm: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
shorter
than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.

You don't seem to me to have responded to this.
Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?
If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human activity?

Climate change is nothing new at all and occurs regardless of the size of
the human population.

Does anyone argue that the climate was not changing before 1850?
You have to analyse changes, if you can, into components
with different periods.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.

Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Not necessarily no.

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
386ppm: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
shorter
than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.

You don't seem to me to have responded to this.

I rather thought I had, but you appear to have ignored it.

Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?

First of all, 100 years is far too short a period for a serious study. A
bit like those cosmetic adverts which claim that "79% of woman agreed",
which seems fine until the small print reveals the study was on 129 woman.

We simply don't have enough data. 100 years is a millisecond compared to
the existance of planet earth. Ice core samples fail to impress me.

Typicically you have ignored the black swan argument. Inconvenient I know,
but entirely relevant.

You don't seem to have responded to the data showing that violent climate
change is a natural occurance.

If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human activity?

Not at all. As I have already pointed out, the climate change in the past
could not have been caused by human activity simply because there were not
enough humans about.

Climate change is nothing new at all and occurs regardless of the
size of the human population.

Does anyone argue that the climate was not changing before 1850?
You have to analyse changes, if you can, into components
with different periods.

Climate is always changing, precisely my point. Now however we have 'new
puritans' claiming that we are all doomed because of our evil capitalist
ways. We have an ecofud industry who have a vested interest in promoting
doom & gloom.

We now have every university dependant on its funding into ecobollox, every
govmint quango having an environmental advisor, every local council having
an environmental team, every newspaper or media outlet having an
environmental correspondent. We have politicians eager to grasp political
advantage on environmental issues, dispite their zero knowledge of the basic
science.

Vested interests should be examined here.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
386ppm: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
shorter
than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.

You don't seem to me to have responded to this.

I rather thought I had, but you appear to have ignored it.

The only response you seemed to make was:
------------------------------------------------
Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Not necessarily no.
------------------------------------------------
which was ambiguous at best.

Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?

First of all, 100 years is far too short a period for a serious study. A
bit like those cosmetic adverts which claim that "79% of woman agreed",
which seems fine until the small print reveals the study was on 129 woman.

You are being silly.
100 years is a perfectly reasonable period to measure something
that is increasing by almost 1% each year.
I'm sure if someone told you that the level of a flood at your house
was rising by 10% an hour you would not reply that
10 hours was too short a time to consider.

We simply don't have enough data. 100 years is a millisecond compared to
the existance of planet earth. Ice core samples fail to impress me.

I didn't say anything about ice samples.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human
activity?

Not at all. As I have already pointed out, the climate change in the past
could not have been caused by human activity simply because there were not
enough humans about.

I didn't say anything about climate change.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

Climate is always changing, precisely my point.

It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

Now however we have 'new
puritans' claiming that we are all doomed because of our evil capitalist
ways. We have an ecofud industry who have a vested interest in promoting
doom & gloom.

We now have every university dependant on its funding into ecobollox,
every
govmint quango having an environmental advisor, every local council having
an environmental team, every newspaper or media outlet having an
environmental correspondent. We have politicians eager to grasp political
advantage on environmental issues, dispite their zero knowledge of the
basic
science.

Vested interests should be examined here.

You are losing track of yourself.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been
increasing over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for
50 years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from
376 to 386ppm: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be
much shorter
than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.

You don't seem to me to have responded to this.

I rather thought I had, but you appear to have ignored it.

The only response you seemed to make was:
------------------------------------------------
Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Not necessarily no.
------------------------------------------------
which was ambiguous at best.

If you choose to ignore the rest of the post I suppose it is.

Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?

First of all, 100 years is far too short a period for a serious
study. A bit like those cosmetic adverts which claim that "79% of
woman agreed", which seems fine until the small print reveals the
study was on 129 woman.

You are being silly.
100 years is a perfectly reasonable period to measure something
that is increasing by almost 1% each year.

How did they measure CO2 levels in 1909 then?

I'm sure if someone told you that the level of a flood at your house
was rising by 10% an hour you would not reply that
10 hours was too short a time to consider.

Entirely different scenario. Don't be ridiculous.

We simply don't have enough data. 100 years is a millisecond
compared to the existance of planet earth. Ice core samples fail to
impress me.

I didn't say anything about ice samples.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human
activity?

Not at all. As I have already pointed out, the climate change in
the past could not have been caused by human activity simply because
there were not enough humans about.

I didn't say anything about climate change.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

Climate is always changing, precisely my point.

It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

Sigh Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm loosing
interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2 levels 100 years
ago - and indeed why they would have bothered. You also claim they measured
them in 1959 - same question applies.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Climate is always changing, precisely my point.

It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

Sigh Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm loosing
interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2 levels 100 years
ago - and indeed why they would have bothered. You also claim they
measured
them in 1959 - same question applies.

I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of scientific history.
100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a classroom exercise
to determine the composition of the air.
Every chemistry schoolbook would have given the figures.
The NPL (National Physical Laboratory) was already analysing
every conceivable material to within parts per million.

If you look up Arrhenius, you will find he was already
considering global warming through carbon dioxide emissions
in the nineteenth century.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:24:44 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.

Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Not necessarily no.

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
386ppm: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
shorter
than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.

You don't seem to me to have responded to this.

I rather thought I had, but you appear to have ignored it.

Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?

First of all, 100 years is far too short a period for a serious study. A
bit like those cosmetic adverts which claim that "79% of woman agreed",
which seems fine until the small print reveals the study was on 129 woman.

We simply don't have enough data. 100 years is a millisecond compared to
the existance of planet earth. Ice core samples fail to impress me.

Typicically you have ignored the black swan argument. Inconvenient I know,
but entirely relevant.

You don't seem to have responded to the data showing that violent climate
change is a natural occurance.

If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human activity?

Not at all. As I have already pointed out, the climate change in the past
could not have been caused by human activity simply because there were not
enough humans about.

Climate change is nothing new at all and occurs regardless of the
size of the human population.

Does anyone argue that the climate was not changing before 1850?
You have to analyse changes, if you can, into components
with different periods.

Climate is always changing, precisely my point. Now however we have 'new
puritans' claiming that we are all doomed because of our evil capitalist
ways. We have an ecofud industry who have a vested interest in promoting
doom & gloom.

We now have every university dependant on its funding into ecobollox, every
govmint quango having an environmental advisor, every local council having
an environmental team, every newspaper or media outlet having an
environmental correspondent. We have politicians eager to grasp political
advantage on environmental issues, dispite their zero knowledge of the basic
science.

Vested interests should be examined here.


Some fairly interesting stuff here.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

Of course, the ecobollox devotees will never give up on their half
baked theories and very guickly forget was they have previously
preached. When they started spouting forth with their ill thought
through mantras, they were informing us with 150% certainty that we
were heading to doomsville in very short order. Why? because we were
all using too many CFCs and this was the major cause of global
warming, because the CFCs had made a massive hole in the ozone layer.
This, they assured us in their usual feverish manner, would eventually
lead to the end of the earth because this hole in the ozone layer
would never heal but if we gave up using CFCs we could, at least, slow
the process down. Two or three years back now, the very scientists who
had at first supplied the figures to the ecoturds, released a low key
statement to the effect that the hole in the ozone layer had in fact
been repaired and was no longer a factor.

That wasn't going to mollifiy the terminally dim of the "Doom sayers"
was it? No, they very quietly dropped their previous assertions that
we were all going to hell on an aerosol and cast around for another
half cocked theory to replace it and they came up with carbon dioxide.
No scientific explanation to back up their theory, just bald
statements that, as usual, they know best.

Unfortunately, the average Joe in the modern street rarely has the
basic education to to question these theories, the youngsters of today
blithely soak up all of the misinformation pumped into them by todays
so called educators. Yes, those who were poorly educated since the
late sixties and are now teachers (Not all of them but many) also
believe every little theory proposed by the doomsayers and in turn,
force their propoganda on to the kids, who know no better at their
tender age and believe everything the teachers tell them.

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Climate is always changing, precisely my point.

It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

Sigh Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm
loosing interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2
levels 100 years ago - and indeed why they would have bothered. You
also claim they measured them in 1959 - same question applies.

I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of scientific history.
100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a classroom exercise
to determine the composition of the air.
Every chemistry schoolbook would have given the figures.

I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history. Education
wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they didn't have fully
equipped labs with air quality monitoring equipment.

If you look up Arrhenius, you will find he was already
considering global warming through carbon dioxide emissions
in the nineteenth century.

I just have. Fourth rate degree, universaly disliked by his peers, involved
in bent Nobel Prizes for his mates and the inspiration for Nazi racial
hygiene. Sounds like a nice bloke.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:


I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history. Education
wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they didn't have fully
equipped labs with air quality monitoring equipment.


Elementary Education Act 1870 (Forster's Education Act) was used to make
education compulsory from 1880, or at least that is wot my eddication
telled me. (With a bit of looking as the dates were not at my fingertips.)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Climate is always changing, precisely my point.

It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

Sigh Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm
loosing interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2
levels 100 years ago - and indeed why they would have bothered. You
also claim they measured them in 1959 - same question applies.

I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of scientific history.
100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a classroom exercise
to determine the composition of the air.
Every chemistry schoolbook would have given the figures.

I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history.
Education
wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they didn't have
fully
equipped labs with air quality monitoring equipment.

I don't see what universal education has to do with it.

Your claim, as far as I can see, is that it would have been difficult
to measure CO2 levels in 1909.
I'm telling you that it would have been a trivial task
in the chemistry department of any university at the time.

Faraday was attending Davy's lectures on chemistry 100 years earlier.

It is not relevant to this point, but I believe most grammar schools
and major "public schools" in the UK would have had science laboratories
of some kind in 1909.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

Old Git wrote:

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
386ppm: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

Some fairly interesting stuff here.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

If you read this yourself, you would see that the crank
who wrote the article, far from disputing what I said,
namely that the CO2 level has been rising for 100 years,
took this as the starting point for his rant.

His argument, if you can call it that, is that
global warming is a good thing because we are entering an ice age -
a point (the imminent ice age) that I made myself earlier in this thread.

Of course, the ecobollox devotees will never give up on their half
baked theories and very guickly forget was they have previously
preached. When they started spouting forth with their ill thought
through mantras, they were informing us with 150% certainty that we
were heading to doomsville in very short order.
....
Unfortunately, the average Joe in the modern street rarely has the
basic education to to question these theories, the youngsters of today
blithely soak up all of the misinformation pumped into them by todays
so called educators. Yes, those who were poorly educated since the
late sixties and are now teachers (Not all of them but many) also
believe every little theory proposed by the doomsayers and in turn,
force their propoganda on to the kids, who know no better at their
tender age and believe everything the teachers tell them.

As a matter of interest, since you are evidently
a person of superior intellect, do you believe that the CO2 level is rising?
That was the only point I made, in response to a poster who denied this.
I didn't say anything about the consequences, if any, of the increase.



--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Climate is always changing, precisely my point.

It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
I was talking about the CO2 level.

Sigh Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm
loosing interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2
levels 100 years ago - and indeed why they would have bothered.
You also claim they measured them in 1959 - same question applies.

I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of scientific
history. 100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a classroom
exercise to determine the composition of the air.
Every chemistry schoolbook would have given the figures.

I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history.
Education wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they
didn't have fully equipped labs with air quality monitoring
equipment.

I don't see what universal education has to do with it.

Your claim, as far as I can see, is that it would have been difficult
to measure CO2 levels in 1909.

