frightening

[M Philbrook]

In article <gn562btl5mgmmpk537gktjkj8jjm331orp@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com says...

Cheers,
James Arthur

What's actually frightening is the damage that the whole climate
hysteria thing will do to "science" and to scientists.

People are noticing that crop yields are going up, hurricanes are not
trashing the USA, it still snows in winter, and the West Side Highway
is not under water.

Yet

Jamie

 

[John S]

On 10/15/2015 9:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:

This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?

And this is another of your OT pieces of BS. Please find another place
to post them.

Your compliance will be greatly appreciated.

 

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:28:55 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

The Heartland Institute is a phony shill institute, and the USDA made no such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack.

Ad hominem squared is your answer?

I assume the USDA forecast a record crop, and the Heartland Institute
ascribed causation. You're free to disagree with the causation, not
the empirical data.

NASA has been bleating that this has been the warmest year, evuh. You've
posited crop yields will fall, but in real life they're better.

Here's how yields are actually modeled:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/presentations/Westcott_Jewison.pdf
Warmer temperatures reduce yield, and add in below average precipitation and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through resulting climate change.

You're arguing the model over physical, empirical data? Really?

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop production report,
the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4 percent from last year to
33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1). Average yields increased to
3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought total US soybean production to an
estimated 107.8 million MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17..8%
larger than the 2013 crop. "

That was for one year with abnormally cooler growing season and abnormally higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much weight in determining trends, except by political hacks.

Speaking of political hacks, NASA declared 2014 the warmest year ever, yet
you're denying that physical 'fact.'
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

So are your arguing that this administration is lying, or are you arguing
that CO2 and / or warmth reduces crop yield, in a year when we had the most
of both ever?

Another effect you and the other ignoramus are ignoring is the dependence of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIRE several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for production. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.

Here is another example of an industry in rapid decline:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/0605mpl.pdf



As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

You don't know the first thing about interpreting climate data, and you're too dumb to learn.

IOW you can't defend your hypothesis.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 11:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:02:27 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:56:02 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?

We may have to use solar furnaces to unlease life-saving CO2 from limestone.

Let's use nukes.

But nukes use fraidiation. Solar is green-on-green.

CO2's a greenhouse gas. Since when have greenhouses been bad for plants?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 19 October 2015 11:12:15 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:28:55 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

The Heartland Institute is a phony shill institute, and the USDA made no such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack.

Ad hominem squared is your answer?

You want to contest the factual content of either of those claims?

The Heartland Institute seems to have been set up by the tobacco companies to lie about the health consequences of smoking. Since then it's been a liar for hire, available to apply the same techniques to devalue other inconvenient scientific observations.

Any discussion of it's antics comes down to an "ad hominem" attack, because it's staffed by the ethically inadequate, being paid mislead the public.

I assume the USDA forecast a record crop, and the Heartland Institute
ascribed causation. You're free to disagree with the causation, not
the empirical data.

NASA has been bleating that this has been the warmest year, evuh. You've
posited crop yields will fall, but in real life they're better.

Crop yields will fall - in the long term. Selective cherry picking can make almost any carefully selected short term look good.

Here's how yields are actually modeled:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/presentations/Westcott_Jewison.pdf
Warmer temperatures reduce yield, and add in below average precipitation and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through resulting climate change.

You're arguing the model over physical, empirical data? Really?

So where's the physical, empirical data that you think he is ignoring?

Your enthusiasm for these rhetorical tropes isn't backed up by any obvious grasp of the real data you claim to be relying on, and when you do get pushed into finding real data it has a nasty tendency to reveal that you only see what you want to see.

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop
production report, the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4
percent from last year to 33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1).
Average yields increased to 3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought
total US soybean production to anestimated 107.8 million MT. The record
2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8% larger than the 2013 crop. "

That was for one year with abnormally cooler growing season and abnormally higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much weight in determining trends, except by political hacks.

Speaking of political hacks, NASA declared 2014 the warmest year ever, yet
you're denying that physical 'fact.'
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

So are your arguing that this administration is lying, or are you arguing
that CO2 and / or warmth reduces crop yield, in a year when we had the most
of both ever?

Since it seems to have been an abnormally cool growing season that contributed to the record crop, you need to recognise that the distribution of warmth over the year matters, and there's no necessary contradiction between a record warm year (overall) and an abnormally cool growing season.

Rhetoric is fine, but it's casual use can reveal how you construct your arguments - with more attention to effect than factual content.

Another effect you and the other ignoramus are ignoring is the dependence of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIRE several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for production. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.

Here is another example of an industry in rapid decline:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/0605mpl.pdf



As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

You don't know the first thing about interpreting climate data, and you're too dumb to learn.

IOW you can't defend your hypothesis.

Why should he bother? There is a recent article in Nature - Climate Change on the 27th April 2015 by E.M Fischer and R. Knutti from ETH Zurich, but it's a bit too technical for the likes of you and John Larkin.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617.epdf?referrer_access_token=6rNrfXMP9JWhlaIPtpz8Y9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MiqNJsr0khJzfLkhisC13QcS45BnWyX1giYD8vtOz3-81jGv4Zj55ek3qf-I-Dy_JiiClXt6UzW_Mt0wFBVsYrylY7Psp55Pp7rvYueUACRNLgb3Buu786bkmLN2nOpoPhwIetLOsF5fu1gbP9Jpe3x8HijWGW8D3orO7sYGo0QLpEb3ZGaRdmNNNTmUJ_KLZ83Baz-zxHbDYezE08LMUtxpbe9EwVbscIUqB9u2lVNw%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 19 October 2015 11:18:45 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 11:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:02:27 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:56:02 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?

We may have to use solar furnaces to unlease life-saving CO2 from limestone.

Let's use nukes.

But nukes use fraidiation. Solar is green-on-green.

CO2's a greenhouse gas. Since when have greenhouses been bad for plants?

What proportion of your food is grown in a greenhouse?

Greenhouses are great for plants (until somebody harvests the product and eats it) but it's a totally controlled environment, and the plants get all the water they want. Out in the open - where most of our food is grown - giving the plants the right amount of water is somewhat trickier, and if the precipitation decides to move someplace else at the wrong point in the growing season, no amount of extra CO2 is going to do anything for crop yields.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 8:12:15 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:28:55 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

The Heartland Institute is a phony shill institute, and the USDA made no such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack.

Ad hominem squared is your answer?

I assume the USDA forecast a record crop, and the Heartland Institute
ascribed causation. You're free to disagree with the causation, not
the empirical data.

Didn't I just get through telling you the 2014 growing season was abnormally wet and cool? Are you saying excessive atmospheric CO2 will result in an abnormally wet and cool planet? If not, then buzz off.

NASA has been bleating that this has been the warmest year, evuh. You've
posited crop yields will fall, but in real life they're better.

There is no "they" to it, all you have is the 2014 season. Prior years were dismal, and successive years will almost certainly be dismal too. How dumb are you that you think a continental average applies to the handful of northern states growing soy and corn? You can't fathom a record high average nationwide while some areas were below average? If everything was above average then you're working with the wrong average obviously!

Here's how yields are actually modeled:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/presentations/Westcott_Jewison.pdf
Warmer temperatures reduce yield, and add in below average precipitation and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through resulting climate change.

You're arguing the model over physical, empirical data? Really?

Show me where the model is in disagreement with the date from the 2014 season? You can't because it isn't.

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop production report,
the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4 percent from last year to
33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1). Average yields increased to
3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought total US soybean production to an
estimated 107.8 million MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8%
larger than the 2013 crop. "

That was for one year with abnormally cooler growing season and abnormally higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much weight in determining trends, except by political hacks.

Speaking of political hacks, NASA declared 2014 the warmest year ever, yet
you're denying that physical 'fact.'
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

So are your arguing that this administration is lying, or are you arguing
that CO2 and / or warmth reduces crop yield, in a year when we had the most
of both ever?

NASA is not the "administration"-man, you're dumber than a rock. Try to get it through your head that agricultural production is not uniformly distributed throughout North America before you look even more absurd, because that's the only way the reported averages would support your beliefs.

Another effect you and the other ignoramus are ignoring is the dependence of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIRE several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for production. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.

Here is another example of an industry in rapid decline:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/0605mpl.pdf



As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

You don't know the first thing about interpreting climate data, and you're too dumb to learn.

IOW you can't defend your hypothesis.

I don't have a hypothesis, I have the research of the people who know how to make scientific agricultural forecasts.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

"Earth
invented humans to dig it up and put it back into circulation."

Buddy of mine said something like that. I looked around and found there are those who believe the Earth is actually alive, rivers are akin to blood vessels and so forth. I think the name for the belief is "gaia" or something like that.

 

>"robably not. Really high CO2 levels go back to when the sun was >less bright, and we needed better insulation to make sure that the >oceans didn't freeze up (as they did, once, early on)"

So you are talking many millions of years ago.

As far as the sun being less bright, that is incorrect. It serves for explanatory purposes but is nonetheless incorrect.

 

>"first with tobacco - the cigarette companies in fact set up the >organisations that are now telling gullible idiots like John Larkin >that he doesn't have to worry about anthropogenic global warming - >and there are enough gullible idiots around to make it worthwhile >for the fossil-carbon extraction industry to spend money on fooling >some of the people, some of the time. "

I am sure you approve, being an Australian, of how the US government fucked the tobacco companies over here.

They forced them to publish the tar and nicotine levels in the product, which forced them to manipulate the levels to make the package be truthful. Later they said they were manipulating the levels and that was a nono.

The real problem was tobacco was int old money which was not in the old boy network. Can't be having anyone too rich now except our buddies y'know. Like the Monsanto family who imported the most slaves.

But y'all down under, from what I have read of Aussies' writings is that government is good and guns are bad. Thing y'all down there do not realize is that this country is run by criminals. None of them give a fuck about the environment, or rights, or justice. Not in the fucking least. If y'all down there would take that into consideration you might have a slightly different opinion of radicals like me.

You see, in the schools here you are taught not to solve problems. If you get paid to solve a problem and do not solve it you continue to get paid. If you actually solve the problem you cease getting paid. That's why law enforcement is so fucked up here. Lock up the innocent and free the guilty, and we justify our paychecks because the need is still extant.

I would go on to say that if you do not believe that you are the most gullible motherfucker on Earth, but I won't say that because you do not live here. I have 55 years of experience with these motherfuckers that foreigners do not, so it would be unreasonable to expect them to understand how things work here just from their controlled media news broadcasts.

 

>"The Heartland Institute seems to have been set up by the tobacco >companies to lie about the health consequences of smoking. Since >then it's been a liar for hire, available to apply the same >techniques to devalue other inconvenient scientific observations."

Brother Sloman is a believer ! Whatever they say, just like most Aussies.

But none of them can explain this 85 year old guy at a funeral when asked by the Preacher if he ever quit smoking said "Why, I am fucking 825 years old !" and my ex boss who died in his fifties from lung cancer having never smoked ANYTHING in his life.

Question EVERYTHING. In fact "question more" IIRC is the motto of Russian Times, which proves to be a more accurate and complete news source than any in the US.

 

>"CO2's a greenhouse gas. Since when have greenhouses been bad for >plants? "

Ever since they figured out how to make money off it.

I am not saying Man is not causing global warming, that would be stooooopid, but I am saying that they do not give a fuck and just want to make money.

 

Not that I want to get into this shit here, but I think the entire universe is a being, and we along with all the planets n shit are simply part of it.

Of course whether we are a liver cell or a cancer cell is up for debate...

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:30:33 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 10/15/2015 9:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:

This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?


And this is another of your OT pieces of BS. Please find another place
to post them.

Your compliance will be greatly appreciated.

Don't get your hopes up.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:56:38 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The gaia concept is appealing. It assumes that Earth takes care of
itself and uses various critters to do it. There are schools that
think humans are part of the scheme, and other who think we are
poison.

It's appealing only in a poetic sense. The proposition that Gaia is 'living'
suggests regulation of its internal variables (much as human
bocy temperature, tissue oxygenation, blood sugar are regulated).

It doesn't, however, help the human race if Gaia 'survives'. Perhaps the
global warming fever causes the human infection to go away.
Or, perhaps Gaia adjusts its metabolism to absorb pollutants
without harm. The 'Gaia hypothesis' doesn't predict either; neither
event would refute the Gaia hypothesis. it is less than a verifiable theory,
too general to be suitable for scientific investigation.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"Earth
invented humans to dig it up and put it back into circulation."

Buddy of mine said something like that. I looked around and found there are those who believe the Earth is actually alive, rivers are akin to blood vessels and so forth. I think the name for the belief is "gaia" or something like that.

The gaia concept is appealing. It assumes that Earth takes care of
itself and uses various critters to do it. There are schools that
think humans are part of the scheme, and other who think we are
poison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Gaia theories may just be an attitude of optimism, "whatever happens
is OK."

Earth is amazing. There may not be as sweet a planet anywhere else in
the galaxy, or maybe anywhere else in the universe.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[M Philbrook]

In article <312ee3e4-75db-49f4-baa2-a6ab8be046a8@googlegroups.com>,
jurb6006@gmail.com says...

Not that I want to get into this shit here, but I think the entire universe is a being, and we along with all the planets n shit are simply part of it.

Of course whether we are a liver cell or a cancer cell is up for debate...

We could be excrement !


Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 05:39:44 UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"first with tobacco - the cigarette companies in fact set up the >organisations that are now telling gullible idiots like John Larkin >that he doesn't have to worry about anthropogenic global warming - >and there are enough gullible idiots around to make it worthwhile >for the fossil-carbon extraction industry to spend money on fooling >some of the people, some of the time. "

I am sure you approve, being an Australian, of how the US government fucked the tobacco companies over here.

My approval of that doesn't have much to do with my being Australian.

They forced them to publish the tar and nicotine levels in the product, which forced them to manipulate the levels to make the package be truthful. Later they said they were manipulating the levels and that was a nono.

The real problem was tobacco was int old money which was not in the old boy network. Can't be having anyone too rich now except our buddies y'know. Like the Monsanto family who imported the most slaves.

But y'all down under, from what I have read of Aussies' writings is that
government is good and guns are bad. Thing y'all down there do not realize is > that this country is run by criminals.

They aren't criminals. They write the laws so that what they are doing isn't technically criminal.

This goes back to 1778, when - once the war of independence was won, with a lot of help from Radical Enlightenment propagandists like Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine - the people who owned the country packed Paine and Franklin off to Paris and wrote a Moderate Enlightenment constitution, which ensured that the people who owned the US have run the US ever since. The people who own the US have had episodes of enlightened self-interest, but the last one seems to have stopped in 1980, when Reagan came to power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

> None of them give a fuck about the environment, or rights, or justice. Not in the fucking least. If y'all down there would take that into consideration you might have a slightly different opinion of radicals like me.

I - personally - think that you are reacting correctly, if ineffectively, against a rather dire environment.

You see, in the schools here you are taught not to solve problems. If you get paid to solve a problem and do not solve it you continue to get paid. If you actually solve the problem you cease getting paid. That's why law enforcement is so fucked up here. Lock up the innocent and free the guilty, and we justify our paychecks because the need is still extant.

I would go on to say that if you do not believe that you are the most gullible motherfucker on Earth, but I won't say that because you do not live here. I have 55 years of experience with these motherfuckers that foreigners do not, so it would be unreasonable to expect them to understand how things work here just from their controlled media news broadcasts.

My impressions of the USA and how it works (and the areas where it works quite badly, like health care) are based on stuff that rarely makes it into the regular media.

I was put onto "The Spirit Level" by an Australian political journalist who thought that my citing "The Price of Inequality" showed an excessive reliance on a secondary source.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393088694.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 05:23:42 UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"robably not. Really high CO2 levels go back to when the sun was >less bright, and we needed better insulation to make sure that the >oceans didn't freeze up (as they did, once, early on)"

So you are talking many millions of years ago.

Several billion, in fact.

> As far as the sun being less bright, that is incorrect. It serves for explanatory purposes but is nonetheless incorrect.

Go argue with the astrophysicists. The sun is a normal main sequence star, and they slowly get brighter as they get older.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity

Technically speaking, the surface of the sun isn't getting any brighter, but the sun is getting bigger, so there's more surface to irradiate us, and more light hitting us.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 07:53:04 UTC+11, M Philbrook wrote:

In article <312ee3e4-75db-49f4-baa2-a6ab8be046a8@googlegroups.com>,
jurb6006@gmail.com says...

Not that I want to get into this shit here, but I think the entire universe is a being, and we along with all the planets n shit are simply part of it.

Of course whether we are a liver cell or a cancer cell is up for debate...

We could be excrement !

Don't generalise your personal contribution.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney