On 29/03/13 13:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

IN reality there is no such thing as a 'scientific fact' . There are
only scientific theories, that either predict what will happen
accurately., or turn out not to predict accurately.

Well strickly speaking, if their predictions are inaccurate, they're not
even theories. They're just hypotheses.

E.g. relativity, Newton's gravity, and quantum mechanics are good
theories (and deserve to be called theories) because they accurately
reflect reality and make accurate predictions which can and have been
tested, yea unto large numbers of decimal places.

Climate change doesn't even come close.

No, but it will come in your mouth.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 29/03/2013 09:26, harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:37 pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts writes:



With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways) how do
*I* know who to believe?

We don't have a good enough understanding of how climate works,
and we don't have anywhere near enough data to check the various
theoretical climate models against, and won't for many decades,
possibly 100+ years.

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted out.

I am very skeptical of climate change - the science seems to be
mostly based on correlation implying causation (a common science
mistake), combined with next to no data for the correlation in
the first place. This is not the basis of good science, actually
it's really common in bogus science claims.

However, I do support some of the initiatives it's driving, but
for different reasons. Energy saving seems to me to be plain
common sense for lots of reasons, although you need to sensible
about how far you go in any particular direction.
The concentration on carbon reduction may well turn out to be
a disasterous error, and play a significant part in the downfall
of the european economy for the next couple of hundred years
(even without the current Euro problems).

You say a majority of meteorologists agree that greenhouse gasses are
driving climate change. Do you have a link or a book/paper that says so? I'm
am prepared at this stage to read something thick if I have to.

I hear equally convincing 3rd parties claiming both arguments...

One of my biggest fears is that this whole global warming drive
will result in widescale discrediting of science. Some of it
probably should be discreditied, but there's loads of really
good and essential science in unrelated areas which will
suffer in any backlash.

The consequences of man made climate change theory being correct are
very serious.

To be a theory, it would have to be able to predict what is going to
happen in the future, which it has failed to do. It didn't even fit the
past that well without the figures being fudged. All you have is the
opinion of a carefully selected group of self-proclaimed experts, who
can produce no scientific evidence to support their ideas.

And there's no going back.

Thus ignoring it all is not an option.

However, as we have no idea what is driving climate change, it would be
far better to be spending money on dealing with the consequences, which
will be far worse if the planet cools than if it warms, than on one
particular unproven and increasingly unlikely hypothesis.

Colin Bignell

On Mar 29, 12:37*pm, Terry Fields wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:32:19 -0700, harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:40*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
It is still profitable at the current16p/Kwh thanks to near zero interest
rates.

It's even more profitable if you have an electric car. *Saves me an
additional £500/year

Do you have any idea how long the batteries last before they need replacement?

What would that cost?

--
Terry Fields

They quietly fade away like most batteries.
With normal use they lose around 20% of capacity in ten years.
Apparently.
They are expensive to replace right now but UG at the moment.
In the future hopefully they will be cheaper when EVs are more common

On Mar 29, 12:53*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 09:21, harry wrote:







On Mar 28, 10:39 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 28/03/13 08:47, polygonum wrote: On 28/03/2013 08:42, harry wrote:

Yet you don't know firewood needs to be dry?


I assume you take your firewood to a psychiatrist in order for it to get
in touch with its inner lignum - so it knows what it really needs...

The rest of us just need the firewood to be sufficiently dry.

and as experiment shows, old firewood that has been left outside in the
wet, is actually dry bar a couple of inches at each end, and green wood
which is wet al; the way through, is still capable of burning once its
hot enough, The fire doing the drying.

Bit is all a bit too much for harry's binary one dimensional mind to
encompass. 4 legs good, two legs bad.

The wetter it is, the more energy is lost evaporating the water. *It
won't start burning until dry.

they said that about sodium, too..

Tch. So you still don't believe burning wet wood is less efficient
than burning dry wood?
I rest my case .
You ARE a stupid old windbag.

On Mar 29, 12:55*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 12:37, Terry Fields wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:32:19 -0700, harry wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:40 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

It is still profitable at the current16p/Kwh thanks to near zero interest
rates.

It's even more profitable if you have an electric car. *Saves me an
additional £500/year

Do you have any idea how long the batteries last before they need replacement?

What would that cost?

5 years tops and several thousands.

--

I see once more you are pontificating on a topic you have absolutely
no knowledge about.

Still normal behaviour for you.

On 29/03/13 16:47, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 12:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 09:21, harry wrote:







On Mar 28, 10:39 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 28/03/13 08:47, polygonum wrote: On 28/03/2013 08:42, harry wrote:

Yet you don't know firewood needs to be dry?


I assume you take your firewood to a psychiatrist in order for it to get
in touch with its inner lignum - so it knows what it really needs...

The rest of us just need the firewood to be sufficiently dry.

and as experiment shows, old firewood that has been left outside in the
wet, is actually dry bar a couple of inches at each end, and green wood
which is wet al; the way through, is still capable of burning once its
hot enough, The fire doing the drying.

Bit is all a bit too much for harry's binary one dimensional mind to
encompass. 4 legs good, two legs bad.

The wetter it is, the more energy is lost evaporating the water. It
won't start burning until dry.

they said that about sodium, too..

Tch. So you still don't believe burning wet wood is less efficient
than burning dry wood?

nowhere before have you mentioned efficiency harry.

You said "you don't know firewood needs to be dry?"

I said more or less 'it doesn't'

You are squirming and weaselling

I rest my case .

And I rest mine

You ARE a stupid old windbag.


That says more about you, than it does about me, harry.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 29/03/13 16:50, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 12:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 12:37, Terry Fields wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:32:19 -0700, harry wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:40 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

It is still profitable at the current16p/Kwh thanks to near zero interest
rates.

It's even more profitable if you have an electric car. Saves me an
additional £500/year

Do you have any idea how long the batteries last before they need replacement?

What would that cost?

5 years tops and several thousands.

--

I see once more you are pontificating on a topic you have absolutely
no knowledge about.

Still normal behaviour for you.

Have you had the car for 5 years yet harry?

Or did you get your stupid opinion out of a glossy brochure?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mar 29, 2:55*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 29/03/2013 09:26, harry wrote:









On Mar 28, 12:37 pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * *Tim Watts writes:

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways) how do
*I* know who to believe?

We don't have a good enough understanding of how climate works,
and we don't have anywhere near enough data to check the various
theoretical climate models against, and won't for many decades,
possibly 100+ years.

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted out.

I am very skeptical of climate change - the science seems to be
mostly based on correlation implying causation (a common science
mistake), combined with next to no data for the correlation in
the first place. This is not the basis of good science, actually
it's really common in bogus science claims.

However, I do support some of the initiatives it's driving, but
for different reasons. Energy saving seems to me to be plain
common sense for lots of reasons, although you need to sensible
about how far you go in any particular direction.
The concentration on carbon reduction may well turn out to be
a disasterous error, and play a significant part in the downfall
of the european economy for the next couple of hundred years
(even without the current Euro problems).

You say a majority of meteorologists agree that greenhouse gasses are
driving climate change. Do you have a link or a book/paper that says so? I'm
am prepared at this stage to read something thick if I have to.

I hear equally convincing 3rd parties claiming both arguments...

One of my biggest fears is that this whole global warming drive
will result in widescale discrediting of science. Some of it
probably should be discreditied, but there's loads of really
good and essential science in unrelated areas which will
suffer in any backlash.

The consequences of man made climate change theory being correct are
very serious.

To be a theory, it would have to be able to predict what is going to
happen in the future, which it has failed to do. It didn't even fit the
past that well without the figures being fudged. All you have is the
opinion of a carefully selected group of self-proclaimed experts, who
can produce no scientific evidence to support their ideas.

And there's no going back.

Thus ignoring it all is not an option.

However, as we have no idea what is driving climate change, it would be
far better to be spending money on dealing with the consequences, which
will be far worse if the planet cools than if it warms, than on one
particular unproven and increasingly unlikely hypothesis.

Colin Bignell

There are a lot of economic theories/laws/rules/hypothesises gone
awry just of late.

But our whole economy is driven by them.

Some of the postulates of global warming/climate change, there's no
cure for.

But any change will be bad in that it will cost money.
Only the most don't believe it is happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

Virtually every government in the world and political party accepts it
is happening.
Only old farts likeTurNiP can't get their heads round it.

On Mar 29, 4:57*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 16:50, harry wrote:







On Mar 29, 12:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 12:37, Terry Fields wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:32:19 -0700, harry wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:40 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

It is still profitable at the current16p/Kwh thanks to near zero interest
rates.

It's even more profitable if you have an electric car. *Saves me an
additional £500/year

Do you have any idea how long the batteries last before they need replacement?

What would that cost?

5 years tops and several thousands.

--

I see once more you are pontificating on a topic you have absolutely
no knowledge about.

Still normal behaviour for you.

Have you had the car for 5 years yet harry?

Or did you get your stupid opinion out of a glossy brochure?

My car is a year old. The battery technology has been around for a lot
longer.

Where did you get your opinion BTW.
Just dreamt up a bit more bull****!

On 29/03/13 17:07, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 16:50, harry wrote:







On Mar 29, 12:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 12:37, Terry Fields wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:32:19 -0700, harry wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:40 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

It is still profitable at the current16p/Kwh thanks to near zero interest
rates.

It's even more profitable if you have an electric car. Saves me an
additional £500/year

Do you have any idea how long the batteries last before they need replacement?

What would that cost?

5 years tops and several thousands.

--

I see once more you are pontificating on a topic you have absolutely
no knowledge about.

Still normal behaviour for you.

Have you had the car for 5 years yet harry?

Or did you get your stupid opinion out of a glossy brochure?

My car is a year old. The battery technology has been around for a lot
longer.

Where did you get your opinion BTW.
Just dreamt up a bit more bull****!

oh years of using rechargeable batteries and reading technical data on
them and reading user experiences harry.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 29/03/13 17:03, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 2:55 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 29/03/2013 09:26, harry wrote:









On Mar 28, 12:37 pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts writes:

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways) how do
*I* know who to believe?

We don't have a good enough understanding of how climate works,
and we don't have anywhere near enough data to check the various
theoretical climate models against, and won't for many decades,
possibly 100+ years.

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted out.

I am very skeptical of climate change - the science seems to be
mostly based on correlation implying causation (a common science
mistake), combined with next to no data for the correlation in
the first place. This is not the basis of good science, actually
it's really common in bogus science claims.

However, I do support some of the initiatives it's driving, but
for different reasons. Energy saving seems to me to be plain
common sense for lots of reasons, although you need to sensible
about how far you go in any particular direction.
The concentration on carbon reduction may well turn out to be
a disasterous error, and play a significant part in the downfall
of the european economy for the next couple of hundred years
(even without the current Euro problems).

You say a majority of meteorologists agree that greenhouse gasses are
driving climate change. Do you have a link or a book/paper that says so? I'm
am prepared at this stage to read something thick if I have to.

I hear equally convincing 3rd parties claiming both arguments...

One of my biggest fears is that this whole global warming drive
will result in widescale discrediting of science. Some of it
probably should be discreditied, but there's loads of really
good and essential science in unrelated areas which will
suffer in any backlash.

The consequences of man made climate change theory being correct are
very serious.

To be a theory, it would have to be able to predict what is going to
happen in the future, which it has failed to do. It didn't even fit the
past that well without the figures being fudged. All you have is the
opinion of a carefully selected group of self-proclaimed experts, who
can produce no scientific evidence to support their ideas.

And there's no going back.

Thus ignoring it all is not an option.

However, as we have no idea what is driving climate change, it would be
far better to be spending money on dealing with the consequences, which
will be far worse if the planet cools than if it warms, than on one
particular unproven and increasingly unlikely hypothesis.

Colin Bignell

There are a lot of economic theories/laws/rules/hypothesises gone
awry just of late.

But our whole economy is driven by them.

Some of the postulates of global warming/climate change, there's no
cure for.

But any change will be bad in that it will cost money.
Only the most don't believe it is happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

Virtually every government in the world and political party accepts it
is happening.
Only old farts likeTurNiP can't get their heads round it.

I had my head round it in the 1990s. By 2000 I was undecided.

By 2010 I was leaning towards a hugely sekptical position

By 2013 the weight of evidence finally convinced me its a load of bunk

Its not my fault if you haven't kept up harry. AGW is last years scare
Its the N Koreans now.

Oh, and the fact that you believe in it, is the greatest thing that
convinces me its utter tosh, of all.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/03/13 17:07, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 16:50, harry wrote:

oh years of using rechargeable batteries and reading technical data on
them and reading user experiences harry.

You will find that batteries for alarm systems have to be changed after 5
years. I assume this is because their capacity is no longer as good as
when they were new.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 28.03.2013 18:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/03/13 11:58, Jo Stein wrote:
On 28.03.2013 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/03/13 09:47, Jo Stein wrote:


That website is run by some crazy friends of mine. They are
climate denialists and need to learn how to make models.

1/. I am not sure how anyone denies climate.

2/. If its lack of skills in making models you are trying to
address, why not do it for the IPCC?

They are not having much luck with theirs. It keeps breaking all
the time.

What du you call those crazy people in England?

we call them 'greens' 'watermelons' ' or 'ecotards' Jo.

.

We find them everywhere, and I am sure that also England suffer
from it.


Yes, they are threat to civislsation and teh whole planet.

In Norway we have a group called "Klimarealistene":
http://www.klimarealistene.com/ They are engineers like you and
thus do not speak english.


That's odd. I am an engineer and I speak English. Since when has the
inability to speak English been a defining feauture of engineering?


They cant be much ****ing good as engineers, since there are only
half a dzoen engineering primers written in Norwegian.

My group has some old civil engineers with a university degree.



So what would they know about climate then You dont have climate
indoors. That's the whole point of a building.

In Norway we even have a climate-study-group at "The Norwegian
Academy of Science and Letters":
http://www.dnva.no/c48502/seksjon/vis.html?tid=48507 They have
published a book that is read by almost none.


quite right. Bad Science fiction is not a huge mass market.

We prefer Scandinavian autistic cops.

http://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/dai...hirt-mens.html


I have read that book and I liked very much a paper where Knut H.
Alfsen tells about Michael Crichton:

A mad world? €¢ Michael Crichton is a science fiction novelist.
He draws you into a fictional world, suspends your disbelief, and
sells a lot of books. €¢ A 2004 Crichton novel had the premise
that human-caused climate change is a gigantic hoax, perpetrated
by a sinister cabal of scientists and environmentalists. €¢
Despite a lack of any formal training in climate science,
Crichton the following year was invited to testify before a
Senate committee on climate-related issues. Furthermore, he
appeared in televised debates with reputable climate scientists,
and briefed President Bush on global warming.

Michael Crichton is dead. He was a MD and a clever SF writer. As a
very unskilled MD, he died from cancer caused by smoking.

Whereas you will due of hypothermia brought on by believing in non
existent global warming, coupled to complete loss of home heating due
to relying on museum technology windmills.

Again I have served pearls for a swine.

My solid report about how the work of climate denialists
are organized in Norway was written for people with good reading
capability. From your answer I can see that some comments are
needed in order to make it more suitable for your mental capacity.

My report described three levels of climate denialism.

At the bottom we find 100% paranoia, lies and selfdeception.
In Norway we have a group called "Klimarealistene":
http://www.klimarealistene.com/
They are engineers like you and thus do not speak english.

At the next level we also find a lot of paranoia, lies and
self-deceprtion, but now it is mixed up with some quality science papers.
My group has some old civil engineers with a university degree.
http://klimaarkivet.no/node/35

At the top level we still find paranoia, lies and selfdeception
but now more quality science papers are mixed in.
In Norway we even have a climate-study-group at
"The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters":
http://www.dnva.no/c48502/seksjon/vis.html?tid=48507

I admire scientist, do not like the greens and hate climate denialists.

Having quoted from a quality science paper by Knut H. Alfsen, I now want
tell more about him. I learnt about AGW some years ago by listening to
him. I got impressed by his talk and when I came home I did my usual
quality control via Google, and found this:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/employees/h...o&person_id=13
Bakgrunn Cand.Real (teoretisk fysikk) ved Universitetet i Oslo 1978
med innstilling til Kongen.

Google transation to English:
Background Real degree (Theoretical Physics), University of Oslo 1978
with recommendations to the King.

Do you know about any climate denialist that has been recommened
to the King/Queen?
--
jo
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its
way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the
false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just
as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Jo Stein wrote:
Whereas you will due of hypothermia brought on by believing in non
existent global warming, coupled to complete loss of home heating due
to relying on museum technology windmills.

Again I have served pearls for a swine.

Surely it's "pearls before swine".

--
Chris Green

On 29/03/2013 21:26, wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:
Whereas you will due of hypothermia brought on by believing in non
existent global warming, coupled to complete loss of home heating due
to relying on museum technology windmills.

Again I have served pearls for a swine.

Surely it's "pearls before swine".

Only if you expect him to get something right. :-)

--
Rod

On 29/03/13 21:44, polygonum wrote:
On 29/03/2013 21:26, wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:
Whereas you will due of hypothermia brought on by believing in non
existent global warming, coupled to complete loss of home heating due
to relying on museum technology windmills.

Again I have served pearls for a swine.

Surely it's "pearls before swine".

Only if you expect him to get something right. :-)

You have to make allowance for Scandinavian autistic Senile posters

Think of harry, and remove even the low cunning..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mar 29, 9:05*pm, Jo Stein wrote:
On 28.03.2013 18:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:







On 28/03/13 11:58, Jo Stein wrote:
On 28.03.2013 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/03/13 09:47, Jo Stein wrote:

That website is run by some crazy friends of mine. They are
climate denialists and need to learn how to make models.

1/. I am not sure how anyone denies climate.

2/. If its lack of skills in making models you are trying to
address, why not do it for the IPCC?

They are not having much luck with theirs. It keeps breaking all
the time.

What du you call those crazy people in England?

we call them 'greens' 'watermelons' ' or 'ecotards' Jo.

.

We find them everywhere, and I am sure that also England suffer
from it.

Yes, they are threat to civislsation and teh whole planet.

In Norway we have a group called "Klimarealistene":
http://www.klimarealistene.com/They are engineers like you and
thus do not speak english.

That's odd. I am an engineer and I speak English. Since *when has the
*inability to speak English been a defining feauture of engineering?

They cant be much ****ing good as engineers, since there are only
half a dzoen engineering primers written in Norwegian.

My group has some old civil engineers with a university degree.

So what would they know about climate then *You dont have climate
indoors. That's the whole point of a building.

In Norway we even have a climate-study-group at "The Norwegian
Academy of Science and Letters":
http://www.dnva.no/c48502/seksjon/vi...?tid=48507They have
published a book that is read by almost none.

quite right. Bad Science fiction is not a huge mass market.

We prefer Scandinavian autistic *cops.

http://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/dai...hirt-mens.html

I have read that book and I liked very much a paper where Knut H.
Alfsen tells about Michael Crichton:

A mad world? • Michael Crichton is a science fiction novelist.
He draws you into a fictional world, suspends your disbelief, and
sells a lot of books. • A 2004 Crichton novel had the premise
that human-caused climate change is a gigantic hoax, perpetrated
by a sinister cabal of scientists and environmentalists. •
Despite a lack of any formal training in climate science,
Crichton the following year was invited to testify before a
Senate committee on climate-related issues. Furthermore, he
appeared in televised debates with reputable climate scientists,
and briefed President Bush on global warming.

Michael Crichton is dead. He was a MD and a clever SF writer. As a
very unskilled MD, he died from cancer caused by smoking.

Whereas you will due of hypothermia brought on by believing in non
existent global warming, coupled to complete loss of home heating due
to relying on museum technology windmills.

Again I have served pearls for a swine.

My solid report about how the work of climate denialists
are organized in Norway was written for people with good reading
capability. From your answer I can see that some comments are
needed in order to make it more suitable for your mental capacity.

My report described three levels of climate denialism.

At the bottom we find 100% paranoia, lies and selfdeception. In Norway we have a group called "Klimarealistene":
http://www.klimarealistene.com/
They are engineers like you and thus do not speak english.

At the next level we also find a lot of paranoia, lies and
self-deceprtion, but now it is mixed up with some quality science papers.

My group has some old civil engineers with a university degree.
http://klimaarkivet.no/node/35

At the top level we still find paranoia, lies and selfdeception
but now more quality science papers are mixed in.

In Norway we even have a climate-study-group at
"The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters":
http://www.dnva.no/c48502/seksjon/vis.html?tid=48507

I admire scientist, do not like the greens and hate climate denialists.

Having quoted from a quality science paper by Knut H. Alfsen, I now want
tell more about him. I learnt about AGW some years ago by listening to
him. I got impressed by his talk and when I came home I did my usual
quality control via Google, and found this:http://www.cicero.uio.no/employees/h...o&person_id=13

Bakgrunn Cand.Real (teoretisk fysikk) ved Universitetet i Oslo 1978
med innstilling til Kongen.

Google transation to English:

Background Real degree (Theoretical Physics), University of Oslo 1978
with recommendations to the King.

Do you know about any climate denialist that has been recommened
to the King/Queen?
--

You are quite right.
The man is a total idiot.
He's too old to change now.
As we say in English, " He has his head up his own arse".

You only have to see the drivel on the end of his every post.

BTW your English is excellent.
I don't know a single word of Norwegian.

On Mar 29, 9:44*pm, polygonum wrote:
On 29/03/2013 21:26, wrote: Jo Stein wrote:
Whereas you will due of hypothermia brought on by believing in non
existent global warming, coupled to complete loss of home heating due
to relying on museum technology windmills.

Again I have served pearls for a swine.

Surely it's "pearls before swine".

Only if you expect him to get something right. :-)

--
Rod

He does damned well for a foreigner.

On 30/03/2013 07:54, harry wrote:


You are quite right.
The man is a total idiot.
He's too old to change now.
As we say in English, " He has his head up his own arse".

You only have to see the drivel on the end of his every post.

BTW your English is excellent.
I don't know a single word of Norwegian.

drittsekk

--
Rod

On 29/03/2013 17:03, harry wrote:

Some of the postulates of global warming/climate change, there's no
cure for.

Having dire consequences doesn't make a prediction correct.

On 29/03/2013 17:07, harry wrote:

My car is a year old. The battery technology has been around for a lot
longer.

Where did you get your opinion BTW.
Just dreamt up a bit more bull****!



The battery technology is the same as in laptops, they typically last
about 4-5 years before their capacity is so poor you buy a new laptop.

On 29/03/2013 17:27, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/03/13 17:07, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 16:50, harry wrote:

oh years of using rechargeable batteries and reading technical data on
them and reading user experiences harry.

You will find that batteries for alarm systems have to be changed after 5
years. I assume this is because their capacity is no longer as good as
when they were new.


Wrong sort of battery.

On Mar 30, 8:06*am, polygonum wrote:
On 30/03/2013 07:54, harry wrote:


You are quite right.
The man is a total idiot.
He's too old to change now.
As we say in English, " He has his head up his own arse".

You only have to see the drivel on the end *of his every post.

BTW your English is excellent.
I don't know a single word of Norwegian.

drittsekk

--
Rod

Well I know one word now.
Here's two for you
fugl hjernen
Easy with Google translate.

On Mar 30, 8:35*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 29/03/2013 17:07, harry wrote:

My car is a year old. The battery technology has been around for a lot
longer.

Where did you get your opinion BTW.
Just dreamt up a bit more bull****!

The battery technology is the same as in laptops, they typically last
about 4-5 years before their capacity is so poor you buy a new laptop.

Wrong as usual.

On 30/03/13 08:32, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/03/2013 17:03, harry wrote:

Some of the postulates of global warming/climate change, there's no
cure for.

Having dire consequences doesn't make a prediction correct.



yerrs.., but that's not the point. The chance of an asteroid the size
of the isle of Wight destroying most of the ecosphere is very low, but
the consequences means we should devote 20x the global GDP to it
because if it *did* happen...



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 30/03/2013 09:08, harry wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:06 am, polygonum wrote:
On 30/03/2013 07:54, harry wrote:


You are quite right.
The man is a total idiot.
He's too old to change now.
As we say in English, " He has his head up his own arse".

You only have to see the drivel on the end of his every post.

BTW your English is excellent.
I don't know a single word of Norwegian.

drittsekk

--
Rod

Well I know one word now.
Here's two for you
fugl hjernen
Easy with Google translate.

The word I quoted made the headlines quite a few years ago because it
was used in some political context and somehow has remained in my
memory. I think there was discussion over whether it was acceptable for
the news media to use the original word - given that using the
translation was, possibly, not acceptable.

--
Rod

On 30/03/13 08:36, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/03/2013 17:27, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/03/13 17:07, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 16:50, harry wrote:

oh years of using rechargeable batteries and reading technical data on
them and reading user experiences harry.

You will find that batteries for alarm systems have to be changed after 5
years. I assume this is because their capacity is no longer as good as
when they were new.


Wrong sort of battery.

I challenge anyone here to raise their hands and say that they have
personally had experience of any rechargeable battery of any sort that
still maintains 80% of its capacity and is usable after ten years.

I have used lead acid, nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride. lithium
ion, lithium polymer..in a variety of applications and I cannot recall a
single instance of any one of them being more than a pale shadow after
10 years. Occasionally a lucky lead acid will if used constantly and
topped up last more than 5..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

polygonum wrote:
[snip]

The word I quoted made the headlines quite a few years ago because it was
used in some political context and somehow has remained in my memory. I
think there was discussion over whether it was acceptable for the news
media to use the original word - given that using the translation was,
possibly, not acceptable.

You'd have to be an arsehole to think that.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 30/03/2013 09:25, Steve Firth wrote:
polygonum wrote:
[snip]

The word I quoted made the headlines quite a few years ago because it was
used in some political context and somehow has remained in my memory. I
think there was discussion over whether it was acceptable for the news
media to use the original word - given that using the translation was,
possibly, not acceptable.

You'd have to be an arsehole to think that.

:-)

In my memory, the world was a different place all those years ago - the
more po-faced media, especially television news, was always worried
about the flood of letters they'd get from viewers if they used any form
of "bad" language.

--
Rod

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/03/13 08:36, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/03/2013 17:27, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/03/13 17:07, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 16:50, harry wrote:

oh years of using rechargeable batteries and reading technical data on
them and reading user experiences harry.

You will find that batteries for alarm systems have to be changed after 5
years. I assume this is because their capacity is no longer as good as
when they were new.


Wrong sort of battery.

I challenge anyone here to raise their hands and say that they have
personally had experience of any rechargeable battery of any sort that
still maintains 80% of its capacity and is usable after ten years.

I have used lead acid, nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride. lithium
ion, lithium polymer..in a variety of applications and I cannot recall
a single instance of any one of them being more than a pale shadow
after 10 years. Occasionally a lucky lead acid will if used constantly
and topped up last more than 5..

Slightly sideways.. I have noticed that batteries supplied with a new
vehicle invariably last longer than the most expensive replacement.




--
Tim Lamb

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 27/03/13 14:55, Jethro_uk wrote:


One phrase I've heard more and more is "if you don't believe it's
happening, you haven't read the evidence" - which has the effect of
giving the person saying it some mantle of authority as well as
discouraging any debate. My retort is simply "if you do believe it, you
haven't understood the evidence."

+1

which tends to work. However every once
in a while you'll get the "well, you can prove anything you want with
facts" hissy fit.


Yep.

My brother in law is a specialist PHD geologist and his speciality is
dating old rocks and so on, and he comes across a lot of evidence about
climatic conditions in the past when the rocks were laid down.. His
attitude is simple' if CO2 was that important, it would have led to
massive climate fluctuations in the past: all the evidence is that CO2
levels increase AFTER the earth has warmed up., not before, and that's
totally consistent with outgassing from warmer oceans etc. If CO2
behaved like they claim it does, we would have tipped into massively
hot conditions and stayed there. But we never did. Instead we got ice
ages...I don't need to look in any more detail than that. Neither do I
need to come up with a different theory. The theory is refuted by the
paleogoligical evidence. End of story'.

I have been searching back up this thread trying to find the message I
wanted to follow up. This one will have to do:-)

Could the dumping of water vapour and hydrocarbon residues in the upper
atmosphere be the missing element from the climate models?

My knowledge on the subject is limited to how little space there is
between my knees and the seat in front but the timescale of me regularly
climbing into an aircraft coincides with your 15 years of negative
feedback.


--
Tim Lamb

On 30/03/13 10:05, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 27/03/13 14:55, Jethro_uk wrote:


One phrase I've heard more and more is "if you don't believe it's
happening, you haven't read the evidence" - which has the effect of
giving the person saying it some mantle of authority as well as
discouraging any debate. My retort is simply "if you do believe it, you
haven't understood the evidence."

+1

which tends to work. However every once
in a while you'll get the "well, you can prove anything you want with
facts" hissy fit.


Yep.

My brother in law is a specialist PHD geologist and his speciality is
dating old rocks and so on, and he comes across a lot of evidence
about climatic conditions in the past when the rocks were laid down..
His attitude is simple' if CO2 was that important, it would have led
to massive climate fluctuations in the past: all the evidence is that
CO2 levels increase AFTER the earth has warmed up., not before, and
that's totally consistent with outgassing from warmer oceans etc. If
CO2 behaved like they claim it does, we would have tipped into
massively hot conditions and stayed there. But we never did. Instead
we got ice ages...I don't need to look in any more detail than that.
Neither do I need to come up with a different theory. The theory is
refuted by the paleogoligical evidence. End of story'.

I have been searching back up this thread trying to find the message I
wanted to follow up. This one will have to do:-)

Could the dumping of water vapour and hydrocarbon residues in the upper
atmosphere be the missing element from the climate models?

My knowledge on the subject is limited to how little space there is
between my knees and the seat in front but the timescale of me regularly
climbing into an aircraft coincides with your 15 years of negative
feedback.

read and giggle..

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 29/03/2013 17:03, harry wrote:
....
There are a lot of economic theories/laws/rules/hypothesises gone
awry just of late.

Not really. Many of the models would have predicted what happened if
anybody had fed in the right data. However, economics is a very
imprecise area. I recall our economics lecturer pointing out that the
national debt at the time was of the same order as the margin of error
in the model, so we might have had a national debt of X, zero or 2X for
all anybody knew.

But our whole economy is driven by them.

Our economy is driven by a very complex set of different and often
conflicting factors, but most definitely not by the models we have of
the economy. Indeed, if you could come up with a model that really
reflects what drives our economy, you could name your own price.

Some of the postulates of global warming/climate change, there's no
cure for.

If, by that, you mean there is absolutely no scientific evidence that
anything we do will have any effect on climate change, I would agree.

But any change will be bad in that it will cost money.

Which is why we should not be ****ing money into the wind (literally in
some cases) on things that we cannot show will have any effect. We
should be spending that money on preparing for the effects of climate
change instead.

Only the most don't believe it is happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

There is a difference between not believing that the climate is changing
and not believing that the primary driver for the change is human activity.

Virtually every government in the world and political party accepts it
is happening.

That is politics, not science. Once they committed themselves to the
idea in the 1990s, they were locked into having to accept it or having
to admit that they were wrong, something no politician ever wants to do.
The longer they go without admitting they were wrong, the less likely
they are to do so, whatever the evidence. Tony Blair is a prime example
of the type.

Colin Bignell

On 28.03.2013 10:47, Jo Stein wrote:
Shops for screws are closed today; thus the project will be delayed
by some days. In the meantime I can do some planning. The wooden
sticks are 10 cm long. From that I have found that the diameter of
the football will be about 28.5 cm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icosahedron

When finished I will publish a photo on this website:
http://klimaarkivet.no/node/35

The project is delayed because more planning was needed.
If I had used screws for the connections, I would have
built a flat earth.

More loose connections are needed for a perfect round earth,
and thus the three sticks at the 60 corners will be sewed
together by at thin tread that has a figure eight knot at the ends.

The Natural Philosopher can never build such a perfect round model of
the earth, as he is unable to learn by reading the advices he get from
Jo and from the genius Leonard Euler:
http://voices.yahoo.com/an-essay-gen...c-5873670.html
"He calculated without any apparent effort, just as men breathe, as
eagles sustain themselves in the air."
--
jo
"Academics that are climate denialists testify that
education can sometimes be wasted." --Jo Stein

On 30/03/13 14:16, Jo Stein wrote:
On 28.03.2013 10:47, Jo Stein wrote:
Shops for screws are closed today; thus the project will be delayed
by some days. In the meantime I can do some planning. The wooden
sticks are 10 cm long. From that I have found that the diameter of
the football will be about 28.5 cm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icosahedron

When finished I will publish a photo on this website:
http://klimaarkivet.no/node/35

The project is delayed because more planning was needed.
If I had used screws for the connections, I would have
built a flat earth.

More loose connections are needed for a perfect round earth,
and thus the three sticks at the 60 corners will be sewed
together by at thin tread that has a figure eight knot at the ends.

The Natural Philosopher can never build such a perfect round model of
the earth, as he is unable to learn by reading the advices he get from
Jo and from the genius Leonard Euler:

put a sock in it old boy.

I studied Euler before you even heard the name.

Bet you don't even understand his instability criterion or what an
eigenvalue is..

never mind his interesting notes on polygons.


http://voices.yahoo.com/an-essay-gen...c-5873670.html

"He calculated without any apparent effort, just as men breathe, as
eagles sustain themselves in the air."

It is to be noted that nothing amuses the man of genuine knowledge more,
than the certainty and passion with which those stumbling across a
small part of it, proclaim their discovery in the utter ignorance of the
remainder of it.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mar 30, 9:48*am, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes









On 30/03/13 08:36, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/03/2013 17:27, charles wrote:
In article ,
* * The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/03/13 17:07, harry wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/03/13 16:50, harry wrote:

oh years of using rechargeable batteries and reading technical data on
them and reading user experiences harry.

You will find that batteries for alarm systems have to be changed after 5
years. *I assume this is because their capacity is no longer as good as
when they were new.

Wrong sort of battery.

I challenge anyone here to raise their hands and say that they have
personally had experience of any rechargeable battery of any sort that
still maintains 80% of its capacity and is usable after ten years.

I have used lead acid, nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride. lithium
ion, lithium polymer..in a variety of applications and I cannot recall
a single instance of any one of them being more than a pale shadow
after 10 years. Occasionally a lucky lead acid will if used constantly
and topped up last more than 5..

Slightly sideways.. I have noticed that batteries supplied with a new
vehicle invariably last longer than the most expensive replacement.



--
Tim Lamb

True. Also the automotive light bulbs.
The ones from Halfords are real ****.

On Mar 30, 10:05*am, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes









On 27/03/13 14:55, Jethro_uk wrote:

One phrase I've heard more and more is "if you don't believe it's
happening, you haven't read the evidence" - which has the effect of
giving the person saying it some mantle of authority as well as
discouraging any debate. My retort is simply "if you do believe it, you
haven't understood the evidence."

+1

which tends to work. However every once
in a while you'll get the "well, you can prove anything you want with
facts" hissy fit.

Yep.

My brother in law is a specialist PHD geologist and his speciality is
dating old rocks and so on, and he comes across a lot of evidence about
climatic conditions in the past when the rocks were laid down.. His
attitude is simple' if CO2 was that important, it would have led to
massive climate fluctuations in the past: all the evidence is that CO2
levels increase AFTER the earth has warmed up., not before, and that's
totally consistent with outgassing from warmer oceans etc. If CO2
behaved like they claim it does, we would have tipped into massively
hot conditions and stayed there. But we never did. Instead we got ice
ages...I don't need to look in any more detail than that. Neither do I
need to come up with a different theory. The theory is refuted by the
paleogoligical evidence. End of story'.

I have been searching back up this thread trying to find the message I
wanted to follow up. This one will have to do:-)

Could the dumping of water vapour and hydrocarbon residues in the upper
atmosphere be the missing element from the climate models?

My knowledge on the subject is limited to how little space there is
between my knees and the seat in front but the timescale of me regularly
climbing into an aircraft coincides with your 15 years of negative
feedback.



--
Tim Lamb

I thought the massive oceanic CO2 in times gone by was converted to
limestone by winkles etc.

And the atmospheric stuff was converted to peat and coal?

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:05:24 +0100, Jo Stein
wrote:

Again I have served pearls for a swine.

My solid report about how the work of climate denialists
are organized in Norway was written for people with good reading
capability. From your answer I can see that some comments are
needed in order to make it more suitable for your mental capacity.

My report described three levels of climate denialism.

At the bottom we find 100% paranoia, lies and selfdeception.

At the top level we still find paranoia, lies and selfdeception
but now more quality science papers are mixed in.

I admire scientist, do not like the greens and hate climate denialists.

Having quoted from a quality science paper by Knut H. Alfsen, I now want
tell more about him. I learnt about AGW some years ago by listening to
him. I got impressed by his talk and when I came home I did my usual
quality control via Google, and found this:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/employees/h...o&person_id=13

Do you know about any climate denialist that has been recommened
to the King/Queen?

In my view, we will use up all fuel and die long before the climate
does anything.
--
Dave W