I'm telling you that it would have been a trivial task
in the chemistry department of any university at the time.

Oh? A while ago it was; "100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a
classroom exercise
to determine the composition of the air. Every chemistry schoolbook would
have given the figures".

Now its " a trivial task in the chemistry department of any university at
the time".

Typical ecobollox. Change/ignore the facts if they don't support your
cause.

Exactly who measured & recorded the figures showing "There is overwhelming
evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing over the last 100 years"?



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Rod wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history.
Education wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they
didn't have fully equipped labs with air quality monitoring
equipment.


Elementary Education Act 1870 (Forster's Education Act) was used to
make education compulsory from 1880, or at least that is wot my
eddication telled me. (With a bit of looking as the dates were not at
my fingertips.)

The 1918 Education Act made attendance at school compulsory up to the age of
14 years.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Old Git wrote:

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been
increasing over the last 100 years
(see eg http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for
50 years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from
376 to 386ppm: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/.

Some fairly interesting stuff here.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

If you read this yourself, you would see that the crank
who wrote the article, far from disputing what I said,
namely that the CO2 level has been rising for 100 years,
took this as the starting point for his rant.

Typical ecobollox again. Anyone not sharing your opinion is a crank.

SNIP

As a matter of interest, since you are evidently
a person of superior intellect, do you believe that the CO2 level is
rising? That was the only point I made, in response to a poster who
denied this.

I didn't say anything about the consequences, if any, of the increase.

Its clearly a leading question though isnt it? You desperately want someone
to say that CO2 levels are rising so you can jump in with a clever point.

****.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The message
from Old Git contains these words:

Some fairly interesting stuff here.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

Only trouble is it is little more than a pack of lies.

The lines below are an attempt to separate the content copied from the
cite above from my response.

------------------------------------------

"The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since;
it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures
touched 1980 levels."

------------------------------------------

1998 was an extreme year out of keeping both with what went before and
what came after and remains the highest figure so far but 2005 is higher
than all the recent years bar 1998. Up until 2005 the trend was very
definitely up and those who would argue otherwise on the basis of the
1998 extreme are intellectually dishonest.

According to the Met Office figures the drop from 2006 to 2007 was
marginal and one of the smallest annual changes in a record stretching
back to 1850. While the drop from 2007 to 2008 was considerable it was
less than half the drop from 1998 to 1999 leaving 2008 still one of the
hottest years in the record with only 1997, 1998 and 2001 - 2007 hotter.
It is not clear what prompted the comment about the 1980s. Even 1990,
which (depending on viewpoint) may or may not be part of the 1980s, was
the local peak, was lower than 2008.

As I have said before when this topic came up there are a number of
occasions in the past were the average temperature declined for several
years and it will be several years more before we can be reasonably
certain whether or not the average temperature is on a downward trend
from the mid 2000s.

--------------------------------------

"Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center
released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to
1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that
its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming,
the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you
remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica?
But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties."

---------------------------------------

The Arctic ice has been thinning for years as well as receding in area
so I think this paragraph is just wishful thinking. Recent news reports
of the rapid recession of the Antarctic floating ice shelves would
reinforce that viewpoint.

One of the predictions for a warmer Antarctic is for greater
precipitation so Tomlinson could be basing this on a report of increased
depth of ground cover in some areas of the Antarctic continent but what
on earth has the ozone hole got to do with global warming. The scare was
all about the increased risk of skin cancer which as far as I know is
still a seasonal problem in the far South.

--
Roger Chapman

On Sunday, 22 March 2009 08:58:33 UTC, gray wrote:
What the best (but cheapest) way of tracing a mains water pipe in the
ground on private property.

Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??

Anyone just reading this now, re plastic water pipe, if you an an idea were it is likely to be you can use fencing wire to gauge the length, curl the end of the wire round neatly and tape it so it does not chafe the pipe, disconect the mdpe pipe at a accessible point and feed the wire down, if there are no other services near such as cables you may with a good detector be able to find the wire, alternatively hire a 'CAT SCAN and GENNY' you connect the genny to the fencing wire or other wire you have put down the pipe, this generates a radio signal and the cat scan detects this very easily, playing with this i managed to locate a 32mm mdpe plastic pipe all the way from my house under the garage floor and across my paddock for about 50yds the pipe was burried 2 feet down, 3 feet under the paddock. you can also locate plastic drains this way. Where i drew my line maker paint when i dug the hole it was within 2" of my line

wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2009 08:58:33 UTC, gray wrote:
What the best (but cheapest) way of tracing a mains water pipe in the
ground on private property.

Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??

Anyone just reading this now, re plastic water pipe, if you an an idea
were it is likely to be you can use fencing wire to gauge the length,
curl the end of the wire round neatly and tape it so it does not chafe
the pipe, disconect the mdpe pipe at a accessible point and feed the wire
down, if there are no other services near such as cables you may with a
good detector be able to find the wire, alternatively hire a 'CAT SCAN
and GENNY' you connect the genny to the fencing wire or other wire you
have put down the pipe, this generates a radio signal and the cat scan
detects this very easily, playing with this i managed to locate a 32mm
mdpe plastic pipe all the way from my house under the garage floor and
across my paddock for about 50yds the pipe was burried 2 feet down, 3
feet under the paddock. you can also locate plastic drains this way.
Where i drew my line maker paint when i dug the hole it was within 2" of my line


Our neighbours are waiting for this as I type. They have a leak in their
incoming mains but no idea where the pipe runs as the house has been
extended many times.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

That sounds hi teck.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 22 March 2009 08:58:33 UTC, gray wrote:
What the best (but cheapest) way of tracing a mains water pipe in the
ground on private property.

Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??

Anyone just reading this now, re plastic water pipe, if you an an idea were
it is likely to be you can use fencing wire to gauge the length, curl the
end of the wire round neatly and tape it so it does not chafe the pipe,
disconect the mdpe pipe at a accessible point and feed the wire down, if
there are no other services near such as cables you may with a good detector
be able to find the wire, alternatively hire a 'CAT SCAN and GENNY' you
connect the genny to the fencing wire or other wire you have put down the
pipe, this generates a radio signal and the cat scan detects this very
easily, playing with this i managed to locate a 32mm mdpe plastic pipe all
the way from my house under the garage floor and across my paddock for about
50yds the pipe was burried 2 feet down, 3 feet under the paddock. you can
also locate plastic drains this way. Where i drew my line maker paint when
i dug the hole it was within 2" of my line

When the weather is dry, sometimes a probe pushed in at intervals will
suddenly show up a wet spot near the leak if its been leaking for some time.
Unfortunately if it goes under buildings... ouch.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2009 08:58:33 UTC, gray wrote:
What the best (but cheapest) way of tracing a mains water pipe in the
ground on private property.

Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??

Anyone just reading this now, re plastic water pipe, if you an an idea
were it is likely to be you can use fencing wire to gauge the length,
curl the end of the wire round neatly and tape it so it does not chafe
the pipe, disconect the mdpe pipe at a accessible point and feed the wire
down, if there are no other services near such as cables you may with a
good detector be able to find the wire, alternatively hire a 'CAT SCAN
and GENNY' you connect the genny to the fencing wire or other wire you
have put down the pipe, this generates a radio signal and the cat scan
detects this very easily, playing with this i managed to locate a 32mm
mdpe plastic pipe all the way from my house under the garage floor and
across my paddock for about 50yds the pipe was burried 2 feet down, 3
feet under the paddock. you can also locate plastic drains this way.
Where i drew my line maker paint when i dug the hole it was within 2" of
my line


Our neighbours are waiting for this as I type. They have a leak in their
incoming mains but no idea where the pipe runs as the house has been
extended many times.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls