|
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
|
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/28/12 1:23 PM, Leon wrote:
http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...4-70e58b73187a There's an underground coal mine fire in New Straitsville, OH which has been burning for 120 years. -- -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 |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
-MIKE- wrote in
: On 7/28/12 1:23 PM, Leon wrote: http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...-over-40-years -30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a There's an underground coal mine fire in New Straitsville, OH which has been burning for 120 years. And Centralia, PA ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/28/2012 2:56 PM, Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in : On 7/28/12 1:23 PM, Leon wrote: http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...-over-40-years -30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a There's an underground coal mine fire in New Straitsville, OH which has been burning for 120 years. And Centralia, PA ... And one that has been burning in NJ I believe Jersey City for 30 or 40 years |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:23:04 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...4-70e58b73187a The "REAL" reason for global warming is the French. European French, Quebec French, take your pick. |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Leon wrote:
http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...4-70e58b73187a Nonsense. Global Warming is caused, or at least started, by the "AIDS Quilt" project. |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/28/2012 1:01 PM, Dave wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:23:04 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...4-70e58b73187a The "REAL" reason for global warming is the French. European French, Quebec French, take your pick. Nah, it's all the hot air and flatulence Congress puts out. |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/28/2012 7:21 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/28/2012 1:01 PM, Dave wrote: On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:23:04 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...4-70e58b73187a The "REAL" reason for global warming is the French. European French, Quebec French, take your pick. Nah, it's all the hot air and flatulence Congress puts out. I think it is caused by the flatulence from the trillions of animals on earth. |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...over-40-years- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...-of-a-climate- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and for another commentary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-koch-funded- study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due- to-carbon-pollution/ -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...over-40-years- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...-of-a-climate- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and for another commentary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-koch-funded- study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due- to-carbon-pollution/ Jeeze, is it April 1st again already? -- It takes as much energy to wish as to plan. --Eleanor Roosevelt |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...r-over-40-year s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...-of-a-climate- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and for another commentary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...hell-koch-fund ed- study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all- due- to-carbon-pollution/ Jeeze, is it April 1st again already? Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you. The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they wanted: Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man. At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT). -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/29/2012 7:04 AM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...r-over-40-year s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...-of-a-climate- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and for another commentary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...hell-koch-fund ed- study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all- due- to-carbon-pollution/ Jeeze, is it April 1st again already? Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you. The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they wanted: Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man. At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT). I can assure you 99.999999999999999999999999% of global warming is caused by the sun. Take away the sun and see how much of the heat we have now remains. |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
"Leon" wrote in message
... On 7/29/2012 7:04 AM, Han wrote: Larry Jaques wrote in : On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...r-over-40-year s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...-of-a-climate- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and for another commentary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...hell-koch-fund ed- study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all- due- to-carbon-pollution/ Jeeze, is it April 1st again already? Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you. The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they wanted: Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man. At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT). I can assure you 99.999999999999999999999999% of global warming is caused by the sun. Take away the sun and see how much of the heat we have now remains. When a boy scout uses a magnifying glass to start a fire "I can assure you 99.999999999999999999999999% of the heat needed to ignite the fuel is caused by the sun." I doubt some dumb magnifying glass plays ANY role. Dave in Texas |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 29 Jul 2012 12:04:22 GMT, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...r-over-40-year s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...-of-a-climate- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and for another commentary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...hell-koch-fund ed- study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all- due- to-carbon-pollution/ Jeeze, is it April 1st again already? Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you. Gee, thanks. g It's next week, BTW. (59) The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they wanted: Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man. At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT). The ThinkProgress site is suspect: liberals twisting facts once again. The hockey stick graph is a real good clue to that without research. Their "study" indicating that "NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense" is such bull**** I can't stand it. I wonder how long it took them to find that many liberals with guns who were NRA members- in-name-only. Or did they just have liberals buy memberships to support that "study"? And if AGWK is at the high end of predictions, why has each IPCC study since the first shown -less- warming than first reported? They stairstep down. My guess is that the computer models are being updated as they find new data to make them more, or at least _somewhat_, reliable. Have you read the Koch report on their server or Muller's report, or just this completely cooked-up page at TP? (Fitting initials. I think of toilet paper when reading their dung.) I'm off to find the real reports now. It's no wonder that TP didn't link it, and I'm surprised that they linked Muller's. -- It takes as much energy to wish as to plan. --Eleanor Roosevelt |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On 29 Jul 2012 12:04:22 GMT, Han wrote: Larry Jaques wrote in m: On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...for-over-40-ye ar s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...on-of-a-climat e- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and for another commentary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...bshell-koch-fu nd ed- study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-al l- due- to-carbon-pollution/ Jeeze, is it April 1st again already? Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you. Gee, thanks. g It's next week, BTW. (59) I know. Somehow my FB tells me it is soon. Btw, you're too young to be so curmudgeonly grin. The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they wanted: Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man. At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT). The ThinkProgress site is suspect: liberals twisting facts once again. The hockey stick graph is a real good clue to that without research. Their "study" indicating that "NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense" is such bull**** I can't stand it. I wonder how long it took them to find that many liberals with guns who were NRA members- in-name-only. Or did they just have liberals buy memberships to support that "study"? While I am for gun control, I think that the NRA has driven too many people to buy guns, so that I am almost feeling forced to go and get some too. I'll let you all know when I do, so you can get body armor ... grin And if AGWK is at the high end of predictions, why has each IPCC study since the first shown -less- warming than first reported? They stairstep down. My guess is that the computer models are being updated as they find new data to make them more, or at least _somewhat_, reliable. Have you read the Koch report on their server or Muller's report, or just this completely cooked-up page at TP? (Fitting initials. I think of toilet paper when reading their dung.) I'm off to find the real reports now. It's no wonder that TP didn't link it, and I'm surprised that they linked Muller's. Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper. -- It takes as much energy to wish as to plan. --Eleanor Roosevelt Sometimes it is better to plan and act on your suspicions, than to just sit and wait. -- Han Broekman -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On 29 Jul 2012 12:04:22 GMT, Han wrote: Larry Jaques wrote in : On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to...r-over-40-year s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...-of-a-climate- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and for another commentary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...hell-koch-fund ed- study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all- due- to-carbon-pollution/ Jeeze, is it April 1st again already? Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you. Gee, thanks. g It's next week, BTW. (59) The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they wanted: Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man. At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT). The ThinkProgress site is suspect: liberals twisting facts once again. The hockey stick graph is a real good clue to that without research. Their "study" indicating that "NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense" is such bull**** I can't stand it. I wonder how long it took them to find that many liberals with guns who were NRA members- in-name-only. Or did they just have liberals buy memberships to support that "study"? And if AGWK is at the high end of predictions, why has each IPCC study since the first shown -less- warming than first reported? They stairstep down. My guess is that the computer models are being updated as they find new data to make them more, or at least _somewhat_, reliable. Have you read the Koch report on their server or Muller's report, or just this completely cooked-up page at TP? (Fitting initials. I think of toilet paper when reading their dung.) I'm off to find the real reports now. It's no wonder that TP didn't link it, and I'm surprised that they linked Muller's. To wit: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...c.html?_r=1&hp |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/29/2012 11:28 AM, Han wrote:
Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper. Available for anyone who bothers to read their FAQ? http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/ Can look no further than their own words to understand that they themselves imply their guess is apparently as good as any other, and to also understand that thus far their study is taking into account land data ONLY and is, by their own admission, far from complete: quote Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less. /quote Has Global Warming Stopped? quote This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. /quote Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree? quote Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller: In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not. We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, _depending on the statistical approach you take_ Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed. We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the scientific process. /quote So much for putting your faith in incomplete studies. LOL www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Swingman wrote in
: On 7/29/2012 11:28 AM, Han wrote: Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper. Available for anyone who bothers to read their FAQ? http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/ Can look no further than their own words to understand that they themselves imply their guess is apparently as good as any other, and to also understand that thus far their study is taking into account land data ONLY and is, by their own admission, far from complete: quote Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less. /quote Has Global Warming Stopped? quote This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. /quote Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree? quote Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller: In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not. We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, _depending on the statistical approach you take_ Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed. We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the scientific process. /quote So much for putting your faith in incomplete studies. LOL www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop OK. At least there is still room for debate, and it isn't a closed deal that global warming is a hoax. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/29/12 2:59 PM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in : On 7/29/2012 11:28 AM, Han wrote: Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper. Available for anyone who bothers to read their FAQ? http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/ Can look no further than their own words to understand that they themselves imply their guess is apparently as good as any other, and to also understand that thus far their study is taking into account land data ONLY and is, by their own admission, far from complete: quote Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less. /quote Has Global Warming Stopped? quote This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. /quote Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree? quote Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller: In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not. We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, _depending on the statistical approach you take_ Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed. We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the scientific process. /quote So much for putting your faith in incomplete studies. LOL www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop OK. At least there is still room for debate, and it isn't a closed deal that global warming is a hoax. The onus does not fall on us to prove that something does *not* exist. It is always the responsibility of those who say the sky is falling to prove it is. -- -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 |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 07/29/2012 12:59 PM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in : On 7/29/2012 11:28 AM, Han wrote: Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper. Available for anyone who bothers to read their FAQ? http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/ Can look no further than their own words to understand that they themselves imply their guess is apparently as good as any other, and to also understand that thus far their study is taking into account land data ONLY and is, by their own admission, far from complete: quote Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less. /quote Has Global Warming Stopped? quote This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. /quote Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree? quote Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller: In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not. We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, _depending on the statistical approach you take_ Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed. We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the scientific process. /quote So much for putting your faith in incomplete studies. LOL www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop OK. At least there is still room for debate, and it isn't a closed deal that global warming is a hoax. That would be man caused global warming. Global warming in general has been occurring for the last 10,000 years or so since the last major ice age. Since ice ages occur cyclically and have a tendency to scrape a lot of stuff off land, it might be nice if we were able to prevent the next one so that cities like New York, Chicago, etc aren't erased. Well, maybe New York ;-) -- "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 29 Jul 2012 19:59:02 GMT, Han wrote:
OK. At least there is still room for debate, and it isn't a closed deal that global warming is a hoax. Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies, misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism. I'm with you in wanting CO2 emissions considerably reduced, but I don't believe humans need to change their way of life to do it; Only their attitude. -- It takes as much energy to wish as to plan. --Eleanor Roosevelt |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Larry Jaques
P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest. DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the problem. -- www.ewoodshop.com |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
While I am for gun control ================================================== ===================== So am I. Sight picture, breath control and trigger squeeze. Done correctly, these things increase control dramatically. |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Larry Jaques wrote in
: Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies, misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism. I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think there is a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been going. I'm sure that some of that has to do with presentation and interpretation - on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers. I am trying to read Ron Paul's book Liberty defined, and have gotten to the E(ducation). So far it is to me a mixture of naive belief in the good of the natural mechanisms of free trade and laissez faire that human interactions will always lead to the best, although there are some tenets of Paul's that I could agree with. I'll have to see how much further I can get through the book. As far as Obamunism is concerned, Romneycare in Mass was the example, and by all accounts that I have rather successful, including the mandate and the penalties. Is the ACA a good compromise? It is a compromise. On all sides there has been give and take, and as usual (give Paul his due), the medical industry has influenced through lobbying the law WAY too much. Since Congress lives by slogans, bribery and sleight of hand, it is difficult to see how it can be rectified. I hope it will self-adjust once in effect, but in spite of my hope, I am a doubting Thomas as well. I'm with you in wanting CO2 emissions considerably reduced, but I don't believe humans need to change their way of life to do it; Only their attitude. That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes darn close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this recession is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some more than others, and some very, very painfully). -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman wrote:
Larry Jaques P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest. DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the problem. His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in that he was a greenie and became a skeptic. -- It takes as much energy to wish as to plan. --Eleanor Roosevelt |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies, misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism. I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think there is a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been going. I'm sure that some of that has to do with presentation and interpretation - on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers. Why can't we go on the way we have been going? Either GW is beyond our capacity to influence it and we have to adjust to the result or we have to revert to a time of lesser energy use. If the former, we build dikes around costal cities and take similar steps to mitigate the effects. If the latter, we regress to a time when life was painful, brutal, and short. The WORST reaction is to act as if GW was caused by civilization but find out later that GW is natural and beyond our ability to do anything about it. That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes darn close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this recession is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some more than others, and some very, very painfully). I'll play: Why is living frugally a Good Thing(tm)? Consider the chap who harkens to your definition by buying a canoe instead of a yacht. Dozens of yacht builders don't get the work, ship's chandlers, able-bodied seamen, and others are likewise missing out on employment, and so on. Or perhaps the family who opt for a teepee instead of a mansion; again, no home builders, suppliers of materials, no tax revenue, on-and-on. Bottom line: If one is convinced that living off of nuts and berries is sufficient, what happens to innovation, improvements in the human condition, and the future of humanity? |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman wrote: Larry Jaques P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest. DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the problem. His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in that he was a greenie and became a skeptic. Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around priorities. For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year. |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
"HeyBub" wrote in
m: Han wrote: Larry Jaques wrote in : Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies, misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism. I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think there is a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been going. I'm sure that some of that has to do with presentation and interpretation - on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers. Why can't we go on the way we have been going? Either GW is beyond our capacity to influence it and we have to adjust to the result or we have to revert to a time of lesser energy use. If the former, we build dikes around costal cities and take similar steps to mitigate the effects. If the latter, we regress to a time when life was painful, brutal, and short. The WORST reaction is to act as if GW was caused by civilization but find out later that GW is natural and beyond our ability to do anything about it. How about a middle way? We WILL need to build defenses like the Dutch around some of our habitats. But we can also try to minimize the CO2 (etc, etc) we produce. That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes darn close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this recession is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some more than others, and some very, very painfully). I'll play: Why is living frugally a Good Thing(tm)? Consider the chap who harkens to your definition by buying a canoe instead of a yacht. Dozens of yacht builders don't get the work, ship's chandlers, able-bodied seamen, and others are likewise missing out on employment, and so on. Or perhaps the family who opt for a teepee instead of a mansion; again, no home builders, suppliers of materials, no tax revenue, on-and-on. Bottom line: If one is convinced that living off of nuts and berries is sufficient, what happens to innovation, improvements in the human condition, and the future of humanity? Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift grin! Spend and inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity" by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida. One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
"HeyBub" wrote in
m: Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman wrote: Larry Jaques P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest. DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the problem. His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in that he was a greenie and became a skeptic. Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around priorities. For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year. I like that idea of testing for hemoglobin S. I did that in a research project in the middle '60s, I believe in 1967. it is really cheap. Now what are you going to do when you find HbS in a baby? There still is no good cure or treatment for sickle cell anemia ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 30 Jul 2012 12:21:24 GMT, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in om: Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman wrote: Larry Jaques P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest. DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the problem. His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in that he was a greenie and became a skeptic. Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around priorities. Ditto Huber. If I had to choose a "best book" regarding ecology and sanity, it would have to be Huber's _Hard Green_. For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year. I like that idea of testing for hemoglobin S. I did that in a research project in the middle '60s, I believe in 1967. it is really cheap. Now what are you going to do when you find HbS in a baby? There still is no good cure or treatment for sickle cell anemia ... Some people abort when they test early and find gross genetic flaws. I'd be ****ed forever at my parents if they'd allowed me to be born with 3 legs, no eyes, or a lead crowbar in my back pocket. -- When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary. -- Thomas Paine (comparing Paine to the current CONgress deep sigh) |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift grin! Spend and inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity" by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida. One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ... No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and planed for times like these. My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6 years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been debt free ever since. We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very expensive cars and buying huge homes. Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home. We are still debt free. It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy, this methodology has been rewarding. |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies, misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism. http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-...lobal-warming- real-142616605.html I'm sure you won't believe him either :-). -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On 7/30/2012 11:21 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies, misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism. http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-...lobal-warming- real-142616605.html I'm sure you won't believe him either :-). Too bad you didn't bother to read the thread, or Muller's study. Admittedly incomplete, it was thoroughly discussed a few posts back. :) -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:21:27 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies, misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism. http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-...lobal-warming- real-142616605.html I'm sure you won't believe him either :-). Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention. -- When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary. -- Thomas Paine (comparing Paine to the current CONgress deep sigh) |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote: Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift grin! Spend and inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity" by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida. One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ... No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and planed for times like these. My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6 years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been debt free ever since. We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very expensive cars and buying huge homes. Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home. We are still debt free. It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy, this methodology has been rewarding. I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well- paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up for this retirement thing ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On 30 Jul 2012 12:21:24 GMT, Han wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in news:eYedneEXUukb64vNnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink. com: Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman wrote: Larry Jaques P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest. DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the problem. His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in that he was a greenie and became a skeptic. Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around priorities. Ditto Huber. If I had to choose a "best book" regarding ecology and sanity, it would have to be Huber's _Hard Green_. For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year. I like that idea of testing for hemoglobin S. I did that in a research project in the middle '60s, I believe in 1967. it is really cheap. Now what are you going to do when you find HbS in a baby? There still is no good cure or treatment for sickle cell anemia ... Some people abort when they test early and find gross genetic flaws. I'd be ****ed forever at my parents if they'd allowed me to be born with 3 legs, no eyes, or a lead crowbar in my back pocket. This is out of the realm of prenatal testing. It was a research project to see whether sickle cell hemoglobin had independently evolved in tropical America, as it had in Africa. The theory was (and is) that HbS in heterozygotes (1 normal gene, 1 for HbS) affords a defense against malaria, which also occurred in the Americas. We tested indigenous Indians in Surinam who had had little if any exposure to whites or African blacks. None tested had HbS, indicating that HbS is an "African" "disease". While there have been many attempts with treatments to correct in one way or another HbS, or to prevent the sickling of the red cells that is the hallmark of the sickle cell disease, none that I know of have really succeeded. It is a horrible disease when you get really afflicted. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On 30 Jul 2012 12:21:24 GMT, Han wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in m: Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman wrote: Larry Jaques P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest. DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the problem. His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in that he was a greenie and became a skeptic. Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around priorities. Ditto Huber. If I had to choose a "best book" regarding ecology and sanity, it would have to be Huber's _Hard Green_. For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year. I like that idea of testing for hemoglobin S. I did that in a research project in the middle '60s, I believe in 1967. it is really cheap. Now what are you going to do when you find HbS in a baby? There still is no good cure or treatment for sickle cell anemia ... Some people abort when they test early and find gross genetic flaws. I'd be ****ed forever at my parents if they'd allowed me to be born with 3 legs, no eyes, or a lead crowbar in my back pocket. This is out of the realm of prenatal testing. It was a research project to see whether sickle cell hemoglobin had independently evolved in tropical America, as it had in Africa. The theory was (and is) that HbS in heterozygotes (1 normal gene, 1 for HbS) affords a defense against malaria, which also occurred in the Americas. We tested indigenous Indians in Surinam who had had little if any exposure to whites or African blacks. None tested had HbS, indicating that HbS is an "African" "disease". While there have been many attempts with treatments to correct in one way or another HbS, or to prevent the sickling of the red cells that is the hallmark of the sickle cell disease, none that I know of have really succeeded. It is a horrible disease when you get really afflicted. Despite all of that - which I'm not sure I understand the way that it ties into Larry's statement... I find Larry's statment to be quite unaware of anything besides his own thinking. I know many children who have been born with many crippling conditions. One in particular had broken over 200 bones before he was 5 years old (OI - whatever that stands for...). Yet - that child is very much alive and happy for that. Larry's statements do nothing to reflect what people who are living and breathing air feel, and probabaly do nothing more than to reflect what he would really feel if he was in fact born with a condition of any sort. -- -Mike- |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Despite all of that - which I'm not sure I understand the way that it ties into Larry's statement... I find Larry's statment to be quite unaware of anything besides his own thinking. I know many children who have been born with many crippling conditions. One in particular had broken over 200 bones before he was 5 years old (OI - whatever that stands for...). Yet - that child is very much alive and happy for that. Larry's statements do nothing to reflect what people who are living and breathing air feel, and probabaly do nothing more than to reflect what he would really feel if he was in fact born with a condition of any sort. OI likely stands for Osteogenesis imperfecta. Osteo- means bone- related, genesis means formation, imperfecta means it doesn't work properly. See http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlreso...PaulHearne.PDF . Paul grew up in the house next to the one we occupied for 18 years. He was the cheeriest of people (or however you'd like to express that). He died rather horribly, but the ADA is his legacy ... And that has done a lot of mostly good to a lot of people. My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then you should consider that. But it is REALLY FAR from me to say anything more, considering the luck that we have had in our lives. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha
Han wrote:
My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then you should consider that. The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think, but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn... -- -Mike- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter