On 6/3/2011 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
....

stop this bull**** train and look at what makes sense?
....

Not sure what they're doing up north, Robatoy; what they're doing down
here is making more bs rules and adding costs thereby.

My task (and I've chosen to accept it) is to try to throw fact in front
of the train and make as much effort as possible to keep power
affordable for our members.

I don't know of any way other than to try to counteract the agenda of
the others than by refuting them, do you?

(Or, maybe I'm totally misreading...I will kill this thread in my reader
so I'm no longer tempted, though, at least until Lew goes off again... )

--

On Jun 3, 4:48*pm, dpb wrote:
On 6/3/2011 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
...

stop this bull**** train and look at what makes sense?

...

Not sure what they're doing up north, Robatoy; what they're doing down
here is making more bs rules and adding costs thereby.

My task (and I've chosen to accept it) is to try to throw fact in front
of the train and make as much effort as possible to keep power
affordable for our members.

I don't know of any way other than to try to counteract the agenda of
the others than by refuting them, do you?

(Or, maybe I'm totally misreading...I will kill this thread in my reader
so I'm no longer tempted, though, at least until Lew goes off again... )


If your task is keeping costs down on distribution, then it doesn't
matter where the MWs come from.
If the decision to drain a lake through a turbine is 20 free MW's for
a year and then the damn thing goes dry, the lake that is, then cooler
heads must prevail. In that hypothetical scenario, you can't run lines
to a community with a guarantee to supply them.
So the supply has to have some robustness to it. Not only are we
talking about base-load, we are also looking at sustainability. The
steadiest, reliable base-load we have, here and below the border, is
nuclear. Fact.
So if we are going to blow a bezillion dollars on R&D, let it be to
perfect that source we have become to trust.
Nuclear is pretty darn green if managed and put in places where the
risk factors are extremely low.
Coal mines collapse, water runs out and artificial lakes causes all
kinds of eco-problems.

We have spent a gazillion dollars working on all facets of nuclear
power. THAT is money already invested. We have learned so much over
the last 80 years. Let us put that to good use and be more careful.

We can't afford NOT to go nuclear.

On 6/3/2011 4:03 PM, Robatoy wrote:
....

If your task is keeping costs down on distribution, then it doesn't
matter where the MWs come from.

Well, basically the way we can do that is to control our power cost
which is to say, try to maintain the most effective generation option
possible.

If the decision to drain a lake through a turbine is 20 free MW's for
a year and then the damn thing goes dry, the lake that is, then cooler
heads must prevail. In that hypothetical scenario, you can't run lines
to a community with a guarantee to supply them.
So the supply has to have some robustness to it. Not only are we
talking about base-load, we are also looking at sustainability. The
steadiest, reliable base-load we have, here and below the border, is
nuclear. Fact.

Well, that sorta' thing is patently obvious--which is my rant against
natural gas for central generation except for very unusual circumstances.

And B), yes. Only (or at least the major) problem there is politics and
paranoia here (as I suspect it is there).

....

We can't afford NOT to go nuclear.

Amen, brother; preaching to choir there...

Altho I am not at all opposed to coal; mines don't _necessarily_
collapse and it's really other than nuclear by far the most plentiful
and suitable fuel for the purpose. Certainly taking it off the table in
the US isn't having nor will it have any effect on the Chinese and
Indians nor most of the rest of the developing world so its a fools
errand to think one is carrying the water for some other agenda by doing so.

Adios from south of the border ...

--

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

No, global warming has just about been eliminated as a long-term
anything. Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds. The whole thing
has as much substance as crop circles and its practitioners, in the
main, devotees of something resembling a cargo cult.

I know it is difficult, but keep an open mind. Global warming is a fact.
Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable percentage
is. Chatter among scientists as to how to account for datapoints that
appear to be outliers is just that - chatter. Important for getting down
to the nitty-gritty, but it isn't affecting the big picture.



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jun 2011 11:19:12 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

No, global warming has just about been eliminated as a long-term
anything. Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds. The whole thing
has as much substance as crop circles and its practitioners, in the
main, devotees of something resembling a cargo cult.

I know it is difficult, but keep an open mind. Global warming is a fact.
Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable percentage
is. Chatter among scientists as to how to account for datapoints that
appear to be outliers is just that - chatter. Important for getting down
to the nitty-gritty, but it isn't affecting the big picture.

No, Global Warming(kumbaya) is merely a buzzword, Han. Climate
change, OTOH, is a fact. Temps go up, temps go down, glaciers
increase/decrease, sea levels vacillate. There is no solid proof that
any of it is anthropomorphic. GW models are merely chatter. And they
improve vastly by the decade, as dozens of new, previously unknown
factors are included. They're gettin' there, but models still aren't
ready for prime time. Look at how iffy mere current weather forecast
models are. Now increase the complexity by ten thousand and you have
climate models. Oops! They can't even predict the past, given all
that data history.

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_

--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim

On 6/4/2011 2:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 04 Jun 2011 11:19:12 GMT, wrote:

wrote in
m:

No, global warming has just about been eliminated as a long-term
anything. Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds. The whole thing
has as much substance as crop circles and its practitioners, in the
main, devotees of something resembling a cargo cult.

I know it is difficult, but keep an open mind. Global warming is a fact.
Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable percentage
is. Chatter among scientists as to how to account for datapoints that
appear to be outliers is just that - chatter. Important for getting down
to the nitty-gritty, but it isn't affecting the big picture.

No, Global Warming(kumbaya) is merely a buzzword, Han. Climate
change, OTOH, is a fact. Temps go up, temps go down, glaciers
increase/decrease, sea levels vacillate. There is no solid proof that
any of it is anthropomorphic. GW models are merely chatter. And they
improve vastly by the decade, as dozens of new, previously unknown
factors are included. They're gettin' there, but models still aren't
ready for prime time. Look at how iffy mere current weather forecast
models are. Now increase the complexity by ten thousand and you have
climate models. Oops! They can't even predict the past, given all
that data history.

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_


And long live Joe *******i ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"HeyBub" wrote in
news
However, I detect some ambivalence in YOUR comment:

"Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable
percentage is."

If the amount is unknown, how can one assert "an appreciable
percentage" of global warming is man-made?

And what is this "appreciable" percentage? 50%? 90%? 5%?

Ambivalence - no, I'm not ambivalent about it. On the other hand, as
many have pointed out, Mother Nature has on occasion made things warmer
and colder, and no one can be sure (yet) what She is doing all by herself
right now. There is uncertainty in both the natural trend(s) and the
trends caused by humankind.

What is unequivocal (IMNSHO) is that we are contributing to warming of
the global climate. As the doomsday sayers have pointed out, a very high
proportion of the people on earth live in coastal areas. If sealevel is
indeed going to rise several feet, and maybe several tens of feet, there
will be hell to pay in areas like, e.g. New York. I remember there was a
storm, I believe in the 80s, that occurred at exactly the wrong time -
socalled spring tides, when twice a month moon, earth and sun are aligned
so that normal tides are already 1 or 2 feet higher than average. The
long duration storm had pushed up waters in New York Bay so high that
notonly the highways circling Manhattan were flooded, the parking lot
behind the VA Hospital on 23rd Str was under water - cars up to their
windows in seawater, subbasement flooded, elevators (18 stories) out of
action, etc. I had to help rescue foodstuffs from the subbasement. A
general emergency situation. Imagine patients who needed to be moved,
carried by stretcher up and down the stairs. Also, I believe on this
occasion, the subway pumps couldn't keep up and subways broke down
because of the flooding.

This just to indicate that a few feet of sealevel will make a nasty and
big difference.

My country of origin, Holland is of necessity busy with a really big and
long duration program of water control, both from the sea and from the
rivers entering Holland. Because of greater and longer periods of heat
and lack of precipitation, that includes measures to conserve and
preserve water supplies, both for people and for agriculture. All this
idiotic denial of what is inevitably going to happen to some degree, has
me concerned that some just have their heads in the sand. Preparing for
what is going to happen in fifty or 150 years doesn't sound appealing,
but you're going to face it some day. And it is going to cost a lot.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 14:25:39 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/4/2011 2:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 04 Jun 2011 11:19:12 GMT, wrote:

wrote in
m:

No, global warming has just about been eliminated as a long-term
anything. Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds. The whole thing
has as much substance as crop circles and its practitioners, in the
main, devotees of something resembling a cargo cult.

I know it is difficult, but keep an open mind. Global warming is a fact.
Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable percentage
is. Chatter among scientists as to how to account for datapoints that
appear to be outliers is just that - chatter. Important for getting down
to the nitty-gritty, but it isn't affecting the big picture.

No, Global Warming(kumbaya) is merely a buzzword, Han. Climate
change, OTOH, is a fact. Temps go up, temps go down, glaciers
increase/decrease, sea levels vacillate. There is no solid proof that
any of it is anthropomorphic. GW models are merely chatter. And they
improve vastly by the decade, as dozens of new, previously unknown
factors are included. They're gettin' there, but models still aren't
ready for prime time. Look at how iffy mere current weather forecast
models are. Now increase the complexity by ten thousand and you have
climate models. Oops! They can't even predict the past, given all
that data history.

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_


And long live Joe *******i ...

Yes! And long live Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lomborg, Christopher
Horner, S. Fred Singer, Ronald Bailey, and Peter Huber.

(who wrote the books: Meltdown, The Skeptical Environmentalist,
Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Climate Change
Reconsidered, Earth Report 2000, and Hard Green, among dozens of
others.)

Sanity lives!

--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim

On Jun 4, 3:17*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:

{schnipferized for brevitization]

. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --Ian Plimer

Yup. Just like that saying: that men cannot create a simple worm, yet
we create gods by the hundreds.

On 6/4/2011 3:05 PM, Han wrote:
....

Ambivalence - no, I'm not ambivalent about it. On the other hand, as
many have pointed out, Mother Nature has on occasion made things warmer
and colder, and no one can be sure (yet) what She is doing all by herself
right now. There is uncertainty in both the natural trend(s) and the
trends caused by humankind.

What is unequivocal (IMNSHO) is that we are contributing to warming of
the global climate....

I don't think that's so "unequivocal" at all...and if it is indeed
natural cycle, what we choose to do if done on large scale might just be
the _wrong_ thing unless one really does know whether and precisely what
effects are what.

--

On 06/04/2011 12:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 04 Jun 2011 11:19:12 GMT, wrote:

wrote in
m:

No, global warming has just about been eliminated as a long-term
anything. Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds. The whole thing
has as much substance as crop circles and its practitioners, in the
main, devotees of something resembling a cargo cult.

I know it is difficult, but keep an open mind. Global warming is a fact.
Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable percentage
is. Chatter among scientists as to how to account for datapoints that
appear to be outliers is just that - chatter. Important for getting down
to the nitty-gritty, but it isn't affecting the big picture.

No, Global Warming(kumbaya) is merely a buzzword, Han. Climate
change, OTOH, is a fact. Temps go up, temps go down, glaciers
increase/decrease, sea levels vacillate. There is no solid proof that
any of it is anthropomorphic. GW models are merely chatter. And they
improve vastly by the decade, as dozens of new, previously unknown
factors are included. They're gettin' there, but models still aren't
ready for prime time. Look at how iffy mere current weather forecast
models are. Now increase the complexity by ten thousand and you have
climate models. Oops! They can't even predict the past, given all
that data history.

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_

--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim

Start collecting firewood and get your mukluks laundered:

http://www.spaceandscience.net/

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Eventually we (or our children) will find out.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 15:16:18 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 4, 3:17Â*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:

{schnipferized for brevitization]

. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* --Ian Plimer

Yup. Just like that saying: that men cannot create a simple worm, yet
we create gods by the hundreds.

And look where -that- took us. sigh

--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:17:38 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 06/04/2011 12:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 04 Jun 2011 11:19:12 GMT, wrote:

wrote in
m:

No, global warming has just about been eliminated as a long-term
anything. Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds. The whole thing
has as much substance as crop circles and its practitioners, in the
main, devotees of something resembling a cargo cult.

I know it is difficult, but keep an open mind. Global warming is a fact.
Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable percentage
is. Chatter among scientists as to how to account for datapoints that
appear to be outliers is just that - chatter. Important for getting down
to the nitty-gritty, but it isn't affecting the big picture.

No, Global Warming(kumbaya) is merely a buzzword, Han. Climate
change, OTOH, is a fact. Temps go up, temps go down, glaciers
increase/decrease, sea levels vacillate. There is no solid proof that
any of it is anthropomorphic. GW models are merely chatter. And they
improve vastly by the decade, as dozens of new, previously unknown
factors are included. They're gettin' there, but models still aren't
ready for prime time. Look at how iffy mere current weather forecast
models are. Now increase the complexity by ten thousand and you have
climate models. Oops! They can't even predict the past, given all
that data history.

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_

--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim

Start collecting firewood and get your mukluks laundered:

http://www.spaceandscience.net/

"Why don't you come in out of the cornstarch and dry your mukluks in
the cellophane, Nick."

I'll bet Hanson over at NASA and Casey at the SSRC have a marvelous
relationship.

--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:
...snipped...

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_


I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over
the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements
about whales, passenger pigeons, now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc.
Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree
humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people
have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion.
world climate

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 06/04/2011 09:13 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
Larry wrote:
...snipped...

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_


I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over
the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements
about whales, passenger pigeons, now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc.
Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree
humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people
have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion.
world climate


Any idea how much the biomass of insects outweighs the biomass of mammals?

On Jun 5, 12:13*am, (Larry W) wrote:
In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:
...snipped...



I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_

I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over
the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements
about whales, passenger pigeons, *now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc.
Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree
humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people
have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion.

BUT... you need to add us to all the other living organisms on the
planet, from chickens, to plankton, to platypuses etc.
This planet is so alive with gazillions of organisms that the effect
we are having is seriously diluted.
If 7 billion people all moved to the Province of Ontario, they would
all have a piece of property big enough to build a house on it. That
math gets really interesting if 4 people moved into that hypothetical
house. Now the property would be 4 x bigger for those families....
discuss....

On 6/4/2011 11:35 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Any idea how much the biomass of insects outweighs the biomass of mammals?

Proving, once again, that we live in culture where just enough education
to believe what seems a be a reasonable, logical conclusion is not
necessarily so.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article m,
Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 06/04/2011 09:13 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
Larry wrote:
...snipped...

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_


I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over
the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements
about whales, passenger pigeons, now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc.
Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree
humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people
have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion.
world climate


Any idea how much the biomass of insects outweighs the biomass of mammals?

I don't really know, though I do recall reading somewhere that the biomass
of ants alone, worldwide, is about the same as that of humans. BUT, those
ants and other insects and animals are not burning 6 or 7 BILLION TONS
of coal every year, 28 billion barrels of oil, etc.

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

In article ,
says...

In article m,
Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 06/04/2011 09:13 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
Larry wrote:
...snipped...

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_


I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over
the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements
about whales, passenger pigeons, now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc.
Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree
humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people
have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion.
world climate


Any idea how much the biomass of insects outweighs the biomass of mammals?

I don't really know, though I do recall reading somewhere that the biomass
of ants alone, worldwide, is about the same as that of humans. BUT, those
ants and other insects and animals are not burning 6 or 7 BILLION TONS
of coal every year, 28 billion barrels of oil, etc.

And how much change does that actually make every year?

There is supposed to be a temperature spike right now. Anybody who can
read an oscilloscope who lookes at the ice core data sees this. So how
does one determine with any certainty that what we are seeing is not
that spike? Comparing that ice core data from Antarctica and from
Greenland also tells us that during that spike in the previous
glaciation the Greenland ice cap melted off, so again we see nothing
unexpected, so again how do we determine with any certainty that what we
are seeing is not that natural spike?

In previous cycles that spike was of very short duration and followed by
a very rapid temperature drop, and increased glaciation, ultimately
leading to sea levels dropping more than 300 feet and to glaciers large
enough to move the whole of Long Island covering North America well
south of the Great Lakes--if that happens again all of Canada is just
plain swept clean, and all of New England, and Chicago and Seattle and a
number of other northerm US cities. Europe will lose Scandinavia, the
Netherlands, and most of the UK.

So with that prospect, it may turn out that in a short time we're trying
to find ways to actually provide that "anthropogenic global warming"
that the gloom and doom crowd is currently telling is is going to make
the sky fall.

On Jun 5, 9:34*am, (Larry W) wrote:
In article m,
Doug Winterburn wrote:





On 06/04/2011 09:13 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
Larry *wrote:
...snipped...

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_

I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over
the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements
about whales, passenger pigeons, *now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc.
Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree
humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people
have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion.
world climate

Any idea how much the biomass of insects outweighs the biomass of mammals?

I don't really know, though I do recall reading somewhere that the biomass
of ants alone, worldwide, is about the same as that of humans. BUT, those
ants and other insects and animals are not burning 6 or 7 BILLION TONS
of coal every year, 28 billion barrels of oil, etc.


This planet we live on has been nailed by some serious events, some
are speculated to be the reason the dinosaurs became extinct. It has
always managed to right itself in spectacular fashion.

Even though I think the whole GW scare is grossly overblown (can you
say, carbon tax, money grab?) it behooves us to apply good stewardship
of SpaceShip Earth. When camping in the forest, take out what you
brought in. Clean up after yourself.
So when it became obvious that the smelters at Sudbury's nickel mines
were causing acid rain. it was a measurable and verifiable problem.
Very local, and with some basic intervention, those lakes around
Sudbury have sprang back to life.
But in a global perspective that problem was a mere pimple on an
elephant's ass.
Same goes for the 'repair' of Lake Erie. We DO need to be careful, but
'heating up the whole planet' ??? Waaay too much booga-booga, none of
which is verifiable.

Just another bull**** method to extract money from the working stiffs.

The sunsabitches just keep trying to bend us over. How much of that
'carbon' tax is going to get used to 'cool off' our planet? Laughable,
that's what it is.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 04:13:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:
...snipped...

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_


I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over
the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements
about whales, passenger pigeons, now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc.
Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree
humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people
have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion.
world climate

Mother Nature is a big girl now. She can handle slight changes like
humans and volcanoes, eh?

That said, I firmly believe that man should rein in his extravagances
(coal burning power production for a super biggie) and negligence so
he treads more lightly on Mother Earth.

--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim

On Jun 5, 12:59*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds.

I've been staying out of this one but I have to ask - debunked by who? *
Faux News? Glenn Beck and his ilk? *Something like 95% of scientists in
the field (not some yahoo whose field is arificial polymers or the like)
agree that global warming is occurring and that man made pollution plays
a large part.


A LARGE part? Your choice to buy into that hollow assertion by "95%"
of the scientific community.

The political Left sells fear through environmental money grabs, the
political Right has everyone believing that there's raghead with
explosives under everybody's bed.

I guess fear sells, but rational thought is difficult to sweep under
the carpet.

And how about that 95% of scientists who call this LARGE man-made
global warming by its real name: Bull****?

In article , says...

Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds.

I've been staying out of this one but I have to ask - debunked by who?
Faux News? Glenn Beck and his ilk? Something like 95% of scientists in
the field (not some yahoo whose field is arificial polymers or the like)
agree that global warming is occurring and that man made pollution plays
a large part.

Yeah, 95 percent of the scientists in the field of global warming say
this.

They got caught suppressing data and fudging their numbers and their
credibility was destroyed.

Might have been just a few but that doesn't matter in politics.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Mother Nature is a big girl now. She can handle slight changes like
humans and volcanoes, eh?

That said, I firmly believe that man should rein in his extravagances
(coal burning power production for a super biggie) and negligence so
he treads more lightly on Mother Earth.

Fully agree. This is a reference to astudy of the effects of the Mt
Pinatubo eruption on world-wide temperatures:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/
All that stuff in the upper atmosphere did indeed cool things down. I.e.,
the reverse direction of what our generation of CO2 and methane does.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Yea I remember when the data was exposed. One measuring station
was on top of a building next to an exhaust vent. The vent was hot.

The person used that to model Canada and the onslaught flow towards N.A.

He was exposed and disposed. Lots of people had used his data and
reports for forecasting and their talks.

Martin

On 6/5/2011 2:52 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 14:19:53 -0400, "J. wrote:

In , says...

Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as
preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be
either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds.

I've been staying out of this one but I have to ask - debunked by who?
Faux News? Glenn Beck and his ilk? Something like 95% of scientists in
the field (not some yahoo whose field is arificial polymers or the like)
agree that global warming is occurring and that man made pollution plays
a large part.

Yeah, 95 percent of the scientists in the field of global warming say
this.

They got caught suppressing data and fudging their numbers and their
credibility was destroyed.

Might have been just a few but that doesn't matter in politics.

The numbers no longer matter because everything is based on the fudged data
and all the original data was destroyed. Wonder why?

J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...



I don't really know, though I do recall reading somewhere that the
biomass of ants alone, worldwide, is about the same as that of
humans. BUT, those ants and other insects and animals are not
burning 6 or 7 BILLION TONS
of coal every year, 28 billion barrels of oil, etc.

And how much change does that actually make every year?

Well obviously - it makes BILLIONS of change. After all - that word is
important enough and meaningful enough to capitalize...


--

-Mike-

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:19:51 -0700, Robatoy wrote:

And how about that 95% of scientists who call this LARGE man-made global
warming by its real name: Bull****?

Cite please. Or you could name them and their field of expertise :-).

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

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:44:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Yea I remember when the data was exposed. One measuring station was on
top of a building next to an exhaust vent. The vent was hot.

Reference?

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

In article , says...

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:44:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Yea I remember when the data was exposed. One measuring station was on
top of a building next to an exhaust vent. The vent was hot.

Reference?

That would have likely been Anthony Watts' "surfacestations.org" site
which is down at the moment (whether it's down temporarily or has been
shut down permanently I have no idea).

He found a number of stations where the temperature sensor was near an
air conditioner, and many other discrepancies from NOAA's published
standards for temperature measurement. He included photographs of the
stations and other information, so you can make your own determination
of whether there might be a problem, he didn't expect you to take his
word for it.

He's not the only one to question the quality of the data though.

The simple fact is that we don't know whether the percieved "warming" is
real or an artifact of instrumentation error.

NOAA recognized this as early as 2002 when they published a new set of
standards for temperature measurement. However those new standards do
not help us figure out whether older data is erroneous.

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:44:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Yea I remember when the data was exposed. One measuring
station was on top of a building next to an exhaust vent.
The vent was hot.

Reference?


http://www.surfacestations.org/

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:43:54 +0000, Larry wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:44:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Yea I remember when the data was exposed. One measuring station was
on top of a building next to an exhaust vent. The vent was hot.

Reference?


http://www.surfacestations.org/

So you're using a Fox News weatherman as your authoritative source? I
went to that web site and then I Googled Anthony Watts - the man is a
laughingstock. He's been discredited six ways from Sunday.

And a weatherman deals in just that - weather, not climate. Watts has no
pertinent credentials.

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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article , says...

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:43:54 +0000, Larry wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:44:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Yea I remember when the data was exposed. One measuring station was
on top of a building next to an exhaust vent. The vent was hot.

Reference?


http://www.surfacestations.org/

So you're using a Fox News weatherman as your authoritative source?

Nope, he's using the images and other data on that site as his
authoritative source. The site could be run by three gerbils and
dyspeptic squirrel but that wouldn't invalidate the data it provides.

You are very guilty here of the ad-hominem fallacy.

I
went to that web site and then I Googled Anthony Watts - the man is a
laughingstock. He's been discredited six ways from Sunday.

I don't notice you discrediting anything on that site. Show us an error
in his data.

And a weatherman deals in just that - weather, not climate. Watts has no
pertinent credentials.

And you still haven't shown us that the data on that site is erroneous.

The climatologists get all the data on which they're basing their long
range analysis from weather stations you know. And weathermen,
regardless of their knowledge of climate, do know a thing or two about
weather stations.

Sorry, but you're doing more harm than good for your side with your line
of argument. Refute the data.




Better, ask for a definition of "Climate". Gets real quiet after that.

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:33:24 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Sorry, but you're doing more harm than good for your side with your line
of argument. Refute the data.

OK:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-t...he-US-Surface-
Temperature-Record.html

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

In article , says...

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:33:24 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Sorry, but you're doing more harm than good for your side with your line
of argument. Refute the data.

OK:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-t...he-US-Surface-
Temperature-Record.html

Sorry but that's not a refutation. In fact that argument is based on
_acceptance_ of the data that you claim that it refutes.

On Jun 7, 7:47*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article , says...



On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:33:24 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Sorry, but you're doing more harm than good for your side with your line
of argument. *Refute the data.

OK:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-t...he-US-Surface-
Temperature-Record.html

Sorry but that's not a refutation. *In fact that argument is based on
_acceptance_ of the data that you claim that it refutes.

*in a documentary whisper*
"and so, ladies and gentlemen, Doctor ****waffle tries to hook another
willing fish.
Stay tuned to watch the next episode named "****waffle gets told to go
**** himself."

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:



http://www.surfacestations.org/

I Googled Anthony
Watts - the man is a laughingstock. He's been discredited
six ways from Sunday.


A quote from his website:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme
to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the
ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and
deteriorating."

You think it's any better now?

I haven't seen a single person here claim humans are totally
innocent. What I have heard is that they've been lying to us
and manipulating data to get their desired results.

All I'm doing is looking at the "problem" objectively which
apparently you can't do. If it doesn't fit your philosphy I
guess it's BS?

Both sides of the debate are likely saying something true. I
just don't know which is which.

Larry

In article , yrie says...

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:



http://www.surfacestations.org/

I Googled Anthony
Watts - the man is a laughingstock. He's been discredited
six ways from Sunday.


A quote from his website:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme
to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the
ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and
deteriorating."

You think it's any better now?

I haven't seen a single person here claim humans are totally
innocent. What I have heard is that they've been lying to us
and manipulating data to get their desired results.

All I'm doing is looking at the "problem" objectively which
apparently you can't do. If it doesn't fit your philosphy I
guess it's BS?

Both sides of the debate are likely saying something true. I
just don't know which is which.

It's all irrelevant anyway. The US isn't buying into it and despite
signing Kyoto, China is ignoring it, and if the US and China don't play
along the rest of the world is wasting its time trying to cut emissions.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article , yrie says...

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:



http://www.surfacestations.org/

I Googled Anthony
Watts - the man is a laughingstock. He's been discredited
six ways from Sunday.


A quote from his website:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme
to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the
ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and
deteriorating."

You think it's any better now?

I haven't seen a single person here claim humans are totally
innocent. What I have heard is that they've been lying to us
and manipulating data to get their desired results.

All I'm doing is looking at the "problem" objectively which
apparently you can't do. If it doesn't fit your philosphy I
guess it's BS?

Both sides of the debate are likely saying something true. I
just don't know which is which.

It's all irrelevant anyway. The US isn't buying into it and despite
signing Kyoto, China is ignoring it, and if the US and China don't play
along the rest of the world is wasting its time trying to cut emissions.


Not really. Along the way they're boosting their own economies and getting
an edge on us with alternate/renewable energy. BTW, the Chinese are doing a
massive amount of said work themselves while they spew more carbon per
capita - and with a hell of a lot of capitas. The US is pretty much behind
the eight ball on all of this.

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:47:44 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

In article , says...

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:33:24 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Sorry, but you're doing more harm than good for your side with your
line of argument. Refute the data.

OK:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-t...he-US-Surface-
Temperature-Record.html

Sorry but that's not a refutation. In fact that argument is based on
_acceptance_ of the data that you claim that it refutes.

Correct. But it refutes the interpretation of the data on the site you
gave.


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