On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:50:12 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 7/19/2012 12:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sorry, Han, I'm not into dykes.

Well, dykes probably don't want you into them anyway.

I'm sure. ...or little boy's fingers, apparently.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:31:53 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 7/18/2012 8:44 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:

So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???


Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

Me too, the greenies seem to think that because there is no pollution
coming out of the tail pipe that there is no pollution.

Dunno, most don't want nukes. They really don't want anything; back to the
caves.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:32:35 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:04:20 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

it has not yet been proven to real scientists.

"real scientists" i.e. those who agree with Larry J :-).

Sorry to interrupt your wild dreaming, sir. I forgot that you were a
True Believer (in AGWK) and should know better than to fool with that.
Facts and truth mean nothing to youse guys.

Nexxxxxxxxxt!

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 19 Jul 2012 17:47:03 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2012 11:59:35 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global
warming), a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would
be a good thing.

That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps no
problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already. If
there is going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be less of
a summertime reservoir of water (it will have run off the mountains
before spring is finished).

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry about
that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

I worry about that too, Larry. OTOH, that is an engineering and
regulation problem. It can be done safely, I believe. But there needs
to be oversight and punishment in case things go wrong. The main things
are 4-fold (I'm a biochemist so I have absolutely no standing): First,
the borehole should be warranteed to be free of defects, with the
companies in charge responsible to the extent that they have to prove
they are not responsible, rather than the "government" needing to prove
they are. Second, the waste should be cleaned up and /properly/ disposed
of. Again same conditions. Third, the fact that the water supply in the
area was fine before fracking proves that fracking was responsible for it
being fouled (if so) after fracking started, and again, same conditions.
Fourth, any earthquakes and damage from them are the direct
responsibility of the fracking companies.

We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
production of natural gas via fracking. They have a license to taint
all the air and water they want, and we can't do a damned thing about
it. I'd like to see come CONgresscritter heads taken off as a result
of that little treasonous act against the people of the USA. Ditto
the pact they made with Big Pharma in Medicare Part D.

If Satan exists, he's our CONgress.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 19 Jul 2012 17:51:49 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:bb81f$50081f8a
:

HeyBub wrote:

Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...

Quick, someone with a remedy for black flies?

911,000 people seem to think they have that licked. See:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pest...or+black+flies
g

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...

My current squeeze is from that area, a suburb of Buffalo (Sasparilla or
something like that). A year ago, I went with her to meet her family.
Pleasant enough, but...

The plane trip caused a deep vein thrombosis. A few days after returning I
came down with double pulmonary embolism.

My dearly beloved called 911.

In slightly more than FOUR MINUTES, I had FIVE EMT's and paramedics in my
bedroom. Outside was an ambulance and a fire truck. Luckily, I live about
six blocks from a Class I Trauma Center.

All better now, but the insurance company is out $72,000.

I blame New York.

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not,
the increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived
problems. And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland
during my life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just
awesome ...

Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.

Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.

And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased
CO2 may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s)
could extend - Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of
two. Second, far more untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than
heat. Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Adapt, overcome, continue.

Apparently, the faster plant growth is somewhat of a fallacy. It may
simply be untrue, or only true for a few species. But, too bad, it
doesn't work too well. Perhaps the seeding of the Southern Ocean with
iron would work to a small extent. At least I just saw a reference
that it might (at least temporarily) deep six about 1/8th of the CO2
produced by fossil fuel burning. I'm sure you can google it.

Maybe so, but why would anyone WANT to "deep six" a mess of CO2?

On 7/19/2012 8:48 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

If Satan exists, he's our CONgress.




What do you mean; IF?

HeyBub wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...

My current squeeze is from that area, a suburb of Buffalo (Sasparilla
or something like that). A year ago, I went with her to meet her
family. Pleasant enough, but...

The plane trip caused a deep vein thrombosis. A few days after
returning I came down with double pulmonary embolism.

My dearly beloved called 911.

In slightly more than FOUR MINUTES, I had FIVE EMT's and paramedics
in my bedroom. Outside was an ambulance and a fire truck. Luckily, I
live about six blocks from a Class I Trauma Center.

All better now, but the insurance company is out $72,000.

I blame New York.

Nah - it would only be our fault if that $72,000 went into our General Fund.
Give our Gov a chance - he'll find a way to make that happen...

--

-Mike-

Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.


If the likes of Al Franken live there, I'll pass ...............

"Leon" wrote in message
news
On 7/18/2012 10:24 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of
man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was
WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British
newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has
been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest
the current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in
the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree
rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations
have confirmed the predictions, including the role of CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...valuating-a-19
81- temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of
the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures
may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981
calculations were able to predict observations made over the next 30
years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation
... Yes I know.

Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ... or
at least smells like it.

And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the reason
has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific certainty to
embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor' measures those intent
on destroying the sovereignty of select nations in favor of a world
government would have you believe.

I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general idea
that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...


So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???

The responsibility is every one else's ???

Maybe not bad enough or causing enough trouble that "you" should
change... ;~)
================================================== ======================
Learned that one from Al Gore.

"Steve B" wrote:

If the likes of Al Franken live there, I'll pass ...............
--------------------------------
Too much of a stretch for your thought capabilities?

Lew

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/19/2012 3:09 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:500863cd$0$20544$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

On 7/19/2012 12:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sorry, Han, I'm not into dykes.
Well, dykes probably don't want you into them anyway.
That's one answer. Another is that dykes are useful to keep your feet
dry. And dykes usually have roads on them, great for bicycling, with
good views of the land around. Driving a car needs to use a small
car, oherwise you'll be off the road rather soon.

Are you ignoring the pun, or did you enjoy the breeze as it whooshed
over your head?

I fully realized the pun, however bad it was, and was indeed ignoring it.
The breeze, biking on top of the dykes in Holland, is usually excellent,
except if you have to bike against the wind and rain ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2012 17:47:03 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 19 Jul 2012 11:59:35 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global
warming), a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would
be a good thing.

That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps
no problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already.
If there is going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be
less of a summertime reservoir of water (it will have run off the
mountains before spring is finished).

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry
about that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

I worry about that too, Larry. OTOH, that is an engineering and
regulation problem. It can be done safely, I believe. But there
needs to be oversight and punishment in case things go wrong. The
main things are 4-fold (I'm a biochemist so I have absolutely no
standing): First, the borehole should be warranteed to be free of
defects, with the companies in charge responsible to the extent that
they have to prove they are not responsible, rather than the
"government" needing to prove they are. Second, the waste should be
cleaned up and /properly/ disposed of. Again same conditions. Third,
the fact that the water supply in the area was fine before fracking
proves that fracking was responsible for it being fouled (if so) after
fracking started, and again, same conditions. Fourth, any earthquakes
and damage from them are the direct responsibility of the fracking
companies.

We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
production of natural gas via fracking. They have a license to taint
all the air and water they want, and we can't do a damned thing about
it. I'd like to see come CONgresscritter heads taken off as a result
of that little treasonous act against the people of the USA. Ditto
the pact they made with Big Pharma in Medicare Part D.

If Satan exists, he's our CONgress.

I don't like Andy Cuomo,but at least he has the frackers under control.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not,
the increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived
problems. And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland
during my life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just
awesome ...

Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.

Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.

And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased
CO2 may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s)
could extend - Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of
two. Second, far more untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than
heat. Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Adapt, overcome, continue.

Apparently, the faster plant growth is somewhat of a fallacy. It may
simply be untrue, or only true for a few species. But, too bad, it
doesn't work too well. Perhaps the seeding of the Southern Ocean with
iron would work to a small extent. At least I just saw a reference
that it might (at least temporarily) deep six about 1/8th of the CO2
produced by fossil fuel burning. I'm sure you can google it.

Maybe so, but why would anyone WANT to "deep six" a mess of CO2?

By "fertilizing" the ocean with iron sulfate, they caused a bloom of
plankton and all kinds of tiny sea creatures, who all fixed CO2 into
their organic bodies. When they died, they sank to the bottom,hence my
choice of words.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

N/G is about 1/2 the cost of coal.

Lew

For the moment. There is a glut now, in part because of the mild
winter. When supply and demand get into more of an equilibrium, nat
gas prices will go up, and coal will come down. Although I don't
mind cheap natural gas ...

Nope. There IS a glut, but not because of a mild winter; there's an
abundunce of NG due to increased discovery and production methodology (i.e.,
"fracking").

Today, we have, in the U.S., about 270 trillion cu ft of proven reserves.

U.S. consumption is about 1.5 trillion cu ft per year. At current levels of
use and known reserves, that comes to a 180-year supply.

Since the beginning of 2001, the price of NG has dropped from $6.82/1000 cu
ft to $1.89.

Larry Jaques wrote:

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry about
that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.

Assuming that you can't, explain how an aquifer, 200-500 ft underground, can
be contaminated or otherwise influenced by something happening five to
15,000 below it.

On 7/20/2012 12:48 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Steve B" wrote:

If the likes of Al Franken live there, I'll pass ...............
--------------------------------
Too much of a stretch for your thought capabilities?

Actually a perfect fit for congressional duties ... a comedian, elected
by TV fans.

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

On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

N/G is about 1/2 the cost of coal.

Lew

For the moment. There is a glut now, in part because of the mild
winter. When supply and demand get into more of an equilibrium, nat
gas prices will go up, and coal will come down. Although I don't
mind cheap natural gas ...

Nope. There IS a glut, but not because of a mild winter; there's an
abundunce of NG due to increased discovery and production methodology
(i.e., "fracking").

Today, we have, in the U.S., about 270 trillion cu ft of proven
reserves.

U.S. consumption is about 1.5 trillion cu ft per year. At current
levels of use and known reserves, that comes to a 180-year supply.

Since the beginning of 2001, the price of NG has dropped from
$6.82/1000 cu ft to $1.89.

You missed the "in part" I mentioned. As more power plants switch or get
newly built to use natural gas, the excess supply will decrease. They're
building or are going to build a liquified natural gas plant somewhere in
the South. Originally meant to be for importing LNG, it is now being
modified for export. That'll take some of the supply to other countries
(Japan? China?). All great for the US economy. Perhaps less so for the
people living near the wells (Larry J?).


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Larry Jaques wrote:

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry
about that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.

Assuming that you can't, explain how an aquifer, 200-500 ft
underground, can be contaminated or otherwise influenced by something
happening five to 15,000 below it.

Now, don't be a denier here ... There are many ways. Some a

The well bore wasn't sealed properly, especially where it passed through
the aquifer. It has happened ...
The fracking caused mini earthquakes that damaged the old natural seal
below or above the aquifer.
The fracking waste contaminated what was a good source of drinking water.

I am in favor of fracking if properly regulated with ALL potentially
applicable environmental regulations adhered to. So far in many
jurisdictions, the frackers (I'm leaving off an adjective) have played
fast and loose with regulations and contractual obligations. That
damages the industry. Don't the (left out) frackers realize that?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/19/2012 11:07 PM, CW wrote:

I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general idea
that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...


So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???

The responsibility is every one else's ???

Maybe not bad enough or causing enough trouble that "you" should
change... ;~)
================================================== ======================
Learned that one from Al Gore.




See, here is another fellow that thinks new cars hatch from eggs...

On 7/20/2012 7:56 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.



LOL. Well, almost.
I kinda skipped the part about the hypothesis coming first.
But in this crowd ...

Anyway, thanks for the Minwax!

Richard

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:56:45 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.

Jeeze, what'd he do to deserve _that_ nasty punishment, Swingy?

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 20 Jul 2012 13:19:35 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

Larry Jaques wrote:

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry
about that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.

See "Gasland" movie for tons of 'em.


Assuming that you can't, explain how an aquifer, 200-500 ft
underground, can be contaminated or otherwise influenced by something
happening five to 15,000 below it.

Now, don't be a denier here ... There are many ways. Some a

The well bore wasn't sealed properly, especially where it passed through
the aquifer. It has happened ...
The fracking caused mini earthquakes that damaged the old natural seal
below or above the aquifer.
The fracking waste contaminated what was a good source of drinking water.

I am in favor of fracking if properly regulated with ALL potentially
applicable environmental regulations adhered to. So far in many
jurisdictions, the frackers (I'm leaving off an adjective) have played
fast and loose with regulations and contractual obligations. That
damages the industry. Don't the (left out) frackers realize that?

All the fracking frackers are interested in is a windfall profit
-this- year. Nothing else seems to matter.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 7/20/2012 7:52 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/20/2012 12:48 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Steve B" wrote:

If the likes of Al Franken live there, I'll pass ...............
--------------------------------
Too much of a stretch for your thought capabilities?

Actually a perfect fit for congressional duties ... a comedian, elected
by TV fans.


And a comedian that best played a person with a reality similar to that
of a "duck", one that wakes up in a new world every day, Jack Handy,
AKA someone in government and fits in well.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 20 Jul 2012 13:19:35 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Larry Jaques wrote:

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry
about that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.

See "Gasland" movie for tons of 'em.

Have not seen the movie, but did go to the web site. It is full of inuendo
and speculation. He spends more time picking on semantics than he does on
providing verifiable points of contention. It takes more than just "raising
a question" to make that question a valid concern, and this guy fails that
test miserably. One has to be pre-disposed to his viewpoint to see any
"fact" in what he "presents".



All the fracking frackers are interested in is a windfall profit
-this- year. Nothing else seems to matter.

That is really foolish Larry. This is an industry that looks more like
retail than high-tech. Profits tend to be driven by time and volume. Far
from "windfall" - but that does make a pretty volitile phrase...

--

-Mike-

On 7/20/2012 7:49 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 20 Jul 2012 13:19:35 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Larry Jaques wrote:

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry
about that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.

See "Gasland" movie for tons of 'em.

there are many occurrences of this occurring before fracking was common. so?


Assuming that you can't, explain how an aquifer, 200-500 ft
underground, can be contaminated or otherwise influenced by something
happening five to 15,000 below it.

Now, don't be a denier here ... There are many ways. Some a

The well bore wasn't sealed properly, especially where it passed through
the aquifer. It has happened ...
The fracking caused mini earthquakes that damaged the old natural seal
below or above the aquifer.
The fracking waste contaminated what was a good source of drinking water.

I am in favor of fracking if properly regulated with ALL potentially
applicable environmental regulations adhered to. So far in many
jurisdictions, the frackers (I'm leaving off an adjective) have played
fast and loose with regulations and contractual obligations. That
damages the industry. Don't the (left out) frackers realize that?

there are about 20k fracked wells, and a handful of problems. all of the
problems occurred because the regs weren't followed.

All the fracking frackers are interested in is a windfall profit
-this- year. Nothing else seems to matter.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 7/20/2012 9:31 AM, Richard wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:56 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.



LOL. Well, almost.
I kinda skipped the part about the hypothesis coming first.
But in this crowd ...

A minor issue ... your point rose well above any semantic argument.

Anyway, thanks for the Minwax!

Excluded, of course, is any anticipated use on cherry ...

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

On 7/20/2012 11:12 AM, chaniarts wrote:

there are about 20k fracked wells, and a handful of problems. all of the
problems occurred because the regs weren't followed.



Seems like that was the same problem we ran into with nuclear power...

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:12:59 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/20/2012 9:31 AM, Richard wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:56 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.



LOL. Well, almost.
I kinda skipped the part about the hypothesis coming first.
But in this crowd ...

A minor issue ... your point rose well above any semantic argument.

The point of the "semantic argument" was that not all "theories" are created
equal. The "theory of AGW" is no such thing, regardless of what the AGW nuts
say. It is an hypothesis, no more. The "Theory of Gravitation" is the
counterexample. The issue is science, not religion.


Anyway, thanks for the Minwax!

Excluded, of course, is any anticipated use on cherry ...

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:49:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 20 Jul 2012 13:19:35 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:qvmdnUgGE7eLzJTNnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@earthlink. com:

Larry Jaques wrote:

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry
about that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.

See "Gasland" movie for tons of 'em.

Where 'em == fiction or fraud.


Assuming that you can't, explain how an aquifer, 200-500 ft
underground, can be contaminated or otherwise influenced by something
happening five to 15,000 below it.

Now, don't be a denier here ... There are many ways. Some a

The well bore wasn't sealed properly, especially where it passed through
the aquifer. It has happened ...
The fracking caused mini earthquakes that damaged the old natural seal
below or above the aquifer.
The fracking waste contaminated what was a good source of drinking water.

I am in favor of fracking if properly regulated with ALL potentially
applicable environmental regulations adhered to. So far in many
jurisdictions, the frackers (I'm leaving off an adjective) have played
fast and loose with regulations and contractual obligations. That
damages the industry. Don't the (left out) frackers realize that?

All the fracking frackers are interested in is a windfall profit
-this- year. Nothing else seems to matter.

Nonsense.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:03:10 -0500, Richard wrote:

On 7/20/2012 11:12 AM, chaniarts wrote:

there are about 20k fracked wells, and a handful of problems. all of the
problems occurred because the regs weren't followed.



Seems like that was the same problem we ran into with nuclear power...

He didn't say "unions".

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:14:08 +0000, Han wrote:

You missed the "in part" I mentioned. As more power plants switch or
get newly built to use natural gas, the excess supply will decrease.

Undoubtedly so, but even if usage triples, that's still a 60 year
supply :-).

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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:22:05 -0400, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Sorry, I don't do faith (others may do as they want).

Oh, but you do. Worse then the most devout Christain, you won't admit
it to yourself.

Since there is no absolute proof of aynthing, that charge can be flung at
both sides in any debate - it's meaningless.

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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:48:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
production of natural gas via fracking. They have a license to taint
all the air and water they want, and we can't do a damned thing about
it. I'd like to see come CONgresscritter heads taken off as a result of
that little treasonous act against the people of the USA. Ditto the
pact they made with Big Pharma in Medicare Part D.

Well, that's a couple of things we agree on :-).

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

On 7/20/2012 12:48 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:12:59 -0500, wrote:

On 7/20/2012 9:31 AM, Richard wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:56 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.



LOL. Well, almost.
I kinda skipped the part about the hypothesis coming first.
But in this crowd ...

A minor issue ... your point rose well above any semantic argument.

The point of the "semantic argument" was that not all "theories" are created
equal. The "theory of AGW" is no such thing, regardless of what the AGW nuts
say. It is an hypothesis, no more. The "Theory of Gravitation" is the
counterexample. The issue is science, not religion.


Anyway, thanks for the Minwax!

Excluded, of course, is any anticipated use on cherry ...


While that is all perfectly true, one must always consider the audience
when writing anything.

Say "hi-poth-o-sys" and watch eyes glaze over before the last syllable
comes out. The great unwashed masses just don't "get it".

But they know the words "theory" and "proof" (if not the meanings).


By the way, would you like a fresh can of Minwax?
I seem to have a surplus here...

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:06:13 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:22:05 -0400, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Sorry, I don't do faith (others may do as they want).

Oh, but you do. Worse then the most devout Christain, you won't admit
it to yourself.

Since there is no absolute proof of aynthing, that charge can be flung at
both sides in any debate - it's meaningless.

Proof of religion. Now there's a concept worthy of only an AGW freak.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:47:13 -0500, Richard wrote:

On 7/20/2012 12:48 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:12:59 -0500, wrote:

On 7/20/2012 9:31 AM, Richard wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:56 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.



LOL. Well, almost.
I kinda skipped the part about the hypothesis coming first.
But in this crowd ...

A minor issue ... your point rose well above any semantic argument.

The point of the "semantic argument" was that not all "theories" are created
equal. The "theory of AGW" is no such thing, regardless of what the AGW nuts
say. It is an hypothesis, no more. The "Theory of Gravitation" is the
counterexample. The issue is science, not religion.


Anyway, thanks for the Minwax!

Excluded, of course, is any anticipated use on cherry ...


While that is all perfectly true, one must always consider the audience
when writing anything.

Say "hi-poth-o-sys" and watch eyes glaze over before the last syllable
comes out. The great unwashed masses just don't "get it".

But they know the words "theory" and "proof" (if not the meanings).

OK, let's stipulate that in laymen's terms "theory" becomes "proof" and
"hypothesis" becomes "theory". We can't talk about the "Theory of
gravitation" and the "theory of AGW" with equivalence. The former becomes the
"proof (or law) of gravity"; it has been "proven". You gotta be consistent
with your terms or all meaning goes out the window (the whole purpose of moral
equivalence - to make all meaning disappear). Science just doesn't work that
way.

By the way, would you like a fresh can of Minwax?
I seem to have a surplus here...

;-)

On 7/20/2012 3:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

OK, let's stipulate that in laymen's terms "theory" becomes "proof" and
"hypothesis" becomes "theory". We can't talk about the "Theory of
gravitation" and the "theory of AGW" with equivalence. The former becomes the
"proof (or law) of gravity"; it has been "proven". You gotta be consistent
with your terms or all meaning goes out the window (the whole purpose of moral
equivalence - to make all meaning disappear). Science just doesn't work that
way.

Yabbut, some scientist are apparently equally adept at splitting hairs,
as splitting atoms. g

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