Re: Apostates!
On 24/10/2006, at 12:05 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Well point us at it, because while you may disagree with their conclusions, they are indeed scientists. It's possible to disagree with an analysis without casting someone as a lackey of whatever conspiracy you want, Especially without providing evidence. Charlie, it's a long argument across newsgroups and blogs. RealClimate ITSELF is not the issue, it's an blog. The problem is with the bias of individual articles, and a lot of them are ghost- written by PR flacks. (Don't buy the "spare time" thing for 2 seconds). Collectively, they trash "junk science", which means anything the consensus of the authors doesn't like. Take something like http://www.climateaudit.org/, where you can get useful data, by comparison. If you're looking to debunk Crichton's pseudo-science, then sure, read RealClimate. But for the rest... (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=realclimate+comment+censorship &meta=) Thanks, that's all I was asking for. Every single climate model developed without global dimming is, as things stand, a waste of processing time. There is good science to say that cleaning up our atmosphere might be nothing short of dangerous - the data on what would cause a runaway heat reaction is looking gloomier and gloomier as time goes on. But again, the levels and effects are still not fully understood. Dismissing entirely a source just because a two year old article disagrees with your current thinking doesn't seem rational. "Not understood" in this case means "there are fairly broad margins of confidence as to the magnitude of the effect", NOT "this is not significant". Fair enough. The data in most cases which is criticised was not considered especially significant for over 50 years, and was accepted. As soon as its significant, there are new ways dreamed up to attack it. (From people who formerly had no issues with it) That happens. I'll have a trundle about later. Cheers for the link and pointer... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 24 Oct 2006 at 11:05, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 24/10/2006, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 23 Oct 2006 at 17:11, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >>> Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that > >>> less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of > >>> some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. > >>> > >> > >> Let me offer a fairly good and balanced website's take on this: > >> > >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105 > > > > Heh. Try elsewhere for anything LIKE balanced. I'm NOT going to go > > into > > the entire flamewar about why. (Hint: PR flacks, not scientists) > > Well point us at it, because while you may disagree with their > conclusions, they are indeed scientists. It's possible to disagree > with an analysis without casting someone as a lackey of whatever > conspiracy you want, Especially without providing evidence. Charlie, it's a long argument across newsgroups and blogs. RealClimate ITSELF is not the issue, it's an blog. The problem is with the bias of individual articles, and a lot of them are ghost- written by PR flacks. (Don't buy the "spare time" thing for 2 seconds). Collectively, they trash "junk science", which means anything the consensus of the authors doesn't like. Take something like http://www.climateaudit.org/, where you can get useful data, by comparison. If you're looking to debunk Crichton's pseudo-science, then sure, read RealClimate. But for the rest... (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=realclimate+comment+censorship &meta=) > > Every single climate model developed without global dimming is, as > > things stand, a waste of processing time. There is good science to > > say that cleaning up our atmosphere might be nothing short of > > dangerous - the data on what would cause a runaway heat reaction is > > looking gloomier and gloomier as time goes on. > > But again, the levels and effects are still not fully understood. > Dismissing entirely a source just because a two year old article > disagrees with your current thinking doesn't seem rational. "Not understood" in this case means "there are fairly broad margins of confidence as to the magnitude of the effect", NOT "this is not significant". The data in most cases which is criticised was not considered especially significant for over 50 years, and was accepted. As soon as its significant, there are new ways dreamed up to attack it. (From people who formerly had no issues with it) AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 24/10/2006, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 23 Oct 2006 at 17:11, Dan Minette wrote: Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. Let me offer a fairly good and balanced website's take on this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105 Heh. Try elsewhere for anything LIKE balanced. I'm NOT going to go into the entire flamewar about why. (Hint: PR flacks, not scientists) Well point us at it, because while you may disagree with their conclusions, they are indeed scientists. It's possible to disagree with an analysis without casting someone as a lackey of whatever conspiracy you want, Especially without providing evidence. We know from the post-9/11 shutdown and the data gathered then the high significance of vapour trails. Each and every study done comes up with consistant results. Yes, and there's still honest debate about the long-term implications of this. Every single climate model developed without global dimming is, as things stand, a waste of processing time. There is good science to say that cleaning up our atmosphere might be nothing short of dangerous - the data on what would cause a runaway heat reaction is looking gloomier and gloomier as time goes on. But again, the levels and effects are still not fully understood. Dismissing entirely a source just because a two year old article disagrees with your current thinking doesn't seem rational. They may well be wrong. And there certainly is a crisis - the acceleration of the Greenland melt is testament to that, as are the worsening conditions here in Australia and elsewhere. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Apostates!
On 23 Oct 2006 at 17:11, Dan Minette wrote: > > Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that > > less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of > > some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. > > > > Let me offer a fairly good and balanced website's take on this: > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105 Heh. Try elsewhere for anything LIKE balanced. I'm NOT going to go into the entire flamewar about why. (Hint: PR flacks, not scientists) > Basically, it shoots down the long term implications that were given by the > strongest advocates of the global dimming theory: It's absolute rubbish. There has been no serious criticism of the data used in the studies, which show a consistant fall - in ALL parts of the world. Yes, there are problems with a few individual issues with the data, setting them aside makes less than 0.1% of a difference in the result. We know from the post-9/11 shutdown and the data gathered then the high significance of vapour trails. Each and every study done comes up with consistant results. Every single climate model developed without global dimming is, as things stand, a waste of processing time. There is good science to say that cleaning up our atmosphere might be nothing short of dangerous - the data on what would cause a runaway heat reaction is looking gloomier and gloomier as time goes on. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Apostates!
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Andrew Crystall > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:13 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Apostates! > > On 18 Oct 2006 at 6:07, John W Redelfs wrote: > > > On 10/17/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > > > > > (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at > > > > Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) > > > > > > Global warming... just a theory... > > > > > > > I've read that Mars and Jupiter are also warming, and that it has > something > > to do with the output of the sun. Is that true? If so, then why should > we > > I've never heard serious discussion of it. > > Okay, here's a little factiod: 9/11 might have saved the Earth. > Why? > > Because America did something after 9/11. It grounded aircraft. And > without the water vapour in atmosphere, something very interesting > came of the data analysis - it was hotter than it should of been, > during that period. And some scientists started drawing together > other evidence. > > Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that > less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of > some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. > Let me offer a fairly good and balanced website's take on this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105 Basically, it shoots down the long term implications that were given by the strongest advocates of the global dimming theory: Does this all have either an implication for the global climate sensitivity (how much warming would result from a doubling of CO2) or the scenarios used by IPCC to project climate changes out to 2100? This is where I have to disagree most strongly with the commentary in the program. First, if we were trying to estimate climate sensitivity purely from the response over the 20th century, we would need to know a number of things quite exactly: chiefly the magnitude of all the relevant forcings. However, the uncertainties in the different aerosol effects in particular, preclude an accurate determination from the instrumental period alone. While it is true that, holding everything else equal, an increase in how much cooling was associated with aerosols would lead to an increase in the estimate of climate sensitivity, the error bars are too large for this to be much of a constraint. The estimate of 3+/-1 deg C (for doubled CO2) based on paleo-data and model studies is therefore still valid, even after this program. FWIW, IMHO, the gues at realclimate.org sound like scientists in their writing. There is a particular "voice" that scientists use when writing about their own field, and this site's writings are almost always in that voice. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
Deborah Harrell wrote: > > I recently re-watched a DVD with 'Buffy The Musical' > --bloody brilliant, that. > It was the first complete Buffy Episode I ever watched. Until then, I had the idea that Buffy-the-series was as idiot as Buffy-the-movie. The humour surprised me. I could never get rid of the addiction of watching Buffy. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More on Dimming (was: Apostates!)
> Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...Global Dimming, caused by particulate and other > > emissions fom Human > > industry has hidden much of the effect of global > > warming - to the > > tune of 5C or even more. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml > I'd heard about this from someone consulting at an > Arizona solar power plant (not sure if it was > experimental or fully operational) several years > agoI'll see if I can get > more info from my source. From http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/03oct_novarupta.htm?list91324 In June 1912, Novaruptaone of a chain of volcanoes on the Alaska Peninsulaerupted in what turned out to be the largest blast of the twentieth century. It was so powerful that it drained magma from under another volcano, Mount Katmai, six miles east, causing the summit of Katmai to collapse to form a caldera half a mile deep. Novarupta also expelled three cubic miles of magma and ash into the air, which fell to cover an area of 3,000 square miles more than a foot deep... [there's a pic at the site, also a graph] ...When a volcano anywhere erupts, it does more than spew clouds of ash, which can shadow a region from sunlight and cool it for a few days. It also spews sulfur dioxide. If the eruption is strongly vertical, it shoots that sulfur dioxide high into the stratosphere more than 10 miles above Earth. Up in the stratosphere, sulfur dioxide reacts with water vapor to form sulfate aerosols. Because these aerosols float above the altitude of rain, they don't get washed out. They linger, reflecting sunlight and cooling Earth's surface. This can create a kind of nuclear winter (a.k.a. "volcanic winter") for a year or more after an eruption. In April 1815, for instance, the Tambora volcano in Indonesia erupted. The following year, 1816, was called "the year without a summer," with snow falling across the United States in July... ...But both those volcanoes as well as Krakatau were in the tropics; Novarupta is just south of the Arctic Circle... ...This bottling up of Novarupta's aerosols in the north would make itself felt, strangely enough, in India. According to the computer model, the Novarupta blast would have weakened India's summer monsoon, producing "an abnormally warm and dry summer over northern India," says Robock... ...Robock and colleagues are examining weather and river flow data from Asia, India, and Africa in 1913, the year after Novarupta. They are also investigating the consequences of other high-latitude eruptions in the last few centuries... Debbi who fortuitously read that NASA mewsletter today __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
> Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...Global Dimming, caused by particulate and other > emissions fom Human > industry has hidden much of the effect of global > warming - to the > tune of 5C or even more. As Europe works to clean up > its factories, > temperatures have noticeably edged upwards. > > The crisis is here, is now, and is far far worse > than the predictions of 2000. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml "...The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. "There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me," he says. Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s. Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a sceptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming..." I'd heard about this from someone consulting at an Arizona solar power plant (not sure if it was experimental or fully operational) several years ago; IIRC it was a 17% reduction they'd noticed, but I'm not sure over what time-frame. I'll see if I can get more info from my source. Debbi So *That's* Why The Bushies Didn't Want To Reduce Particulates In Air Pollution! Maru >:/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Apostates!
> "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Behalf Of Charlie Bell > > Global warming... just a theory... > > Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... The bane of vengeance demons everywhere... ;) I recently re-watched a DVD with 'Buffy The Musical' --bloody brilliant, that. Debbi Missing Giles Maru :( __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
At 11:23 AM Thursday 10/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:11 PM Wednesday 10/18/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/10/2006, at 1:50 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: ... and won't mess up your tires with their blood & guts. :) Julia who probably shouldn't post after a margarita, really... Too right you shouldn't. Go drink a pitcherful, THEN post. Charlie Bad Influence Maru Frak, my system won't tolerate a whole pitcherful. I'll try to get to the computer sooner after the next one, I promise. :D (If I have more than 2.7 "standard" drinks in a day, the next day my intestines feel like, well, I could say crap Anyway, it's not pleasant. And determining that it's 2.7 was an odd adventure over the course of many months. Are you sure it's not 2.718281828459045...? Euler Up Maru Um, I don't want to Oiler, really. :D Not even with the Houston Eulers? No, I'm not sure it's not, and that would make as much sense as anything else right now! Julia E-gad! Milking A Joke For All It's Worth Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:11 PM Wednesday 10/18/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/10/2006, at 1:50 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: ... and won't mess up your tires with their blood & guts. :) Julia who probably shouldn't post after a margarita, really... Too right you shouldn't. Go drink a pitcherful, THEN post. Charlie Bad Influence Maru Frak, my system won't tolerate a whole pitcherful. I'll try to get to the computer sooner after the next one, I promise. :D (If I have more than 2.7 "standard" drinks in a day, the next day my intestines feel like, well, I could say crap Anyway, it's not pleasant. And determining that it's 2.7 was an odd adventure over the course of many months. Are you sure it's not 2.718281828459045...? Euler Up Maru Um, I don't want to Oiler, really. :D No, I'm not sure it's not, and that would make as much sense as anything else right now! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
At 10:49 PM Wednesday 10/18/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Dave Land wrote: On Oct 18, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Global warming... just a theory... Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... Don't swerve for the bunnies. If you hit one and it dies, at least whatever genes it was carrying for stupidity won't be transmitted by that particular bunny to any more in the next generation. Some people think that this rule applies to humans as well, though not necessarily with respect to hitting them with your car... Others think that there is some inherent value in each and every human life, no matter how stupid. Well, the other thing is that you risk your own life if you swerve for the bunnies in some areas. Absolutely do not swerve for the bunnies on the way to Burning Man, I've heard. On the way to the Playboy Club, however . . . Hippity Hop Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
At 11:11 PM Wednesday 10/18/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/10/2006, at 1:50 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: ... and won't mess up your tires with their blood & guts. :) Julia who probably shouldn't post after a margarita, really... Too right you shouldn't. Go drink a pitcherful, THEN post. Charlie Bad Influence Maru Frak, my system won't tolerate a whole pitcherful. I'll try to get to the computer sooner after the next one, I promise. :D (If I have more than 2.7 "standard" drinks in a day, the next day my intestines feel like, well, I could say crap Anyway, it's not pleasant. And determining that it's 2.7 was an odd adventure over the course of many months. Are you sure it's not 2.718281828459045...? Euler Up Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/10/2006, at 1:50 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: ... and won't mess up your tires with their blood & guts. :) Julia who probably shouldn't post after a margarita, really... Too right you shouldn't. Go drink a pitcherful, THEN post. Charlie Bad Influence Maru Frak, my system won't tolerate a whole pitcherful. I'll try to get to the computer sooner after the next one, I promise. :D (If I have more than 2.7 "standard" drinks in a day, the next day my intestines feel like, well, I could say crap Anyway, it's not pleasant. And determining that it's 2.7 was an odd adventure over the course of many months. I might be able to get my tolerance back up again at some point, but it sure isn't happening this year.) Julia and dang, I'd better go to bed, have to be up in less than 7 hours... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 19/10/2006, at 1:50 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: ... and won't mess up your tires with their blood & guts. :) Julia who probably shouldn't post after a margarita, really... Too right you shouldn't. Go drink a pitcherful, THEN post. Charlie Bad Influence Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/10/2006, at 12:56 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Global warming... just a theory... Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... - jmh Don't swerve for the bunnies. If you hit one and it dies, at least whatever genes it was carrying for stupidity won't be transmitted by that particular bunny to any more in the next generation. ...and we'll breed super-bunnies that'll take over... ... and won't mess up your tires with their blood & guts. Julia who probably shouldn't post after a margarita, really... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
Dave Land wrote: On Oct 18, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Global warming... just a theory... Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... Don't swerve for the bunnies. If you hit one and it dies, at least whatever genes it was carrying for stupidity won't be transmitted by that particular bunny to any more in the next generation. Some people think that this rule applies to humans as well, though not necessarily with respect to hitting them with your car... Others think that there is some inherent value in each and every human life, no matter how stupid. Well, the other thing is that you risk your own life if you swerve for the bunnies in some areas. Absolutely do not swerve for the bunnies on the way to Burning Man, I've heard. (You get this pounded into your head via mailing list every year for 5 years, you start walking around like a zombie chanting, "Don't swerve for the bunnies. Don't swerve for the bunnies. Don't swerve for the bunnies." So I don't even swerve for the bunnies here. Haven't hit one yet, but other folks have. Vultures are a nice part of the ecosystem, I have to say that.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 19/10/2006, at 12:56 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Global warming... just a theory... Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... - jmh Don't swerve for the bunnies. If you hit one and it dies, at least whatever genes it was carrying for stupidity won't be transmitted by that particular bunny to any more in the next generation. ...and we'll breed super-bunnies that'll take over... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 19/10/2006, at 12:07 AM, John W Redelfs wrote: On 10/17/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at > Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Global warming... just a theory... I've read that Mars and Jupiter are also warming, and that it has something to do with the output of the sun. Is that true? I don't know. The point I was making is that knowing that something is happening and knowing all the details of exactly how and why it happens are two different things, and both creationists and global warming denialists use the same conflation of these two to sow doubt. The Earth has warmed recently. That's a fact. The Earth has warmed in a way that seems to be outside of any of the short and long term cycles that we are aware of. This warming seems to correlate very well with human activity. That's the theory part. The details of this and the precise component of human influence are still not totally understood, but the science is pretty convincing. I noticed this article that Ronn posted used all the same crank tropes that the Discovery Institute uses - accusations of orthodoxy, a list of "top scientist defectors". It paints the people in a bad light, but it does not actually deal with any of the actual science, or explain the data in another way that actually supports the data. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 18 Oct 2006 at 6:07, John W Redelfs wrote: > On 10/17/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > > > (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at > > > Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) > > > > Global warming... just a theory... > > > > I've read that Mars and Jupiter are also warming, and that it has something > to do with the output of the sun. Is that true? If so, then why should we I've never heard serious discussion of it. Okay, here's a little factiod: 9/11 might have saved the Earth. Why? Because America did something after 9/11. It grounded aircraft. And without the water vapour in atmosphere, something very interesting came of the data analysis - it was hotter than it should of been, during that period. And some scientists started drawing together other evidence. Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. This is known as Global Dimming. Global Dimming, caused by particulate and other emissions fom Human industry has hidden much of the effect of global warming - to the tune of 5C or even more. As Europe works to clean up its factories, temperatures have noticeably edged upwards. The crisis is here, is now, and is far far worse than the predictions of 2000. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summar y.shtml Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On Oct 18, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Global warming... just a theory... Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... Don't swerve for the bunnies. If you hit one and it dies, at least whatever genes it was carrying for stupidity won't be transmitted by that particular bunny to any more in the next generation. Some people think that this rule applies to humans as well, though not necessarily with respect to hitting them with your car... Others think that there is some inherent value in each and every human life, no matter how stupid. Dave Darwin Awards Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Global warming... just a theory... Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... - jmh Don't swerve for the bunnies. If you hit one and it dies, at least whatever genes it was carrying for stupidity won't be transmitted by that particular bunny to any more in the next generation. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
But what about the areas that become desertified? Or countries like Bangladesh that are low lying? It's very easy to say "just move" away from the water, but much more difficult when this means massive economic and personal displacement of people. So yes, perhaps it will balance out. It may even be BENEFICIAL but only if it does not progress too far. If we get substantial melting of the icecaps, diseruption of the gulf stream, human misery can only increase in those cases... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: "John W Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:07:42 To:"Killer Bs Discussion" Subject: Re: Apostates! On 10/17/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at > > Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) > > Global warming... just a theory... > I've read that Mars and Jupiter are also warming, and that it has something to do with the output of the sun. Is that true? If so, then why should we suppose that human activity is responsible for global warming here on earth? I mean, we aren't responsible for the global warming that is happening on Mars and Jupiter are we? If the globe warms up, just move further north. If the seas rise, just live farther away from the coast. Isn't that what people did the last time the globe warmed up as it did at the end of the last ice age? Sure some currently productive agricultural areas will no longer be as well suited for agriculture as they are now. But as the globe warms up, won't areas that are not productive now because the weather is too cool become more productive? It ought to balance out shouldn't it. Somehow agonizing over global warming reminds me of a fairy tale I once read in which the king had his courtiers take his throne down to the edge of the sea at low tide. As the tide came in he commanded the water to stay back and not wet his feet as he sat upon the throne. Guess what? The tide came in anyway completely oblivious to the king's law, and this was supposed to show his sycophantic followers how silly they were to keep flattering him about how much power he had. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Apostates!
> On Behalf Of Charlie Bell > > Global warming... just a theory... Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 10/17/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at > Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Global warming... just a theory... I've read that Mars and Jupiter are also warming, and that it has something to do with the output of the sun. Is that true? If so, then why should we suppose that human activity is responsible for global warming here on earth? I mean, we aren't responsible for the global warming that is happening on Mars and Jupiter are we? If the globe warms up, just move further north. If the seas rise, just live farther away from the coast. Isn't that what people did the last time the globe warmed up as it did at the end of the last ice age? Sure some currently productive agricultural areas will no longer be as well suited for agriculture as they are now. But as the globe warms up, won't areas that are not productive now because the weather is too cool become more productive? It ought to balance out shouldn't it. Somehow agonizing over global warming reminds me of a fairy tale I once read in which the king had his courtiers take his throne down to the edge of the sea at low tide. As the tide came in he commanded the water to stay back and not wet his feet as he sat upon the throne. Guess what? The tide came in anyway completely oblivious to the king's law, and this was supposed to show his sycophantic followers how silly they were to keep flattering him about how much power he had. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
Charlie Bell wrote: > > Chicken soup? Is that a reference to my cold of over a month ago? :-D > Thanks Ronn for bringing up (ewww) old material... > What cold? Cold fusion? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 18/10/2006, at 10:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/17/2006 5:41:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Global warming... just a theory... You need a more accurate reading. Stand further away from the chicken soup. Chicken soup? Is that a reference to my cold of over a month ago? :-D Thanks Ronn for bringing up (ewww) old material... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
In a message dated 10/17/2006 5:41:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at > Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Global warming... just a theory... You need a more accurate reading. Stand further away from the chicken soup. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apostates!
On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Global warming... just a theory... Charlie Deja Vu Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Apostates!
(Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Inhofe, the apostate By Debra J. Saunders http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Global warming is a religion, not science. That's why acolytes in the media attack global-warming critics not with scientific arguments, but for their apostasy. Then they laud global-warming believers not for reducing greenhouse gases, but simply for believing global warming is a coming catastrophe caused by man. The important thing is to have faith in those who warn: The end is near. So a New York Times editorial Thursday took after Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., not for being a Doubting Thomas, but as the headline read, a "Doubting Inhofe." The brunt of the editorial was not a scientific refutation of Inhofe's arguments against the global-warming craze other than to cite a National Academy of Sciences report that warned that the Earth is approaching the warmest temperatures in 12,000 years a short blip in time to your average geologist. The Times' focus was on Inhofe's refusal to bow to "the consensus among mainstream scientists and the governments of nearly every industrialized nation concerning manmade climate change." That is, Inhofe has had the effrontery to challenge elite orthodoxy. Or, as the editorial put it, Inhofe "has really buttressed himself with the will to disbelieve." Get thee away, Satan. "I see a sense of desperation that I haven't seen before," Inhofe told me by phone Thursday, "and frankly I'm enjoying it." CNN's Miles O'Brien also challenged Inhofe in a similar vein. O'Brien cited the NAS study, then assailed Inhofe with quotes from notable Republicans President Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut who recognize global warming. Note that Schwarzenegger gets into global-warming heaven just for believing, despite his four Hummers and use of a private jet. Global warming even has a martyr, NASA scientist James Hansen, who told O'Brien in January that under the Bushies, "you're not free to speak your own mind." It's amazing that a scientist can complain that he is being muzzled while appearing on CNN and "60 Minutes." Be it noted that Hansen endorsed Sen. John Kerry for president in 2004 and received a $250,000 award from a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry in 2001. At the time, Hansen told The New York Times, the award had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings." I believe that. I also believe we should all be so muzzled. What does Inhofe make of the NAS finding? Inhofe recognizes that the Earth is warming, but sees this as part of the natural cycle. Inhofe mentioned the Medieval Warm Period the year 1000 to 1270, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland. So he doesn't buy this 12,000-year high. His office referred me to a piece University of Oklahoma geology professor David Deming penned for the Normal Transcript that noted, "The fact that the thermometer wasn't invented until the year 1714 ought to give us pause when evaluating this remarkable claim." I remain agnostic on global warming, as I've seen good arguments on both sides. I know, however, that I never will be convinced that global warming is a scientific threat as long as believers put most of their energy into establishing orthodoxy and denying that reputable global-warming skeptics exist. The Times' "mainstream scientists" line undermines the editorial's credibility, as it ignores the likes of MIT climate scientist Richard S. Lindzen, who argues that clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse-gas emissions. Ditto the 60 Canadian scientists who wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that there is no "'consensus' among climate scientists." Let me add the Copenhagen Consensus, a group of Nobel Prize-winning scientists and economists that looks at the best way to spend a hypothetical $50 billion to benefit mankind, rated fighting global warming as a "bad" use of money. That's amazing, when you consider the pressure that is put upon scientists to conform. "Consensus" is another word for clique science. The good people are true believers, the bad people exhibit a "will to disbelieve." Editors used to salute healthy skepticism. Now some are global-warming Torquemadas. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
