Driver to drive?

[Bill Sloman]

On 21 Dec, 14:40, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:59:24 -0800,BillSlomanwrote:
Actually, Matt Ridley is a scientist, but a zoologist, and - like most
of the "scientists" active in the denialist propaganda machine - rather
prone to post total nonsense on anthropogenic global warming.

Actually it is the science denier alarmists that are prone to total
nonsense.

As if you were equipped to know.

They don't even bother to read their own links or examine their
own data.

This sure looks like Global Tepid to me:

http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSOCT.gif

It would. It's a twelve year sequence, and probably tells you more
about what the Atlantic multidecadal osicillation is doing over the
period than anything about global warming. Anthropogenic global
warming is rapid - in geological terms - but it takes decades to show
above the noise, and wandering ocean currents are definitely noise in
this context.

I keep waiting for that accelerating and dramatic temperature rise that
we keep being told is going on, but so far for the past decade nada.

Patience is a virtue. Foresight is a bigger virtue, but it takes more
knowledge than you seem to have yet acquired.

So are you going to say that Dr. Hansen is not a scientist? I might agree
with you on that one...

I'm not saying anything of the sort, and since you've got that wrong,
it's no surprise that you misjudge Hansen too,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.

Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.

PS ?Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."

Given the Wall Street Journal's enthusiasm for publishing denialist
propaganda,

You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is it
any wonder that global warming proponents have completely lost
the PR battle?

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wall_Street_Journal

<snipped irrelevant rubbish>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[benj]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:50:41 -0600, Unum wrote:

Why don't we just use a graph straight from NASA;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf

Why not? Sure it's designed to cover a wider range, but if you look
closely at the end you get the SAME flat line for the last decade.
Obviously it SHOULD since it's supposedly from the same data.

And while you are at it take a good look at that period from 1940 to
about 1975. MORE than 30 years of FALLING temperatures while CO2
continued to rise! So much for the CO2 is the ONLY cause of global
warming theory.

We won't even get into how this data has been fudged to produce apparent
warming and even with the cheating it STILL shows the AGW theories to be
fake!

Just who do you guys think you are fooling?

 

[benj]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:33:41 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 21 Dec, 14:40, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:59:24 -0800,BillSlomanwrote:

Actually it is the science denier alarmists that are prone to total
nonsense.

As if you were equipped to know.

Sure I have a newsreader and I have a brain. You only have one of those.

This sure looks like Global Tepid to me:

http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSOCT.gif

It would. It's a twelve year sequence, and probably tells you more about
what the Atlantic multidecadal osicillation is doing over the period
than anything about global warming. Anthropogenic global warming is
rapid - in geological terms - but it takes decades to show above the
noise, and wandering ocean currents are definitely noise in this
context.

It's a twelve year sequence in the face of DRAMATICALLY RISING CO2!

If your "Radiative forcing" theory is correct, then this data is bullshit.

Right?

I keep waiting for that accelerating and dramatic temperature rise that
we keep being told is going on, but so far for the past decade nada.

Patience is a virtue. Foresight is a bigger virtue, but it takes more
knowledge than you seem to have yet acquired.

So your idea is to just wait, for the next statistical up-tick and then
start screaming GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! WE TOLD YOU SO!!

You obviously not only have no knowledge nor education nor honesty nor
ethics, so none of this means anything to you. All you know is lies and
propaganda and faked data and massaged graphs and ways to fool the public
into being scared into some kind of civilization-busting tax to be spread
around the Third World. Sweet. You are evil. But then you are doubtless
also an evolutionist and morality, ethics, honesty or legality mean
nothing to you as they are "fairytales".

So are you going to say that Dr. Hansen is not a scientist? I might
agree with you on that one...

I'm not saying anything of the sort, and since you've got that wrong,
it's no surprise that you misjudge Hansen too,

No doubt he's your hero making millions off of the AGW scam he's promoted
for so long. Too bad all his dire predictions turned out wrong like all
those predictions of the end of the world.

 

[benj]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:40:04 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

As is the propensity of the BBC, Scientific American, Physics Today, and
most major media to simply repeat warmist lies as if they were true. I'd
say nobody can be that stupid, but facts show otherwise.

 

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:46:14, benj <benj@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:50:41 -0600, Unum wrote:

Why don't we just use a graph straight from NASA;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf

Why not? Sure it's designed to cover a wider range, but if you look
closely at the end you get the SAME flat line for the last decade.
Obviously it SHOULD since it's supposedly from the same data.

And while you are at it take a good look at that period from 1940 to
about 1975. MORE than 30 years of FALLING temperatures while CO2
continued to rise! So much for the CO2 is the ONLY cause of global
warming theory.

We won't even get into how this data has been fudged to produce apparent
warming and even with the cheating it STILL shows the AGW theories to be
fake!

Just who do you guys think you are fooling?

They arn't fooling, their smokin, want a toke? I do some of

my best work when stoned. Your milage may vary.

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.

Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.

PS ?Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."

Given the Wall Street Journal's enthusiasm for publishing denialist
propaganda,

You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is it
any wonder that global warming proponents have completely lost
the PR battle?

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wall_Street_Journal

snipped irrelevant rubbish

Considering everything below was yours, I guess you are right.

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 21 Dec, 19:15, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:40:04 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

As is the propensity of the BBC, Scientific American, Physics Today, and
most major media to simply repeat warmist lies as if they were true. I'd
say nobody can be that stupid, but facts show otherwise.

In fact these people are reporting a better-than-usually-well-
established scientific consensus, but there do seem to be a few
conspiracy theory nuts around that want to believe something
different.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.

Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.

PS ?Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."

Given the Wall Street Journal's enthusiasm for publishing denialist
propaganda,

You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is it
any wonder that global warming proponents have completely lost
the PR battle?

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.

If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wall_Street_Journal

snipped irrelevant rubbish

Considering everything below was yours, I guess you are right.

The crap about the "state-supplied SUV" wasn't mine, and that's what I
snipped.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[P E Schoen]

"Tunderbar" wrote in message
news:97cbd939-0438-4b10-8d8b-96ccfa0f4bfc@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
1.6C anytime.

Typical selfish remark from denialists, or more accurately, sociopaths. Such
behavior is defined by being motivated totally by self-interest and having
no compassion for (or even logical comprehension of) the deleterious effects
on others. Moreover, the average temperature rise has apparently manifested
itself as more extreme weather patterns, which are far more destructive than
a homogeneous change as you apparently interpret this to be.

Paul

 

[Mike Perkins]

On 21/12/2012 14:45, Tunderbar wrote:

On Dec 20, 7:17 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take
that 1.6C anytime.

That's an average. In practice prevailing wind patterns may well change
to make your area colder. Here in the UK we are protected to an extent
by the Gulf Stream, and there is historical evidence that this has
stopped from time to time, with a subsequent cooling effect.

--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

 

[P E Schoen]

"Mickey Langan" wrote in message
news:tO-dndc25pSTe07NnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@supernews.com...

You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is
it any wonder that global warming proponents have completely
lost the PR battle?

You are probably getting all of your "facts" from media sources that are
biased to massage your delusions. But even seven years ago Fox News reported
that 77% of Americans believe in global warming:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175070,00.html

Now it may be closer to 85%, in spite of massive right-wing propaganda:
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/timepoll.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-poll-ipsos-idUSTRE78D5B220110915
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1877674/many_americans_still_believe_in_global_warming_poll/

although some polls show otherwise:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112402989.html

Many of these are not very recent, but I found this from October 2012.
Sandy, anyone?
http://blog.pe.com/environment/2012/10/18/climate-change-more-people-believe-in-warming/

Paul

 

[Tunderbar]

On Dec 20, 7:17 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
1.6C anytime.

Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.

Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.

PS  Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."

--
Rich

 

[Unum]

On 12/21/2012 1:46 AM, benj wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:50:41 -0600, Unum wrote:

Why don't we just use a graph straight from NASA;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf

Why not? Sure it's designed to cover a wider range, but if you look
closely at the end you get the SAME flat line for the last decade.
Obviously it SHOULD since it's supposedly from the same data.

The running mean levels off at about mid-decade. So what? There
aren't any straight lines anywhere on the graph. Did someone
promise you there would be? The 'dramatic temperature rise' you
told us wasn't happening is clearly evident, more than .5C since 1980.

And while you are at it take a good look at that period from 1940 to
about 1975. MORE than 30 years of FALLING temperatures while CO2
continued to rise! So much for the CO2 is the ONLY cause of global
warming theory.

I don't remember seeing anyone make the claim that CO2 is the only
thing that affects climate. I don't think you have either but if
so bring it on out or STFU.

We won't even get into how this data has been fudged to produce apparent
warming and even with the cheating it STILL shows the AGW theories to be
fake!

I'm not interested in your unsubstantiated opinions.

Just who do you guys think you are fooling?

So you've got absolutely nothing?

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:19:47 -0500, "P E Schoen" <paul@peschoen.com> wrote:

"Tunderbar" wrote in message
news:97cbd939-0438-4b10-8d8b-96ccfa0f4bfc@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
1.6C anytime.

OK, you can have the 1.6, as long as the skiing isn't affected.

Typical selfish remark from denialists, or more accurately, sociopaths. Such
behavior is defined by being motivated totally by self-interest and having
no compassion for (or even logical comprehension of) the deleterious effects
on others. Moreover, the average temperature rise has apparently manifested
itself as more extreme weather patterns, which are far more destructive than
a homogeneous change as you apparently interpret this to be.

The only thing that's more extreme is the reporting. Weather has always been
variable. Have some compassion for the billions of terribly poor people who want
a better life; a warmer climate, higher crop yields, availability of energy and
petrochemicals and transportation will all make their lives better. If fracking
produces natural gas in/for energy-poor countries, it will be the greatest gift
to the poor in world history.

Today's alarmist mantra is "Of course, climate change can't be blamed for any
specific weather event" followed by doing exactly that.

AGW panic is just another doomsday fad. It will go away eventually and silly
people will find something else to worry about.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-21, P E Schoen <paul@peschoen.com> wrote:

"Mickey Langan" wrote in message
news:tO-dndc25pSTe07NnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@supernews.com...

You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is
it any wonder that global warming proponents have completely
lost the PR battle?

You are probably getting all of your "facts" from media sources that are
biased to massage your delusions. But even seven years ago Fox News reported
that 77% of Americans believe in global warming:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175070,00.html

Now it may be closer to 85%, in spite of massive right-wing propaganda:
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/timepoll.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-poll-ipsos-idUSTRE78D5B220110915
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1877674/many_americans_still_believe_in_global_warming_poll/

although some polls show otherwise:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112402989.html

Many of these are not very recent, but I found this from October 2012.
Sandy, anyone?
http://blog.pe.com/environment/2012/10/18/climate-change-more-people-believe-in-warming/

Hell, *I* believe in warming. But that isn't the issue, is it? The
issue is CAGW, i.e. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. All
your polls about people, or even scientists, believing warming is
happening are completely meaningless, because warming is not the
issue. Any fool can see that the world has warmed since 1850.

It just kills me when you try to say "there's warming, I've proved
my point!" No, you haven't proved a thing. And most people are
smart enough to understand this at least on a gut level. They
see what warmists do and say to themselves, "People who are winning
an argument don't behave in this fashion...."

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.

Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.

PS ?Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."

Given the Wall Street Journal's enthusiasm for publishing denialist
propaganda,

You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is it
any wonder that global warming proponents have completely lost
the PR battle?

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.

If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going
to resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wall_Street_Journal

snipped irrelevant rubbish

Considering everything below was yours, I guess you are right.

The crap about the "state-supplied SUV" wasn't mine, and that's what I
snipped.

That's a sig file, perhaps you should introduce your keen scientific
mind to the concept. Of course, addressing irrelevencies and using
cheap rhetorical tricks like the tarbrush of "denialist" seems to
be your modus vivendi...

--
Mickey

An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 21 Dec, 18:55, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:33:41 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21 Dec, 14:40, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:59:24 -0800,BillSlomanwrote:
Actually it is the science denier alarmists that are prone to total
nonsense.

As if you were equipped to know.

Sure I have a newsreader and I have a brain. You only have one of those.

This sure looks like Global Tepid to me:

http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSOCT.gif

It would. It's a twelve year sequence, and probably tells you more about
what the Atlantic multidecadal osicillation is doing over the period
than anything about global warming. Anthropogenic global warming is
rapid - in geological terms - but it takes decades to show above the
noise, and wandering ocean currents are definitely noise in this
context.

It's a twelve year sequence in the face of DRAMATICALLY RISING CO2!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

It went up from 370ppm to 385ppm over the period - 4%. From 270ppm
before the start of the Industrial revolution (roughly 1750 and
earlier) today has been good for about 0.8 degrees Kelvin of warming,
barely enough to show above the noise. 15ppm would be about 0.1K, if
the relationship were linear (which it isn't).

If your "Radiative forcing" theory is correct, then this data is bullshit.

Too noisy to mean anything except that short term global temperature
measurements are noisy..

Right?

No. Just irrelevant.

I keep waiting for that accelerating and dramatic temperature rise that
we keep being told is going on, but so far for the past decade nada.

Patience is a virtue. Foresight is a bigger virtue, but it takes more
knowledge than you seem to have yet acquired.

So your idea is to just wait, for the next statistical up-tick and then
start screaming GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! WE TOLD YOU SO!!

It's a bit more sophisticated than that.We've seen enough warming over
the past century to be confident that the rising CO2 levels are
warming the planet, and the geologists have done enough work getting
data from the past to be confident that we can now explain what
happened during the past few interglacials and ice ages.

Granting that, it's pretty easy to predict that keeping on burning
fossil carbon and dumping the consequent CO2 in the atmosphere is
going to make the planet even warmer. At the last IPCC report, the
high emission scenario gave us something between 2.4K and 6.4K over
the next century. The modelling has got a little better, and that now
more like 3.5K to 6.5K.

The scientist involved would prefer to see us getting closer to or
below the low emission scenario - 1.1K to 2.9K - because getting over
2K looks as if it might make life a lot more complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

You obviously not only have no knowledge nor education nor honesty nor
ethics, so none of this means anything to you.

My Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry accidentally included enough on infra-
red vibrations and rotations to mean that I know quite a bit about the
greenhouse effect. For the rest, I read occasional papers in the
Proceedign of the (US) Academy of Sciences to have a reasonably good
idea of what it's all about.

If I was dishonest and unethical, I might be able to get money out of
Exxon-Mobil and other players in the fossil-carbon extraction industry
to say the sort of silly things that that you are saying here, but
they seem to like more flamboyant nutters.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Christopher_Monckton

<snipped silly accusations>

But then you are doubtless also an evolutionist

Correct. Darwin was almost certainly right - his hypothesis was a bit
premature when he first published "Origin of Species" but since then
we've learned a lot more about the nuts and bolts of the process he
imagined, and there's no immediate prospect that his hypothesis is
going to be falsified.

and morality, ethics, honesty or legality mean nothing to you as they are "fairytales".

You seem to have adopted the moderate enlightenment position - people
have to be frightened into good behaviour by the threat of punishment
in a hypothetical after-life.

Spinoza and the radical enlightenment figures that followed him
thought that there were perfectly good rational arguments for behaving
ethically and morally and conforming to a set of sensible laws that
applied to everybody equally. There have been some interesting animal
experiment in recent years that make it clear that the higher apes
have ideas about fairness, without benefit of religious instruction.
Spinoza seems to have got it right.

So are you going to say that Dr. Hansen is not a scientist? I might
agree with you on that one...

I'm not saying anything of the sort, and since you've got that wrong,
it's no surprise that you misjudge Hansen too,

No doubt he's your hero making millions off of the AGW scam he's promoted
for so long.

How is he making millions? Al Gore is claimed to be involved in some
carbon-trading business, but Hansen's just a civil servant.

Too bad all his dire predictions turned out wrong like all those predictions of the end of the world.

He's not predicting the end of the world, just minor climate changes
which might just be severe enough to end civilisation as we know it.

During the end of the last ice age, when the climate wasn't warming
anything like as rapidly as it is now, the Gulf Stream seems to have
stopped twice. The second shut-down - the Younger Dryas,- was
relatively brief at 1300 years and started and stopped within about a
decade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Nobody is predicting anything quite as interesting, not because it
couldn't happen, but because that kind of event is hard to model. You
might want to think about how we'd cope with a re-run of the Younger
Dryas, if that happened again.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[P E Schoen]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:ue19d8djsga655499fnbd8ngh0bff6r7ki@4ax.com...

The only thing that's more extreme is the reporting. Weather has always
been
variable. Have some compassion for the billions of terribly poor people
who
want a better life; a warmer climate, higher crop yields, availability of
energy
and petrochemicals and transportation will all make their lives better. If
fracking produces natural gas in/for energy-poor countries, it will be the
greatest gift to the poor in world history.

