While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being bought up.
Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth" priojects. Once the global
warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun intended, we will once again be coolong
off and those forrests will once again be sold off and harvested for fire
wood.

On Dec 8, 5:33 pm, "Leon" wrote:
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being bought up.
Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth" priojects. Once the global
warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun intended, we will once again be coolong
off and those forrests will once again be sold off and harvested for fire
wood.

I'm gonna re-sharpen my Forrest. Tom

In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being bought up.
Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth" priojects. Once the global
warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun intended, we will once again be coolong
off and those forrests will once again be sold off and harvested for fire
wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

phorbin wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.

in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" wrote:
phorbin wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.

So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:25:16 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" wrote:
phorbin wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.

So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...


wait a min. everybody knows the moon is made of swiss cheese! can't
you see the holes? :-]

On Dec 9, 1:01*pm, skeez wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:25:16 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:





in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" wrote:
phorbin wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
priojects. *Once the global warming fad has cooled *;~) no pun
intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.

So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...

wait a min. everybody knows the moon is made of swiss cheese! can't
you see the holes? :-]

At least it isn't Limburger...pheeeweee

Bob Martin writes:
in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" wrote:
phorbin wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.

So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...

Then you'd be a fool, since we've been there and know that it is not.

On the other hand, the current hysteria around anthropgenic
climate change (of which there is little doubt that man changes
climate, at least locally; consider the Urban Heat Island effect,
for instance; or land-use changes (why don't tornadoes strike
big cities, as a rule?)) is based on some pretty iffy science.

First, the temperature record.

Historical temperatures are both direct and derived. We have direct
temperature measurements for various parts of of the world for up to
the last 150 years. The longest sequence of such measurements are
available in the United States and Europe.

Temperatures before 1850 or so (and up to 1960 in many cases) are
derived from various measurements believed to be related to temperature
in some way. These are called proxies and include the width of
tree rings (the trees are selected such that they are believed to be
growth limited by temperature, not precipitation or other external
factors; for example long-lived trees at the alpine tree-line. A
set of bristlecone pines in the White Mountains in central California
were used in several temperature reconstructions as representative of
global temperatures in the last millenium.

Other proxies include speleotherms in caves, boreholes and the deuterium
oxygen isotope ratios in various ice cores from the ice caps and greenland.

Tree rings have been pretty much discredited as a temperature proxy by
the National Academy of Sciences (DAGS: Wegman/NAS report). Yet they
were the primary constituent of the so-called "Hockey Stick" graph used
by advocates of catastrophic climate change due to man to indicate that
the world is heading for a catastrophy. In addition, the statistical
methods used to produce a temperature signal from the tree rings and
other proxies used in the hockey stick produce the same graph from
random data (red noise). See McIntyre/McKitrick.

As for the last 150 years of surface temperature data, it should be no
surprise that over that time period, the location at which temperature
is measured changes, the time of day of the measurement (and the number
of measurements per day) changed, and in many cases the sites themselves
while once rural, became urban. This requires that the data be manipulated
(or adjusted) to accomodate these differences. The algorithms used by
Dr. Hanson at GISS seem to underestimate past temperatures, and boot current
temperatures. Dr. Peilke Sr. has a peer-reviewed paper out illustrating
the problems with the current surface temperature record as well as pointing
out the uncertainties in both the data, as well as the algorithms used to
fill in missing data and derived a global average temperature.

The error bars, while not generally discussed along with the temperature
anomolies, dwarf the 20th century anomoly of about 1 degree C.

Of course, the land surface is a small fraction of the planets surface,
so other means are used to derive a temperature signal for the 7/8ths
of the planet covered by oceans. The main measurement used is the
Sea Surface Temperature (SST). SST temperatures are also available for
about the last 100 years in the main shipping routes. This data was
measured several times a day by ships captains and logged in ships logs.
This log data has been collected and massaged to attempt to derive a
historical temperature trend for the oceans surface. However, over the
century the methods used to measure the SST changed (from dropping a
bucket over the side and hauling it up, to measuring intake cooling water
for modern ocean liners). The depth at which the measurements changed
along with the method, the tools changed from mercury thermometers to
thermocouples. All of these changes require that the data be massaged
(i.e. adjusted). This increases the error bars on the measurements
here as well.

An addition source of late 20th century upticks in the surface temperature
record are due to the Urban Heat Island effect; which is the effect
of a large city on the temperatures within that city. There are
researchers on both sides of the issue of whether the UHI has a
significant effect or not on the temperature trends; Some who discount
UHI have compared the temperatures in old, large cities like London
and Paris and extrapolated that that also applies to cites that
have significantly increased in the 20th century (atlanta, LA, BA, etc).

There is also the so called 'microsite' biases. Several of the
US sites used for the surface temperature record have had installed,
in the last decade, air conditioners, asphalt parking lots and
generators in the direct vicinity of the temperature sensor (in
some cases, the exhaust from the AC unit is three feet from the
sensor and obviously biases the summertime temperatures higher).

Other measurements in the last thirty years or so have been made by a
series of satellites with different instruments designed to measure
the temperature of the air at various altitudes (again by measuring
some effect and deriving a temperature from that effect). Where
multiple satellites were in orbit simultaneously, the data can be
adjusted with the known bias of the various instruments, but in the
case where there is no overlap between the measurements by different
instruments on different satellites, the adjustment required to match
the data is more complicated. There are at least two sets of
satellite data being used today (UAH and RSS), each of which uses a
different algorithm to adjust the data to produce a temperature trend.
Again, the error bars are are relatively large.

There is also relatively little data from the southern hemisphere yet.

Then there is CO2, which is a trace gas. The direct doubling of the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in perhaps a
degree C of heating. This is accepted. However, there is a school
of thought (of which Dr. Hanson is a prime proponent) which believes
that this doubling will lead to feedback effects from other greenhouse
gasses, particularly water vapor (which is the main greenhouse gas by
far). I.e. the belief is that adding CO2 will cause a cascading
increase in the water vapor component of the atmosphere leading to
catestrophic warming.

The only evidence for this is from computer models. Note that not one
of the dozen or so global climate models (GCM) correctly hindcast nor
forcast the actual weather. The models don't include clouds or
water vapor. Yet, the modellers claim that while no single model
is accurate, the models, when averaged together accurately predict
the future.

Given the above, I see no reason to rush through any massive economic
changes to adapt (assuming that a warming planet is a _bad_ thing, which
is another iffy proposition).

I'd point out the following, both peer reviewed climate scientists, who
present a more nuanced view of climate change:

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., U of Colorado

In article ,
Bob Martin wrote:
in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" wrote:
phorbin wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.

So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...

You *do* know that there _is_ scientific evidence to support that statement,
don't you?

Back in the 1980s, one of the things NASA did was a seismology experiment --
crashing a ship into the moon, and taking seismograph readings from several
of the Apollo landing sites.

Analysis of the shock patterns transmitted through the body of the moon gave
a 'best match' against a particular variety of un-cured (i.e., 'green') cheese.

I'm *NOT* making this up.

Other proxies include speleotherms in caves, boreholes and the deuterium
oxygen isotope ratios in various ice cores from the ice caps and greenland.



Well, ****....why didn't he say so at the beginning?

phorbin wrote:

In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being bought
up.
Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth" priojects. Once the
global
warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun intended, we will once again be
coolong off and those forrests will once again be sold off and harvested
for fire wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
credible some time in the late 80's.



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Bob Martin writes:
in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" wrote:
phorbin wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells
us that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.

So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...

Then you'd be a fool, since we've been there and know that it is not.

On the other hand, the current hysteria around anthropgenic
climate change (of which there is little doubt that man changes
climate, at least locally; consider the Urban Heat Island effect,
for instance; or land-use changes (why don't tornadoes strike
big cities, as a rule?)) is based on some pretty iffy science.

.... snip of explanation of above

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., U of Colorado

Another bit of evidence of scientific malfeasance and data manipulation to
give the results desired by the warmists:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Difference between citing this and Politically Correct American? This has
real data and describes methodology, it doesn't imperiously declare "the
science is settled" and those who disagree are luddites spouting nonsense.


To quote paraphrase the high priest of AGW, "They LIED to US! They played
on our FEARS!"



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:50:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
credible some time in the late 80's.

Translation: They published articles that disagreed with one or more of
your cherished beliefs :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:25:16 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" wrote:
phorbin wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6

or

http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9

Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.

So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...

We know for a fact that you're an AGWK alarmist.

--
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen
to what the world tells you you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:50:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
credible some time in the late 80's.

Translation: They published articles that disagreed with one or more
of your cherished beliefs :-).

Uh, no. Human-caused global warming is a "belief" in the religious sense. It
cannot be proved, demonstrated, or explained.

If it could be proved, i.e., bolstered by sufficient evidence to convince
virtually all rational minds of the high probability of it's truth, there
would be no controversy.

It obviously cannot be demonstrated as long as only ONE contrary example
exists. The earth, moreover, is not like an oven that one can simply turn
off.

It cannot be explained to the degree that the hypothesis agrees with the
historical record or even with computer models.

A better description is that anti-AGW is an anti-belief. That is, most are
not going to believe it until it can be proved. Mere assertion, melting
glaciers, rising sea-levels, etc. are not sufficient in that completely
plausible alternative explanations are equally likely. Coincidence, for one.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:50:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
credible some time in the late 80's.

Translation: They published articles that disagreed with one or more of
your cherished beliefs :-).


Umm, no. I recognize that there are folks out there with whom I disagree
and who may come to different conclusions based upon various viewpoints they
may hold. That, however, is not science. That belongs more in the fuzzy
world of historical interpretation (which still should at least be
predicated upon historical facts vs. historical revisionism, but that's a
different discussion) or sociology or some of the other more "fuzzy"
disciplines.

At some point, Scientific American stopped doing science -- that pursuit
in which a hypothesis is put forth, experiments formulated and conducted,
data taken and examined, hypothesis confirmed, refined or rejected, and
results, along with methodology data documented and presented. Instead,
they drifted more and more into Politically Correct American in which
hypothesis was put forth, cherry-picked statistics manipulated, graphs
generated and presented, and current politically acceptable conclusion
derived and documented by currently popular experts using vigorous assertion
as proof.

That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. The irony was
that they had some very interesting columns prior to that describing what
they termed "math abuse" -- the manipulation of statistics and selective
presentation (e.g. selective use of scale, smoothing, etc) to guide a
preferred interpretation of the data.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:50:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
credible some time in the late 80's.

Translation: They published articles that disagreed with one or more
of your cherished beliefs :-).


Umm, no. I recognize that there are folks out there with whom I
disagree and who may come to different conclusions based upon various
viewpoints they may hold. That, however, is not science. That
belongs more in the fuzzy world of historical interpretation (which
still should at least be predicated upon historical facts vs.
historical revisionism, but that's a different discussion) or
sociology or some of the other more "fuzzy" disciplines.

At some point, Scientific American stopped doing science -- that
pursuit in which a hypothesis is put forth, experiments formulated
and conducted, data taken and examined, hypothesis confirmed, refined
or rejected, and results, along with methodology data documented and
presented. Instead, they drifted more and more into Politically
Correct American in which hypothesis was put forth, cherry-picked
statistics manipulated, graphs generated and presented, and current
politically acceptable conclusion derived and documented by currently
popular experts using vigorous assertion as proof.

That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. The irony
was that they had some very interesting columns prior to that
describing what they termed "math abuse" -- the manipulation of
statistics and selective presentation (e.g. selective use of scale,
smoothing, etc) to guide a preferred interpretation of the data.

Yep. Perusal of the Table of Contents over the past five years or so show a
growing interest in "political" goals: Climate Change (nee "Global
Warming"), green technology, fish kills, drought mitigation, population
control, endangered species, etc.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:50:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. The irony was
that they had some very interesting columns prior to that describing
what they termed "math abuse" -- the manipulation of statistics and
selective presentation (e.g. selective use of scale, smoothing, etc) to
guide a preferred interpretation of the data.

AFAIK, they're still peer-reviewed articles. So there must be a lot of
people in on the conspiracy :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:35:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Perusal of the Table of Contents over the past five years or so show
a growing interest in "political" goals: Climate Change (nee "Global
Warming"), green technology, fish kills, drought mitigation, population
control, endangered species, etc.

And those are all, according to you, political goals? I thought they had
to do with maintaining livable conditions on the planet. SciAm would be
remiss if they didn't address them.

And if (a very big if) we could achieve population control, that would
have a big impact on the others.

I once saw studies putting the sustained carrying capacity of the US at
anywhere from 90 to 125 million people. Even if we double the most
optimistic estimate we're well over it.

The US population has been doubling about every 60 years, which is also
roughly the world average. So it isn't just a 3rd world problem.

The only thing "political" about these issues is that most folks put
their personal well being above that of their descendants. Normal, but
sometimes disheartening.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:

The US population has been doubling about every 60 years, which is also
roughly the world average. So it isn't just a 3rd world problem.

Not to worry ... there will be plenty of room in all those 4200sf
McMansions occupied by two ... assuming they don't fall down first.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 11, 11:16*am, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:50:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
*That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. *The irony was
that they had some very interesting columns prior to that describing
what they termed "math abuse" *-- the manipulation of statistics and
selective presentation (e.g. selective use of scale, smoothing, etc) to
guide a preferred interpretation of the data.

AFAIK, they're still peer-reviewed articles. *So there must be a lot of
people in on the conspiracy :-).

Using the same cooked datasets you'd expect to have some consensus.
Even here they have to censor anyone who isn't a member of the
orthodoxy. Consensus, my ass.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:35:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Perusal of the Table of Contents over the past five years or so show
a growing interest in "political" goals: Climate Change (nee "Global
Warming"), green technology, fish kills, drought mitigation,
population control, endangered species, etc.

And those are all, according to you, political goals? I thought they
had to do with maintaining livable conditions on the planet. SciAm
would be remiss if they didn't address them.

Exactly what conditions are LESS livable today than at any time in the past?
Almost every POOR family in this country has a car, a TV, a microwave, a
cell-phone, indoor plumbing, and more. The poor today live longer,
healthier, and in all ways better lives than the affluent of a hundred years
ago.




And if (a very big if) we could achieve population control, that would
have a big impact on the others.

I once saw studies putting the sustained carrying capacity of the US
at anywhere from 90 to 125 million people. Even if we double the most
optimistic estimate we're well over it.


Were these studies done by the forefathers of the IPCC?



The US population has been doubling about every 60 years, which is
also roughly the world average. So it isn't just a 3rd world problem.

The only thing "political" about these issues is that most folks put
their personal well being above that of their descendants. Normal,
but sometimes disheartening.

Oh bother! If the entire population of the planet were stacked up like
cordwood, they would fit in a cubic mile!* If the earth's population lived
as the same densest part of Cairo, they would fit in the state of West
Virginia.** (Of course living in West Virginia would be pretty grim.)

The Malthusian doctrine you espouse was discredited many, many years ago.
Full agricultural output of the United States could give everybody in the
world a 2,000 calorie a day diet. Almost every natural resource continues to
get more plentiful and cheaper - check the famous Simon-Ehrlich Wager.

-------
*6,000,000,000 x 6 x 2 x 2 = 144 billion cu ft
5280^3 = 147 billion cu ft

** Cairo (280,000/sq mile) x West Virginia (24,000 sq mi) = 6.7 billion

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:50:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. The irony
was that they had some very interesting columns prior to that
describing what they termed "math abuse" -- the manipulation of
statistics and selective presentation (e.g. selective use of scale,
smoothing, etc) to guide a preferred interpretation of the data.

AFAIK, they're still peer-reviewed articles. So there must be a lot
of people in on the conspiracy :-).

Yep, there were. But it was merely sufficient to suppress dissenting views.
Which they did by preventing these views from being published.

Further, it is IMPOSSIBLE for "peers" to review a paper if the underlying
data are unavailable.

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Underwater

Space Station

Black powder Storage Bunker

Gasoline Refinery

Nitroglyerin factory

Baby Nursery

Steel Walled Room

It's funnny how Malthus and his There Won't Be Enough To Go Around
got hooked up a *******ized version of Darwin's Theory of Evolution
- Only The Fit Will Survice. With those to assumptions the world is
seen from a Me OR You perspective - and WHEN push comes to shove
it's going to be just ME - cause I'll kill YOU if that becomes necessary
for ME to survive. This is what is referred to as a Zero Sum Game
- for someone to gain, someone else must lose.

That precludes thinking in terms of Me AND You - synergy - the actual
sum of the parts being greater than the numeric value of the parts.

Populations tend to level out and then begin to decline in
industrialized
countries - witness Japan, much of Europe, the United States, Canada,
etc. So as other countries reach a certain development level their
popolation growth rate will level off and decline - as will the
population.
But the percapita energy consumption has always - continued to climb.

It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the consumption
of non-renuable resources or the resources that are renewable - but not
at a rate need that is - and it'll be water - that you can drink
- that we should be concerned about.

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Underwater

Space Station

Black powder Storage Bunker

Gasoline Refinery

Nitroglyerin factory

Baby Nursery

Steel Walled Room


ROTFLMAO

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:07:41 -0800, charlie b wrote:

Populations tend to level out and then begin to decline in
industrialized countries - witness Japan, much of Europe, the United
States,...

But the increase in the US has NOT leveled out. More of it is
immigration instead of births than it used to be, but it's still growth.
Gotta' keep that Ponzi economy going :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:07:41 -0800, charlie b wrote:

It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the consumption
of non-renuable resources or the resources that are renewable - but not
at a rate need that is - and it'll be water - that you can drink - that
we should be concerned about.

Yep. Saw tonight that both the US and NATO military establishments are
making contingency plans to fight and/or prevent water wars due to global
warming and population growth.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham


Steel Walled Room



Along those lines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1TnU0aIJiQ

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:35:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Perusal of the Table of Contents over the past five years or so show
a growing interest in "political" goals: Climate Change (nee "Global
Warming"), green technology, fish kills, drought mitigation, population
control, endangered species, etc.

And those are all, according to you, political goals? I thought they had
to do with maintaining livable conditions on the planet. SciAm would be
remiss if they didn't address them.


Each one of those accepts certain premises as givens that are far from
proven.

Climate change: Doest the climate change? Yes. Is man causing this?
Hardly plausible let alone proven.

And if (a very big if) we could achieve population control, that would
have a big impact on the others.


First premise taken as a given is that population growth in the developed
world is a serious problem. Second premise taken as a given is that
populations in the developed world are increasing at an alarming rate.

Population growth in developed countries has always found technological
solutions to address the ability to maintain that civilization.

Population growth in the US is due primarily to immigration. Citizens of
the US are just at replacement rate. Citizens in the European countries are
below replacement rate. At this point, their problem is not overpopulation,
but loss of population. This is going to have profound effects in the
coming years. The only people in European countries reproducing at growth
rates are immigrants from third world countries who bring a particular
mindset that is not conducive to sustainable civilization.


I once saw studies putting the sustained carrying capacity of the US at
anywhere from 90 to 125 million people. Even if we double the most
optimistic estimate we're well over it.

The US population has been doubling about every 60 years, which is also
roughly the world average. So it isn't just a 3rd world problem.


See above, we are currently at sustainment rate with the exception of
immigration.

The only thing "political" about these issues is that most folks put
their personal well being above that of their descendants. Normal, but
sometimes disheartening.





--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

charlie b wrote:

It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.


Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is just
temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just being
used somewhere.

As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods. They
should import water-intensive food from areas where water is abundant. For
example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.

Of course to do that, they have to develop something from which than can
earn foreign monetary credits with which to buy the food. Perhaps mining
minerals or opening technical support call centers...

HeyBub wrote:
charlie b wrote:
It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.

Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is just
temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just being
used somewhere.

As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods. They
should import water-intensive food from areas where water is abundant. For
example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.

Your example is an interesting coincidence - I've been corresponding
with a prof in Khartoum who's interested in helping to develop an
inexpensive solar-powered pump to expand the growing area along the Nile
and provide a city water supply in Khartoum.

If a large-scale solar-powered desalinization technology can also be
developed, drought susceptibility might have much less impact.

Of course to do that, they have to develop something from which than can
earn foreign monetary credits with which to buy the food. Perhaps mining
minerals or opening technical support call centers...

If you can find a real long-term solution to that problem and help them
implement it, I suspect that Al-HaiBub will become a more important
historical figure than Al-Iskandr throughout that entire region.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:49:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Climate change: Doest the climate change? Yes. Is man causing this?
Hardly plausible let alone proven.

Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there never
is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming majority
(80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities are having an
effect.

Now I know you (and HeyBub) are going to claim a giant conspiracy of all
those scientists, but have you considered that the deniers may well (and
some do for a fact) have ties to economic interests for the status quo?
That is, those few with credence in the field - I don't care about the
others.

Someone had a letter in our newspaper a few days ago denying global
warming because there were more Antarctic icebergs than usual and that
proved the glaciers were growing and calving. Today a respondent pointed
out that Antarctic glaciers don't come from icebergs, they come from ice
fields breaking up. And guess why they're breaking up at an increased
rate ...

The above does not address the question of how much of the warming is man
made, the first writer totally denied there was any warming. I see an
awful lot of that. See my sig line :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:49:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Climate change: Doest the climate change? Yes. Is man causing
this? Hardly plausible let alone proven.

Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
are having an effect.

Your 90% figure may very well be correct. I remind you of what Einstein
said: "No amount of experiments will prove my theory correct, but it only
takes ONE to prove it wrong."


Now I know you (and HeyBub) are going to claim a giant conspiracy of
all those scientists, but have you considered that the deniers may
well (and some do for a fact) have ties to economic interests for the
status quo? That is, those few with credence in the field - I don't
care about the others.

Someone had a letter in our newspaper a few days ago denying global
warming because there were more Antarctic icebergs than usual and that
proved the glaciers were growing and calving. Today a respondent
pointed out that Antarctic glaciers don't come from icebergs, they
come from ice fields breaking up. And guess why they're breaking up
at an increased rate ...

Sigh. Three of the Antartic ice sheets/glaciers are shrinking. Seven are
growing.


The above does not address the question of how much of the warming is
man made, the first writer totally denied there was any warming. I
see an awful lot of that. See my sig line :-).

The earth IS probably warming. It's not as warm as it was during the Middle
Ages. Further, more warming is good: Longer growing seasons, etc. An open
Northwest passage, for example, would be a tremendous boon for world trade.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
are having an effect.

The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is very
strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political and
financial reasons.


Care to list that "handful" of people?

Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came from,
the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."

Cite, please.


The following report was recommended to me today. I haven't had time to
read it yet, but will. Meantime, for those who are interested:

http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
are having an effect.

The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is
very strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political
and financial reasons.


Care to list that "handful" of people?

Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came
from, the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."

Cite, please.


"The Dog Ate It"

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing
away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global
warming are based. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


Refusal to release data they DO have:

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/cl...-britains-foi/


And absolutely fudging of data:

"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data
looks
completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature
readings show
none whatsoever!"
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ima...arming_nz2.pdf

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:29:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Care to list that "handful" of people?


"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
predictions of global warming are based. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


Refusal to release data they DO have:

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/cl...-britains-foi/


And absolutely fudging of data:

"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw
data looks
completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
temperature readings show
none whatsoever!"
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ima...arming_nz2.pdf

OK, you've proven that one group of scientists at one university, plus
another scientist who used to work at that same university, have been
unethical. That surprises you? In any large group of people, there's
always a few as******s. But that's no reason to assume that the entire
group is the same. That's like assuming, because a few fanatic
Christians have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors, that all
Christians are nurderers and bombers.

And I don't think those East Anglians are the influential "handful of
people" that Dave Balderstone alluded to and that I questioned.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

HeyBub wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
are having an effect.

The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is
very strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political
and financial reasons.


Care to list that "handful" of people?


Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Hanson at NASA, Keith Briffa, and a few others
at East Anglia, NASA, and NOAA.

Willing complicity by the media: Seth Borenstein of AP:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/1...just-too-damn-
cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/

Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came
from, the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."

Cite, please.


"The Dog Ate It"

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing
away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global
warming are based. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


Refusal to release data they DO have:

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/cl...-britains-foi/


And absolutely fudging of data:

"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw
data looks
completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
temperature readings show
none whatsoever!"
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ima...arming_nz2.pdf


In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"


By the way, not just New Zealand, Australia as well:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:29:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Care to list that "handful" of people?


"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
predictions of global warming are based. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


Refusal to release data they DO have:

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK
has a Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/cl...-britains-foi/


And absolutely fudging of data:

"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own
raw data looks
completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
temperature readings show
none whatsoever!"
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ima...arming_nz2.pdf

OK, you've proven that one group of scientists at one university, plus
another scientist who used to work at that same university, have been
unethical. That surprises you? In any large group of people, there's
always a few as******s. But that's no reason to assume that the
entire group is the same. That's like assuming, because a few fanatic
Christians have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors, that all
Christians are nurderers and bombers.

And I don't think those East Anglians are the influential "handful of
people" that Dave Balderstone alluded to and that I questioned.

Heh!

The folks at East Anglia are the godhead of climate research. NASA and NOAA
are tied for a distant second.

Stand by! One moment please! Attention viewers and all the ships at sea:
This just in (Dec 14th):

"Odd things are going on at the Climate Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia. Widely available data, existing in the public view for years,
is now disappearing from public view."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/1...data-and-more/

And these are not "one group of scientists..." These are (ALL OF) the
leaders of the climate change community (which isn't that large to begin
with - there are only about ten of them). Admittedly 2,500 (or 10,000, I
forget how many) scientists have boarded the Anthropogenic Global Warming
bandwagon but, to carry your Christian metaphor forward, look how many true
believers the twelve (or eleven) apostles (plus Saul of Kenya) managed to
excite.

These investigators have ignored one of the cardinal rules of science: "When
you've reached the bottom of the hole, quit digging" and you may have
overlooked the first principle of public acceptance: "Fish rots from the
head down."

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:26:02 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
are having an effect.

The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is very
strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political and
financial reasons.


Care to list that "handful" of people?

Michael Mann and the East Anglia CRU crew, or parts thereof, come to
immediate mind, sir. Haven't you been following that? They're funded
for their output.

Algore and crew is another handful. The Brit courts mandated that no
fewer that nine of his false claims in the movie had to be stated to
the viewers before the movie could be shown in there schools. Brits
have a horridly liberal/political school faculty, too. Gore is
starting to rake in the carbon credit bucks now.

Paul Ehrlich and a crew for each of his totally defective and
disproved books comes to several more handfuls. He was funded for his
research and for his books. And the POS books of his are still for
sale, ruining young minds anew. sigh

James Hanson and computer modeling crew(s).


Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came from,
the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."

Cite, please.

CRU admitted to _tossing_ raw data during the move to another building
due to lack of storage space. No _real_ scientist in his right mind
ever does that because it serves as a basis for your ongoing research.
DUH! Now the CRU is saying that all the data can be replaced from
original sources, but the collection they had which produced the data
they put out will never be reassembled. I guess that's not too bad of
a thing, as it will surely prove that the graphs they sent out were
not created from the true data, but from a falsely created,
manipulated set, nailing them to the wall.


The following report was recommended to me today. I haven't had time to
read it yet, but will. Meantime, for those who are interested:

http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Recommended to you by another alarmist, sir? "Updating the world on
the Latest Climate Science" Science update or data update? Written by
students at what Aussie school, er, University?

OK, they're claiming 2" of sea level rise over the past 15 years. Why
isn't Florida under water? Why isn't everyone moving out of Hawaii,
and off every other island in the world?

Executive Summary: 3.4mm/yr sea level rise.
http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/downl...ES_English.pdf

The London Royal Society calculates net sea level rise in Australia at
1 mm/yr[22]— http://www.marine.csiro.au/media/03releases/21jan03.htm
(dead link)

Every report from the IPCC shows -diminishing- forecasts for doom. The
first expected a 4.2 degree increase in global temps by 2100. The
second 3.8, the third 3.5, the fourth 3.26 degrees C. Hansen thought
it would rise 4.2 in '88 and revised it to 2.8 in '08. Monckton and
crew say 0.5 degrees C rise by 2100. Slide 73.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13460116/Lord-Christopher-Moncktons-Power-Point-Bethel-University--Global-Climate-Change-Conference-Oct-14-2009


These guys say the IPCC is underestimating everything. Hold onto your
hat, Larry. They say the sky is, indeed, falling even faster than
dreaded. shudderNOT


--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------