On 7/4/12 10:27 AM, Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 7/4/12 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 12:53 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and
worse. How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does
how much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our
pollution has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our
carbon emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global
warming, the effects of these would seem sufficient reason to
curb air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper
about the failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters
due to increased acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...acidification-
pu ts- pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).
The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.
Al Gore was a politician. EPA and NOAA are in a different
business. Their predictions don't always pan out, but generally,
I'd like less mercury in my air, not more.


You're concerned about mercury in the air? Really?

Just in case you didn't know, mercury emissions from powerplants were
the subject of a fight by the power companies. They didn't want to
reduce them as the EPA had ordered. Mercury volatilized in this
manner is apparently a problem:
"Ms. Jackson said that mercury and the other emissions covered by the
rule damaged the nervous systems of fetuses and children, aggravated
asthma and caused lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of
Americans. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/sc...rth/17epa.html


Thank God Al Gore forced us all to use CFL's so now we'll get less
exposure to mercury.

I plan to dispose of the CFL's responsibly. Hope you all will too.


Why is it that people who want to erode others liberties can blindly
trust the public to act responsibly when it supports their agenda, but
not when it comes to things they don't like, such as guns, fatty/sugary
foods, and my "carbon footprint?"


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 04 Jul 2012 15:16:23 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:52:41 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

I'll see your Palins and raise you a James Hansen.

(Han, Hansen is the NOAA's "chief political officer" and all-around
Alarmist's Alarmist.)

I'll add a Phil Jones[*] to the pot.

[*]The head of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (AKA
the principal perpetrator of climategate).

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

Please tell me how you can get an out-of-context condition in a
statement like "I don't know how we can hide the lack of temperature
increases." As someone else recently said: GMAFB.

A now infamous institution, they were caught with their pants down in
an attempt to defraud the public and, probably, to secure more funding
as a result. It was agenda-based, not science-based. IMO, there is
no worse crime a scientist can commit, against the public, against
himself, and against science. Algore is such a criminal. He openly
stated that he had to fudge the results "to get people to listen, and
to act."

I spit on their grandmothers' shadows.
(An old native American curse.)

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?


Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat every
thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the rest of the
standard "crying wolf" fare.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/4/12 10:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/4/2012 10:16 AM, Han wrote:

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

Only as much as those, a la Peter Glieck, in the infamous FakeGate
scandal perpetrated by the "alarmist" (and for which he both admitted
and apologized).

There's a tit for every tat, Han.


How many scandals, lies, hockey sticks, caught-with-their-pants-down,
agenda driven, and in general, proven to be swindler "scientists" is it
going to take for people to quit trusting these chicken little grant
chasers?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in
the region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily
mesquite and cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in
the perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of
Texas where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an
abnormal wet period?


Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat every
thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the rest of the
standard "crying wolf" fare.

Karl and Mike: Thanks for correcting me.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jul 2012 15:26:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 01:21:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Yeah, mercury and dioxin don't digest well. Agreed. But try their
silly agenda against silicone implants, asbestos, lead, and a dozen
or

Silicone implants appear to have had a rather bad reputation, due to
faulty manufacture, ingredients and/or surgical technique. They were
appropriately banned.

Show me cites where they actually proved the silicone implants to be
bad, not just people claiming it.

Sorry, you'll have to find them yourself.

Not so sure you can, eh?


There is asbestos and asbestos. The kind that is easily friable and
airborn AND contains the really long needle-like crystals is the kind
you might very easily get cancer from (I could go into more
biochemical details). All other kinds (if any) are fine.

90% of all asbestos ever mined was the gentle kind, non-crocidolite.
The only way to get asbestosis or mesothelioma is to have worked in a
dusty asbestos plant--with no respirator for decades.

And be a heavy smoker. Nevertheless, ever try to sell a house with
asbestos?

Nowadays, with the rampant, totally-unsubstantiated fear about it?
Good luck!



And, mind you, I would be careful with all potential
irritants.

I even wear a mask to mow nowadays, and I ventilate heavily during
painting or (re)finishing, blowing, etc.


I likely inhaled far too much asbestos as a young mechanic, blowing
out brake drums and blowing off backing plates. THAT I don't do any
longer.

Note: The way the bad asbestos gets you is via its crystals,
that are too big for macrophages to ingest and then dispose of. The macs
get irritated and start secreting stuff that is full of degrading enzymes
and oxidants. The body isn't designed to neutralize those substances in
excess. It's a similar mechanism that gets you gout, the uric acid
crystals do similar things. Why uric acid gets the joints, I don't know.
The green parts of rhubarb contain a lot of calcium oxalate needle-like
crystals, which are similarly toxic in a way.

Sounds nasty, but aren't we talking about an entirely bygone era?
(where men were macho and didn't wear protection, and companies didn't
offer it.)


Lead is toxic as the divalent cation (it mimics calcium, but does not
have the necessary properties to be a good substitute).

Why fine property owners for poor parenting?

Having been in the situation where I rented an apartment I was glad that
I could ascertain and remedy the (minor) lead problems. Lead should be
removed everywhere it can be removed. In most cases lead is not
necessary.

AFAIC, lead is a non-concern. I'm not eating it (like some entirely
unmonitored young urban children evidently were) and I don't plant my
garden in it. I mask when sanding anything, leaded or not, and clean
up the dust.

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

On 7/4/2012 10:47 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/4/12 10:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/4/2012 10:16 AM, Han wrote:

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

Only as much as those, a la Peter Glieck, in the infamous FakeGate
scandal perpetrated by the "alarmist" (and for which he both admitted
and apologized).

There's a tit for every tat, Han.


How many scandals, lies, hockey sticks, caught-with-their-pants-down,
agenda driven, and in general, proven to be swindler "scientists" is it
going to take for people to quit trusting these chicken little grant
chasers?

Hell, Peter Glieck was just reinstated to the Pacific Institute(?), on
the basis of his apology for his admitted fraudulent/actually criminal
activity, and based on a mysterious "independent investigation"
performed on behalf of that institute by an unknown entity, that no one
has ever seen, without any transparency whatsoever ... yeah right.

I still represent some high and dry land for sale in the Henderson swamp
for anyone who believes that can of worms is on the up and up.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 09:20:02 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken areas
of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow expect
all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

Some clients just last week commented on the burden of having to water
during the summer. They didn't water at all in Colorado, where they
came from.

We have double the rainfall here in Oregon that I did in LoCal (32 v.
13.69" annually) but it doesn't seem like it rains much more. LoCal
was a very arid place.

What? Houston gets 49.8" annually? Amazing.

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

" writes:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in news:4ff3ee05$0$14761$882e7ee2@usenet-
news.net:

On 7/3/2012 1:44 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Coal-fired power plants are a complete disgrace to humanity. Electric
cars should be cheap enough for everyone to have at least one ...

And what will be the source of energy to generate the electricity to
power that many electric cars? Little hampsters scurrying in cages
under the hoods?

Nuclear power.

...and just where are these licenses for nuke plants? How many have been
approved in the last thirty years?


Four, in the last two years. More to come.

FWIW, we should be building 10+ a year for 3 decades.

scott

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 15:26:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 04 Jul 2012 01:21:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

Yeah, mercury and dioxin don't digest well. Agreed. But try
their silly agenda against silicone implants, asbestos, lead, and
a dozen or

Silicone implants appear to have had a rather bad reputation, due to
faulty manufacture, ingredients and/or surgical technique. They
were appropriately banned.

Show me cites where they actually proved the silicone implants to be
bad, not just people claiming it.

Sorry, you'll have to find them yourself.

Not so sure you can, eh?


There is asbestos and asbestos. The kind that is easily friable and
airborn AND contains the really long needle-like crystals is the
kind you might very easily get cancer from (I could go into more
biochemical details). All other kinds (if any) are fine.

90% of all asbestos ever mined was the gentle kind, non-crocidolite.
The only way to get asbestosis or mesothelioma is to have worked in
a dusty asbestos plant--with no respirator for decades.

And be a heavy smoker. Nevertheless, ever try to sell a house with
asbestos?

Nowadays, with the rampant, totally-unsubstantiated fear about it?
Good luck!



And, mind you, I would be careful with all potential
irritants.

I even wear a mask to mow nowadays, and I ventilate heavily during
painting or (re)finishing, blowing, etc.


I likely inhaled far too much asbestos as a young mechanic, blowing
out brake drums and blowing off backing plates. THAT I don't do any
longer.

Note: The way the bad asbestos gets you is via its crystals,
that are too big for macrophages to ingest and then dispose of. The
macs get irritated and start secreting stuff that is full of degrading
enzymes and oxidants. The body isn't designed to neutralize those
substances in excess. It's a similar mechanism that gets you gout,
the uric acid crystals do similar things. Why uric acid gets the
joints, I don't know. The green parts of rhubarb contain a lot of
calcium oxalate needle-like crystals, which are similarly toxic in a
way.

Sounds nasty, but aren't we talking about an entirely bygone era?
(where men were macho and didn't wear protection, and companies didn't
offer it.)


Lead is toxic as the divalent cation (it mimics calcium, but does
not have the necessary properties to be a good substitute).

Why fine property owners for poor parenting?

Having been in the situation where I rented an apartment I was glad
that I could ascertain and remedy the (minor) lead problems. Lead
should be removed everywhere it can be removed. In most cases lead is
not necessary.

AFAIC, lead is a non-concern. I'm not eating it (like some entirely
unmonitored young urban children evidently were) and I don't plant my
garden in it. I mask when sanding anything, leaded or not, and clean
up the dust.

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at
midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself
in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John
Wayne

Seems that now you are a believer in the harm those substances can do ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/4/2012 10:47 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/4/12 10:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/4/2012 10:16 AM, Han wrote:

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

Only as much as those, a la Peter Glieck, in the infamous FakeGate
scandal perpetrated by the "alarmist" (and for which he both admitted
and apologized).

There's a tit for every tat, Han.


How many scandals, lies, hockey sticks, caught-with-their-pants-down,
agenda driven, and in general, proven to be swindler "scientists" is it
going to take for people to quit trusting these chicken little grant
chasers?

What is interesting (and I'm not saying it is wrong or somehow devious
from a statistical standpoint) is that much of the historical data that
is being used for determining warming trends was "adjusted" during a
switchover from using a "Traditional Climate Division Data Set" to a
"Gridded Divisional Data Set".

The TCDD was based on actual, averaged reported temperatures collected
on a statewide basis by the USDA since records were kept.

The GrDD was instituted to supposedly address "inconsistencies" in the
actual reported temperatures.

(Hmmmm ... as if mercury can't be relied upon to be consistent with its
physical properties?)

The upshot is that most of the temperatures in the GrDD data set,
currently used in trending models, are cooler than the actual reported
temperatures from 1895 to present.

An example is the TCDD dataset for 1934 in Arizona (an average of the
actual reported temperatures in that state, in that year) shows to be 52.0F.

The "adjusted" GrDD for that same period in Arizona uses 48.9F ... 3.1F
_cooler_.

While the latter may well be a legitimate and acceptable statistical
methodology for some purposes, it does kind of remind one of the "feels
like" temperature reported daily by the media, instead of what the
thermometer actually says.

It further leaves the unsettling feeling invoked by that old saw, "liars
figure, and figures lie".

Color me skeptical, but I somehow have an inherent mistrust of figures
that have been "adjusted", then used a basis for statistical purposes.

I'm not interested in arguing this factual switch in statistical
methodology, nor am I going to do the homework for anyone by posting
links ... if you're dead set on informing yourself, the best way is to
so is to do your own research and come to your own independent conclusions.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 04 Jul 2012 15:27:10 GMT, Han wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 7/4/12 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 12:53 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and
worse. How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does
how much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our
pollution has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our
carbon emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global
warming, the effects of these would seem sufficient reason to
curb air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper
about the failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters
due to increased acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...acidification-
pu ts- pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).
The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.
Al Gore was a politician. EPA and NOAA are in a different
business. Their predictions don't always pan out, but generally,
I'd like less mercury in my air, not more.


You're concerned about mercury in the air? Really?

Just in case you didn't know, mercury emissions from powerplants were
the subject of a fight by the power companies. They didn't want to
reduce them as the EPA had ordered. Mercury volatilized in this
manner is apparently a problem:
"Ms. Jackson said that mercury and the other emissions covered by the
rule damaged the nervous systems of fetuses and children, aggravated
asthma and caused lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of
Americans. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/sc...rth/17epa.html


Thank God Al Gore forced us all to use CFL's so now we'll get less
exposure to mercury.

I plan to dispose of the CFL's responsibly. Hope you all will too.

For a decade, I've been waiting for a mercury recycling station to
open up anywhere near me. I pay $2 for a 4' fluor lamp. If I want to
dispose of it safely and responsibly, I have to either drive to
Portland (500mi RT) or pay a local company _$4_a_bulb_ to do so. FTS

I talked to the local sanitation company and they said either pay for
the disposal or just break them up in the trashcan and they'll dump
it. I have maybe 35-40 dead bulbs now. If someone wants to send $150
to me, I'll do the responsible thing, but I can't afford it myself.

As seldom as they go bad, my CFLs go in the trash. If they were
accepted by the recycling people, I'd take them there, too. I recycle
-all- (OK, maybe 98%) paper, cardboard, cans, bottles, and plastic.
Green waste and wood/ply/lumber scraps go to JoGro, metal is recycled.

Why are there only maybe 3 mercury recycling stations on the entire
West Coast, with all the Greenies out here? Maybe they're busy
screaming that the sky is filling with CO2.

And where are the Greenies when it comes to Fracking? Why do they
only rant at the non-issues?

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

On 7/4/2012 9:53 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
Thank God Al Gore forced us all to use CFL's so now we'll get less exposure to
mercury.

+1 ;-)

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

My mercury containing lamps go into the fluorescent bulb recycling bin at
the recycling center.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jul 2012 16:21:09 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 15:26:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 01:21:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
om:

Yeah, mercury and dioxin don't digest well. Agreed. But try
their silly agenda against silicone implants, asbestos, lead, and
a dozen or

Silicone implants appear to have had a rather bad reputation, due to
faulty manufacture, ingredients and/or surgical technique. They
were appropriately banned.

Show me cites where they actually proved the silicone implants to be
bad, not just people claiming it.

Sorry, you'll have to find them yourself.

Not so sure you can, eh?


There is asbestos and asbestos. The kind that is easily friable and
airborn AND contains the really long needle-like crystals is the
kind you might very easily get cancer from (I could go into more
biochemical details). All other kinds (if any) are fine.

90% of all asbestos ever mined was the gentle kind, non-crocidolite.
The only way to get asbestosis or mesothelioma is to have worked in
a dusty asbestos plant--with no respirator for decades.

And be a heavy smoker. Nevertheless, ever try to sell a house with
asbestos?

Nowadays, with the rampant, totally-unsubstantiated fear about it?
Good luck!



And, mind you, I would be careful with all potential
irritants.

I even wear a mask to mow nowadays, and I ventilate heavily during
painting or (re)finishing, blowing, etc.


I likely inhaled far too much asbestos as a young mechanic, blowing
out brake drums and blowing off backing plates. THAT I don't do any
longer.

Note: The way the bad asbestos gets you is via its crystals,
that are too big for macrophages to ingest and then dispose of. The
macs get irritated and start secreting stuff that is full of degrading
enzymes and oxidants. The body isn't designed to neutralize those
substances in excess. It's a similar mechanism that gets you gout,
the uric acid crystals do similar things. Why uric acid gets the
joints, I don't know. The green parts of rhubarb contain a lot of
calcium oxalate needle-like crystals, which are similarly toxic in a
way.

Sounds nasty, but aren't we talking about an entirely bygone era?
(where men were macho and didn't wear protection, and companies didn't
offer it.)


Lead is toxic as the divalent cation (it mimics calcium, but does
not have the necessary properties to be a good substitute).

Why fine property owners for poor parenting?

Having been in the situation where I rented an apartment I was glad
that I could ascertain and remedy the (minor) lead problems. Lead
should be removed everywhere it can be removed. In most cases lead is
not necessary.

AFAIC, lead is a non-concern. I'm not eating it (like some entirely
unmonitored young urban children evidently were) and I don't plant my
garden in it. I mask when sanding anything, leaded or not, and clean
up the dust.


Seems that now you are a believer in the harm those substances can do ...

I know better than to allow particulates (including smoke) into my
body any more.

I do -not- believe that any of those things (silicone, lead, asbestos,
CO2) should have been banned, though. I'm not cowering in fear of any
of them, 'cept maybe methyl mercury.

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

On 04 Jul 2012 17:33:34 GMT, Han wrote:

My mercury containing lamps go into the fluorescent bulb recycling bin at
the recycling center.

ONLY if you have one within a reasonable distance from you. I'd drive
30 miles to Medford (60 RT) to dump mine, but I can't do 500 to
Portland. I hate to dump them, and that's why I haven't done it yet,
but...

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

I know better than to allow particulates (including smoke) into my
body any more.

I do -not- believe that any of those things (silicone, lead, asbestos,
CO2) should have been banned, though. I'm not cowering in fear of any
of them, 'cept maybe methyl mercury.

Well, of course there is a difference between cowering in fear and being
careful not to fill in. Among the latter is not to needlessly spew it
around.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/4/2012 6:54 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we
saw 7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In
the last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times,
I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.

It's all about what you're used to.

Snow in Houston is a source of much amusement: Schools and businesses shut
down, the freeways are closed, citizens stock up on strawberry PopTarts and
beer, church pews get crowded, families gather in the den and proclaim how
much they love each other...

Conversely, when a hurricane enters the Gulf, visitors from northern climes
look down and say "Feet! Make tracks!" while natives universally exclaim:
"Party Time!"

Until you've seen a metal trash can (lawn chair, dog, etc.) sailing down the
street at 70 miles per hour...




Yeah those that have been through a rough hurricane don't say Party
Time, the strong storm is serious business. It is mostly those that
have been watching so-n-so Cantori on TWC and that are new to the coast
that say Party Time. A lawn chair going down the street at 70 mph is
really something you do not see unless it is a normal storm that just
popped up. It is not unusual to see a U-Haul trailer going through the
air, not on the ground, during a strong hurricane. The trailer I saw in
Corpus Christi in the early 70's ended up half in and half out of a
garage roof.

Think of a hundred tornadoes in the immediate vicinity and lasting 10~24
hours.

On 7/4/2012 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?


You are using sensationalized data.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 17:33:34 GMT, Han wrote:

My mercury containing lamps go into the fluorescent bulb recycling bin
at the recycling center.

ONLY if you have one within a reasonable distance from you. I'd drive
30 miles to Medford (60 RT) to dump mine, but I can't do 500 to
Portland. I hate to dump them, and that's why I haven't done it yet,
but...

Then you need to ask Oregon how and where to dispose of them. Seems to me
an environment-conscious state should have a solution.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/4/2012 10:43 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?


Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat every
thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the rest of the
standard "crying wolf" fare.




They all come out of the same mold. It just blows me away to see a guy
on the scene in a hurricane, standing in the treacherous winds, his
words, leaning at a 20 degree angle and his wind breaker hardly moving
at all.

On 7/4/2012 10:48 AM, Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in
the region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily
mesquite and cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in
the perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of
Texas where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an
abnormal wet period?


Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat every
thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the rest of the
standard "crying wolf" fare.

Karl and Mike: Thanks for correcting me.


LOL, Just remember Han, All TV and Radio is for your entertainment.
Some of what is broadcast has some truth, 99% is blown out of proportion
and or taken out of context.

On 7/4/2012 11:03 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 09:20:02 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken areas
of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow expect
all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

Some clients just last week commented on the burden of having to water
during the summer. They didn't water at all in Colorado, where they
came from.

We have double the rainfall here in Oregon that I did in LoCal (32 v.
13.69" annually) but it doesn't seem like it rains much more. LoCal
was a very arid place.

What? Houston gets 49.8" annually? Amazing.

This year a little wetter than normal, first half we have gotten over
30" where I live, official KHOU news reading 26.69"


OMG Local news reported about a week ago!!!!!!

Hottest weather since...last year!

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:06:22 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

Mike, are you saying that the oceans aren't getting more acidic? Or
that there is no such thing as acid rain? Or that both situations
exist but CO2 isn't the cause?

Please be more specific.


I'm saying there are plenty of scientists who are much smarter than me,
who don't have a horse in the race, who say man caused global warming is
a bunch of bull**** and I agree with them.

You didn't answer my question. Please see above.

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

On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/4/12 12:33 PM, Han wrote:
My mercury containing lamps go into the fluorescent bulb recycling bin at
the recycling center.


We recycle more than most people. Our trash bin only goes out about once
every other week, and then it's most often because it smells to bad to
leave another week. :-) Our recycling bin is so full, we're thinking
of getting another.

But those CFL's are a joke. They are an inferior product that is
waaaaaaaay worse for the environment than what the environmental harm
they purportedly prevent. Plus they are already outdated by LEDs. Plus,
they cost this country thousands of jobs that were sent to China and
Mexico because we outlawed incandescents.

Don't even get me started on the corruption between the White House and
GE concerning all these new green technologies. Job Czar, my ass.

While we're on the subject, someone did a study on the *true* carbon
footprint of the average electric car and it was about double that of a
gas one. Hilarious.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/4/12 1:34 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:06:22 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

Mike, are you saying that the oceans aren't getting more acidic? Or
that there is no such thing as acid rain? Or that both situations
exist but CO2 isn't the cause?

Please be more specific.


I'm saying there are plenty of scientists who are much smarter than me,
who don't have a horse in the race, who say man caused global warming is
a bunch of bull**** and I agree with them.

You didn't answer my question. Please see above.


F#@k your question. I don't have to have all the answers on the tip of
my tongue to know that man caused GW is bull****. There are other
people in the world who know the science and the specifics and I'll
leave it to them to keep informing me. It's comforting to go through
life knowing you don't have to have all the answers. It's also
comforting to have a highly tuned BS filter. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Swingman wrote in news:cNadnWQRAt_fD2nSnZ2dnUVZ_h-
:

On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5

As I said before, with the proper care, regulation and oversight, fracking
is fine with me.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

I'll add a Phil Jones[*] to the pot.

[*]The head of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (AKA
the principal perpetrator of climategate).

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

Of course, don't you?

On 7/4/2012 2:58 PM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in news:cNadnWQRAt_fD2nSnZ2dnUVZ_h-
:

On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5

As I said before, with the proper care, regulation and oversight, fracking
is fine with me.

Actually, I feel sorry for her. As one who presses the wrong button 50%
of the time when checking out at the grocery store because the clerks
insist on saying "Please press the green button to approve the amount.",
that apparently rules me out for ever being a politician.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

" writes:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff3ee05$0$14761$882e7ee2@usenet- news.net:

On 7/3/2012 1:44 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Coal-fired power plants are a complete disgrace to humanity.
Electric cars should be cheap enough for everyone to have at
least one ...

And what will be the source of energy to generate the
electricity to power that many electric cars? Little
hampsters scurrying in cages under the hoods?

Nuclear power.

...and just where are these licenses for nuke plants? How many
have been approved in the last thirty years?


Four, in the last two years. More to come.

FWIW, we should be building 10+ a year for 3 decades.

And we should make them all to the same design: they'll be easier
and cheaper to build and to maintain, and the approval process
will be far simpler. Once a design is approved, there should be no
regulatory obstacle to building multiple copies of it.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 04 Jul 2012 17:33:34 GMT, Han wrote:

My mercury containing lamps go into the fluorescent bulb recycling
bin at the recycling center.

ONLY if you have one within a reasonable distance from you. I'd drive
30 miles to Medford (60 RT) to dump mine, but I can't do 500 to
Portland. I hate to dump them, and that's why I haven't done it yet,
but...

Just curious... why do you hate to dump them?

They'll probably go to a landfill. Since about 1970, landfills have been
required to be sealed entities. Whatever goes in can never come out, so
what's the difficulty?

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:06:22 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

Mike, are you saying that the oceans aren't getting more acidic? Or
that there is no such thing as acid rain? Or that both situations
exist but CO2 isn't the cause?

Please be more specific.


I'm saying there are plenty of scientists who are much smarter than
me, who don't have a horse in the race, who say man caused global
warming is a bunch of bull**** and I agree with them.

You didn't answer my question. Please see above.

I'll answer. "Acid rain" is not caused by CO2. Acid rain is caused, mainly,
my sulfur emissions resulting in Sulfuric acid. CO2 DOES react with water to
form carbonic acid, though not very much. Plus, carbonic acid is a very weak
acid and insignificantly responsible for the damage from so-called "acid
rain."

Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:

Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due
to greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part
isn't likely to be accepted. So be it.

More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?

Consider this:

In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years,
according to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time,
it was also Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including
this past winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ...
ie, they ****ing froze to death. How "mild" is that?


Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of
global warming.

All along I have contended that winter following summer is the
leading cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.

I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.

Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope
you guys get some rain soon ...


We really do not need rain. We have had about 30 inches so far this
year. I got an inch on Sunday and about 4 inches about 3~4 weeks
ago.

This simmer has been considerably cooler/less warm than last summer
but because of the rain it has been much more muggy. Last summer
was hotter but dryer so it was not so uncomfortable. IMHO it has
really only gotten rather warm in the last 30 days. Ten years ago
and for several years it was normal to be at these temperatures in
mid April.

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of
freezing temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in
1989 we saw 7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold
here. In the last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at
least 3 times, I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50
years.

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

Yep. Houston is closer to Florida than it is to El Paso (and El Paso is
closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to Houston).

Doug Miller wrote in
:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

" writes:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff3ee05$0$14761$882e7ee2@usenet- news.net:

On 7/3/2012 1:44 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Coal-fired power plants are a complete disgrace to humanity.
Electric cars should be cheap enough for everyone to have at
least one ...

And what will be the source of energy to generate the
electricity to power that many electric cars? Little
hampsters scurrying in cages under the hoods?

Nuclear power.

...and just where are these licenses for nuke plants? How many
have been approved in the last thirty years?


Four, in the last two years. More to come.

FWIW, we should be building 10+ a year for 3 decades.

And we should make them all to the same design: they'll be easier
and cheaper to build and to maintain, and the approval process
will be far simpler. Once a design is approved, there should be no
regulatory obstacle to building multiple copies of it.

Isn't that basically what the French did? Of course then you get the
same problem everywhere, but at least the timely discovery is far esaier.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jul 2012 15:16:23 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:52:41 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

I'll see your Palins and raise you a James Hansen.

(Han, Hansen is the NOAA's "chief political officer" and all-around
Alarmist's Alarmist.)

I'll add a Phil Jones[*] to the pot.

[*]The head of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (AKA
the principal perpetrator of climategate).

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

So you believe they weren't lying? Amazing, but for some reason I'm not
surprised.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 20:14:07 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

" writes:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff3ee05$0$14761$882e7ee2@usenet- news.net:

On 7/3/2012 1:44 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Coal-fired power plants are a complete disgrace to humanity.
Electric cars should be cheap enough for everyone to have at
least one ...

And what will be the source of energy to generate the
electricity to power that many electric cars? Little
hampsters scurrying in cages under the hoods?

Nuclear power.

...and just where are these licenses for nuke plants? How many
have been approved in the last thirty years?


Four, in the last two years. More to come.

FWIW, we should be building 10+ a year for 3 decades.

And we should make them all to the same design: they'll be easier
and cheaper to build and to maintain, and the approval process
will be far simpler. Once a design is approved, there should be no
regulatory obstacle to building multiple copies of it.

....at least in the same place.

On 04 Jul 2012 18:04:54 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 17:33:34 GMT, Han wrote:

My mercury containing lamps go into the fluorescent bulb recycling bin
at the recycling center.

ONLY if you have one within a reasonable distance from you. I'd drive
30 miles to Medford (60 RT) to dump mine, but I can't do 500 to
Portland. I hate to dump them, and that's why I haven't done it yet,
but...

Then you need to ask Oregon how and where to dispose of them. Seems to me
an environment-conscious state should have a solution.

That's what I thought, but the only one I've found is in Portland, 250
miles away.

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Somebody wrote:

Nuclear power.
-----------------------------
Not going to happen.

Just ask the Japanese.

Lew

Han wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote in
:
And we should make them all to the same design: they'll be easier
and cheaper to build and to maintain, and the approval process
will be far simpler. Once a design is approved, there should be no
regulatory obstacle to building multiple copies of it.

Isn't that basically what the French did?

I believe so, yes.

Of course then you get the
same problem everywhere, but at least the timely discovery is far esaier.

Or the same lack of problems. And problems that arise need to be solved only once.