But if at also permanently pollutes the water supply, when the frackers
abandon the wells and show the poor people the fine print in their hastily
signed agreements, they will be SOL. It is much better for the environment
to use solar, wind, and geothermal, and also teach people how to live
comfortably with much less energy consumption.

Today's alarmist mantra is "Of course, climate change can't be blamed for
any
specific weather event" followed by doing exactly that.

The weather phenomena taken individually cannot be specifically linked to
global warming, but the frequency of major catastrophes has been increasing,
which shows statistical correlation. I don't think we need absolute proof to
take prudent action.

AGW panic is just another doomsday fad. It will go away eventually and
silly
people will find something else to worry about.

At issue is really what needs to be done to protect civilization against the
catastrophic effects of global warming ("weather" or not it has been caused
by human activity). A climate scientist whom I know personally stated that
the effects of global warming would continue to worsen even if caused by the
burning of carbon fuels, and would probably not show improvement for many
decades or even centuries if we stopped using fossil fuels today.

The measures we need to take should be to take preventive measures, such as
building seawalls and coastal buffers and reinforcing buildings and burying
power lines and servicing dangerously deteriorated gas lines and other
infrastructure investments. And we need to reduce energy usage so that
sustainable sources can be used, and natural resources such as oil can be
used for more appropriate things like plastics and pharmaceuticals. We are
already at the point where the "low hanging fruit" has been exhausted and
the real cost of crude oil extraction will drive costs dramatically if we
continue to burn it at present rates.

Paul

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:00:17 -0500, "P E Schoen" <paul@peschoen.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:ue19d8djsga655499fnbd8ngh0bff6r7ki@4ax.com...

The only thing that's more extreme is the reporting. Weather has always
been
variable. Have some compassion for the billions of terribly poor people
who
want a better life; a warmer climate, higher crop yields, availability of
energy
and petrochemicals and transportation will all make their lives better. If
fracking produces natural gas in/for energy-poor countries, it will be the
greatest gift to the poor in world history.

But if at also permanently pollutes the water supply, when the frackers
abandon the wells and show the poor people the fine print in their hastily
signed agreements, they will be SOL.

It's fundamental that fracking is done in impermeable rock at depths well below
the local water table. If there are a few cases of water contamination, from
cracked casings or whatever, well, that's the cost of energy. That risk is
trivial compared to the effects of coal mining.

It is much better for the environment

to use solar, wind, and geothermal, and also teach people how to live
comfortably with much less energy consumption.

Tell that to the people with little to eat, dirt floors, no electricity, no
clean water, no heat but a small smokey wood fire for cooking. Tell *them* to
"live comfortably" and watch their kids die to Save The Earth for you.

Today's alarmist mantra is "Of course, climate change can't be blamed for
any
specific weather event" followed by doing exactly that.

The weather phenomena taken individually cannot be specifically linked to
global warming, but the frequency of major catastrophes has been increasing,
which shows statistical correlation. I don't think we need absolute proof to
take prudent action.

I doubt it. Reporting is a lot better since we got satellites and weather
stations and stuff. 100 years ago, most hurricanes weren't even recorded.

AGW panic is just another doomsday fad. It will go away eventually and
silly
people will find something else to worry about.

At issue is really what needs to be done to protect civilization against the
catastrophic effects of global warming ("weather" or not it has been caused
by human activity). A climate scientist whom I know personally stated that
the effects of global warming would continue to worsen even if caused by the
burning of carbon fuels, and would probably not show improvement for many
decades or even centuries if we stopped using fossil fuels today.

The measures we need to take should be to take preventive measures, such as
building seawalls and coastal buffers and reinforcing buildings and burying
power lines and servicing dangerously deteriorated gas lines and other
infrastructure investments. And we need to reduce energy usage so that
sustainable sources can be used, and natural resources such as oil can be
used for more appropriate things like plastics and pharmaceuticals. We are
already at the point where the "low hanging fruit" has been exhausted and
the real cost of crude oil extraction will drive costs dramatically if we
continue to burn it at present rates.

Oil is cheaper than it was 5 years ago, and the US may become a net oil
exporter. The cost of natural gas has dropped by a factor of about four. Sorry.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators