Global Warming

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 29 Oct 2007 19:24:24
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Global Warming

Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?

I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought
to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely
nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 16:09:07
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 11, 2:49 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > What did you think of "Collapse"?
>
> I know you didn't ask me, but I liked it a lot. I especially liked the
> analogy between the modern world and the Easter Islanders. Like them, once
> we cut down the metaphorical "last palm tree" we're screwed because we
> can't build "canoes" to get off the planet.

What did you think of the benthic bacteria global warming paper?

Date: 12 Nov 2007 05:07:56
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote in
news:1194826147.623231.67230@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

>
> What did you think of the benthic bacteria global warming paper?
>

I ... uh ... well ... see ... I hadn't heard of it until you mentioned
it. Although it does explain a little of the chatter I saw on
sci.geo.meteorology. Pretty funny though. Almost as good "Transgressing
the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravity" that got published in a real journal.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:43:10
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 11, 2:11 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1194758230.050497.101...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> ,
>
>
>
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 5:52 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1194742322.832893.41220@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 1:13 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as
> > > >> warm as the 13th century, though,
>
> > > > Maybe, maybe not. From:
> > > >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
> > > > "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was
> > > > warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."
>
> > > Yeah, those Vikings never really lived on Greenland and never had regular
> > > farms. Even though there's graphic evidence of it.
>
> > First, that statement is about global warming, not Greenland warming.
> > In case you didn't notice, Greenland isn't the globe. Second, the
> > Vikings absolutely did live on Greenland -- in two hardscrabble
> > colonies. And they starved to death there, too, mostly cuz those
> > "regular farms" didn't produce very well. There's graphic evidence of
> > it.
>
> > You still pushing the story that Marco Polo stopped off at Greenland
> > and loaded up on lutefisk?
>
> The colony on Greenland thrived, but eventually
> perished when the weather became colder. Not only in
> Greenland, but all across northern Europe. There are
> written point to point navigation instructions for the
> voyage to the Greenland colony, and over time the
> voyage had to bear south more and more as previously
> navigable channels iced up. They lived in Greenland for
> most of 500 years. It was not a fingernail on the
> precipice existence. The side of the colony is still
> not as warm as it was when it was a settled and
> thriving colony.

What did you think of "Collapse"?

Date: 11 Nov 2007 22:49:00
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

>
> What did you think of "Collapse"?
>

I know you didn't ask me, but I liked it a lot. I especially liked the
analogy between the modern world and the Easter Islanders. Like them, once
we cut down the metaphorical "last palm tree" we're screwed because we
can't build "canoes" to get off the planet.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:41:24
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 11, 1:39 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:

> Without looking That site is full of numbers proving that
> there was not a cold snap in the 1300's to early 1800's.

Then you should have looked.

> I suppose that the London Frost Fairs have been written
> out of history. Ministry of Truth at work.

You should have looked.

> Ah yes plenty of numbers, no refutation.

Of course there was no refutation. In fact, it says that the evidence
for a global Little Ice Age exists. What it also says is that
corresponding evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was a global
phenomenon rather than a regional phenomenon does not exist.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 18:34:30
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194820884.459387.226970@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 1:39 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Without looking That site is full of numbers proving that
>> there was not a cold snap in the 1300's to early 1800's.
>
> Then you should have looked.
>
>> I suppose that the London Frost Fairs have been written
>> out of history. Ministry of Truth at work.
>
> You should have looked.
>
>> Ah yes plenty of numbers, no refutation.
>
> Of course there was no refutation. In fact, it says that the evidence
> for a global Little Ice Age exists. What it also says is that
> corresponding evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was a global
> phenomenon rather than a regional phenomenon does not exist.

Come on Robert. You'd stick a knife in Einstein's guts if he dared to offer
a counter opinion to your global warming fakery.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

"Twenty years ago, climate research became politicized in favour of one
particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the
effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential
for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their
research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least
entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the
hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil
companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost
unreported."
Our man of science Robert Chung is on the front lines of those impeding
research.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 21:17:10
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 10, 5:52 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194742322.832893.41220@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 10, 1:13 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as
> >> warm as the 13th century, though,
>
> > Maybe, maybe not. From:
> >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
> > "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was
> > warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."
>
> Yeah, those Vikings never really lived on Greenland and never had regular
> farms. Even though there's graphic evidence of it.

First, that statement is about global warming, not Greenland warming.
In case you didn't notice, Greenland isn't the globe. Second, the
Vikings absolutely did live on Greenland -- in two hardscrabble
colonies. And they starved to death there, too, mostly cuz those
"regular farms" didn't produce very well. There's graphic evidence of
it.

You still pushing the story that Marco Polo stopped off at Greenland
and loaded up on lutefisk?

Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:11:19
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article
<1194758230.050497.101160@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >
,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:

> On Nov 10, 5:52 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1194742322.832893.41220@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Nov 10, 1:13 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as
> > >> warm as the 13th century, though,
> >
> > > Maybe, maybe not. From:
> > >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
> > > "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was
> > > warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."
> >
> > Yeah, those Vikings never really lived on Greenland and never had regular
> > farms. Even though there's graphic evidence of it.
>
> First, that statement is about global warming, not Greenland warming.
> In case you didn't notice, Greenland isn't the globe. Second, the
> Vikings absolutely did live on Greenland -- in two hardscrabble
> colonies. And they starved to death there, too, mostly cuz those
> "regular farms" didn't produce very well. There's graphic evidence of
> it.
>
> You still pushing the story that Marco Polo stopped off at Greenland
> and loaded up on lutefisk?

The colony on Greenland thrived, but eventually
perished when the weather became colder. Not only in
Greenland, but all across northern Europe. There are
written point to point navigation instructions for the
voyage to the Greenland colony, and over time the
voyage had to bear south more and more as previously
navigable channels iced up. They lived in Greenland for
most of 500 years. It was not a fingernail on the
precipice existence. The side of the colony is still
not as warm as it was when it was a settled and
thriving colony.

The plague is given as the proximate cause of the 13th
century depopulation of Europe. The ultimate cause was
the onset of cold damp growing seasons. During the
medieval warm period, which succeeded the cold spell
induced by massive volcanic eruption around 540 AD
Northern Europe became warm, very warm, agriculture
flourished, grain was plentiful and the population
exploded. When it got cold again, the grain rotted on
the stalk. People became malnourished, and the plague
took them away. Eventually the survivors realized they
had to grow root vegetables, not grain.

--
Michael Press

Date: 11 Nov 2007 02:37:45
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 9, 4:07 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:10 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Scott wrote:
>
> > > Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>
> I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>
> You know, at first glance that chart looks really impressive due to
> the scale used. However, it's showing anomolies in global temperature
> variants of less than a degree over a 150 year period with what
> appears to be a cyclical nature in the variations.
>
> Funny, but lately we've been hearing about how the current warm
> weather in CO is of course a function of global warming. But,
> yesterday's high was 3 degrees away from a record high, and that
> record for the date was set in 1929. We didn't have global warming in
> '29, either.

Don't conflate weather and climate. Weather is how hot it
is today, or whether today was hotter or cooler than the
same day in 1929. Weather fluctuates on short term
time scales. Climate is, among other things, what the
average temperature for the entire summer is, averaged
over suitable time periods (5 years, 10 years, perhaps).
A global warming scenario isn't that last week or next
week was/is hotter than last year or 1929, but that
last decade or next will be hotter than the 1920s.

So if somebody says that it was hot last week because of
global warming, they are wrong. But if they say that
hot weeks in November will be more frequent because of
global warming, they are right.

Climate change is no longer solely a lefty-conspiracy,
greeny, vegan whale saving cause. Even hardheaded
steak and potatoes guys are worried. You live in Colorado;
don't take my word for it. Ask a local ski-resort operator
or a municipal water authority manager if they're
worried.

Ben

BTW, we probably did have manmade climate forcing in
1929, because we were already burning enough coal to have
an effect. But of course, it takes time for the
forcing to show up in the temperature record, and very
few people were trying to look at the temp. record
in 1929 anyway.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 18:44:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1194748665.327859.244280@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> BTW, we probably did have manmade climate forcing in
> 1929, because we were already burning enough coal to have
> an effect. But of course, it takes time for the
> forcing to show up in the temperature record, and very
> few people were trying to look at the temp. record
> in 1929 anyway.

Psst - we didn't put enough CO2 or coal ash into the air to have the
slightest effect until the late 50's. But you may be the Global Warming
alarmist you always wanted to be. The rest of us will simply smile and nod.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 16:52:02
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 10, 1:13 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:

> Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as
> warm as the 13th century, though,

Maybe, maybe not. From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was
warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

Date: 11 Nov 2007 13:39:44
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article
<1194742322.832893.41220@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com >,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:

> On Nov 10, 1:13 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as
> > warm as the 13th century, though,
>
> Maybe, maybe not. From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
> "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was
> warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

Without looking That site is full of numbers proving that
there was not a cold snap in the 1300's to early 1800's.

I suppose that the London Frost Fairs have been written
out of history. Ministry of Truth at work.

Ah yes plenty of numbers, no refutation.

--
Michael Press

Date: 10 Nov 2007 17:52:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194742322.832893.41220@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 10, 1:13 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as
>> warm as the 13th century, though,
>
> Maybe, maybe not. From:
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
> "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was
> warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

Yeah, those Vikings never really lived on Greenland and never had regular
farms. Even though there's graphic evidence of it.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 07:44:59
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 10, 4:58 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr > wrote:

> Pardon the FR link, but you can read this ...
>
> http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2007/11/06/01008-20071106ARTFIG00203-...

Yeah. One of the interesting things is that people often think global
trends ought to be mirrored locally or regionally.

BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that
Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead,
they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the
Seine at the Ile de la Cite).

Date: 10 Nov 2007 17:22:07
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:

> BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that
> Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead,
> they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the
> Seine at the Ile de la Cite).
>

La Rue du Chat qui Peche. The cat used to hunt for fish in the cellars
after the floods
:-))

Date: 10 Nov 2007 07:30:58
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 10, 5:40 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:39 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>
> > > > > >http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>
> > > > > I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>
> > > > Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
> > > > trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
> > > > plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
> > > > 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
>
> > > Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having
> > > first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of
> > > course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat.
> > > Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
>
> > Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about
> > man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?"
> > Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the
> > question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting
> > like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's
> > time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should
> > or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look
> > at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
>
> I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I
> asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle
> difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's
> usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.

Dude, you're exact question was this: "Did they have global warming in
'53, too?"

Anyone can look just a few posts up the thread and see it. Steve
answered your question. Now you're shucking and jiving cause he
answered the question you asked, not the question you think you asked.

> If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for
> social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re:
> man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change
> that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure,
> the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will
> trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and
> regardless of what you or I do.

Yow. You think the -- >temperature record<-- is a leftist hysterical
plot. That settles it. You're a nut job.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 19:51:37
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 10, 5:40 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 10:39 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>>>>>> I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>>>>> Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
>>>>> trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
>>>>> plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
>>>>> 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
>>>> Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having
>>>> first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of
>>>> course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat.
>>>> Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
>>> Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about
>>> man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?"
>>> Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the
>>> question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting
>>> like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's
>>> time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should
>>> or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look
>>> at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
>> I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I
>> asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle
>> difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's
>> usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.
>
> Dude, you're exact question was this: "Did they have global warming in
> '53, too?"
>
> Anyone can look just a few posts up the thread and see it. Steve
> answered your question. Now you're shucking and jiving cause he
> answered the question you asked, not the question you think you asked.
>
>> If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for
>> social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re:
>> man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change
>> that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure,
>> the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will
>> trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and
>> regardless of what you or I do.
>
> Yow. You think the -->temperature record<-- is a leftist hysterical
> plot. That settles it. You're a nut job.
>

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, apologies if you've already
commented.
He really didn't say it was a lefty plot, he says it is being exploited
by hysterical leftists bent on social change (what social change, I
wonder? Ending the industrial age?).
But that's really another issue, as is of course the right wing's
casting doubt on data which show something they don't wish to
acknowledge. In other words, they are consciously drawing (specious)
conclusions from data they say supports their agenda.
The science is the science. I don't personally have the standing to
contest it, but there is no political litmus test performed on
climatologists studying this issue. If it is true that the overwhelming
majority now agree that global warming is occurring as a result of human
activity, at a rate which ensures significant climate change in the near
future, I have no choice but to form my opinions based on that.
What the appropriate measures may be to mitigate whatever negative
impact this phenomenon causes involves political decisions. That's why
we vote. I doubt I would vote the way Scott will, but I don't think
we'll change his mind.

Good luck,

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 10 Nov 2007 07:26:20
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 10, 6:25 am, Dan Gregory
<dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote:

> Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires &
> smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been
> over 150 miles away.

Right. It *is* thought the war had a temporary impact. Although CO2
was increasing, war-related particulates (e.g., the smoke you saw) and
aerosol pollutants increased even more. Particulates and aerosols
block out some of the solar radiation so the net effect was transitory
cooling. So this is more evidence that human-related activities (in
this case, war) can affect global temperatures.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 05:40:49
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 9, 10:39 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>
> > > > I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>
> > > Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
> > > trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
> > > plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
> > > 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
>
> > Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having
> > first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of
> > course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat.
> > Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
>
> Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about
> man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?"
> Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the
> question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting
> like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's
> time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should
> or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look
> at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.

I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I
asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle
difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's
usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.

If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for
social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re:
man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change
that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure,
the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will
trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and
regardless of what you or I do.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 21:39:48
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> > > > > Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>
> > > I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>
> > Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
> > trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
> > plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
> > 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
>
> Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having
> first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of
> course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat.
> Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.

Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about
man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?"
Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the
question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting
like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's
time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should
or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look
at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 14:25:40
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>>>> I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>>> Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
>>> trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
>>> plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
>>> 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
>> Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having
>> first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of
>> course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat.
>> Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
>
> Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about
> man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?"
> Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the
> question you asked is yes.

Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires &
smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been
over 150 miles away.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 19:57:34
From: Stu Fleming
Subject: Re: Global Warming

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>>>> I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>>> Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
>>> trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
>>> plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
>>> 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
>> Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having
>> first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of
>> course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat.
>> Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
>
> Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about
> man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?"
> Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the
> question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting
> like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's
> time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should
> or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look
> at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
>

After reworking the faulty algorithm, we find that the 1930s was the
hottest decade on record...

Date: 09 Nov 2007 21:09:39
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 9, 9:07 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 9, 3:07 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 1:10 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
>
> > > > Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>
> > I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>
> Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
> trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
> plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
> 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.

Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having
first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of
course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat.
Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 20:07:23
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 9, 3:07 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:10 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
>
> > > Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>
> I'll take that as a 'NO'.

Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 07:58:28
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Dans le message de
news:1194667643.008462.297360@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com <rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > a r�fl�chi, et
puis a d�clar� :
> On Nov 9, 3:07 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 1:10 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
>>
>>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>>
>> I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>
> Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the
> trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's
> plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the
> 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.

Pardon the FR link, but you can read this ...

http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2007/11/06/01008-20071106ARTFIG00203-lhistoire-du-climat-de-la-france-sort-de-loubli-.php

Date: 09 Nov 2007 15:07:05
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 9, 1:10 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> > Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27v967

I'll take that as a 'NO'.

You know, at first glance that chart looks really impressive due to
the scale used. However, it's showing anomolies in global temperature
variants of less than a degree over a 150 year period with what
appears to be a cyclical nature in the variations.

Funny, but lately we've been hearing about how the current warm
weather in CO is of course a function of global warming. But,
yesterday's high was 3 degrees away from a record high, and that
record for the date was set in 1929. We didn't have global warming in
'29, either.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 21:13:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article
<1194649625.962307.314490@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >,
Scott <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Nov 9, 1:10 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> >
> > > Did they have global warming in '53, too?
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/27v967
>
> I'll take that as a 'NO'.
>
> You know, at first glance that chart looks really impressive due to
> the scale used. However, it's showing anomolies in global temperature
> variants of less than a degree over a 150 year period with what
> appears to be a cyclical nature in the variations.
>
> Funny, but lately we've been hearing about how the current warm
> weather in CO is of course a function of global warming. But,
> yesterday's high was 3 degrees away from a record high, and that
> record for the date was set in 1929. We didn't have global warming in
> '29, either.

Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as
warm as the 13th century, though, thank whoever is in
charge here. I say let's have the good old days when
the Thames froze over every winter. Bring back the
London Frost Fairs.

--
Michael Press

Date: 09 Nov 2007 10:26:16
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 8, 3:41 pm, Dan Gregory
<dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote:
> Pete wrote:
> > On the subject of the Barrier - it's closed now against a forecast
> > tidal surge. So, there you go.
>
> Judging by the warnings I just saw on TV it looks like 1953 all over again.
> Storms & high tide combining. Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex look like
> being hit.
> :-((

Did they have global warming in '53, too?

Date: 09 Nov 2007 15:10:25
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Scott wrote:
>
> Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>

http://tinyurl.com/27v967

Date: 09 Nov 2007 16:12:46
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:13j9fllrt2rr846@corp.supernews.com...
> Scott wrote:
>>
>> Did they have global warming in '53, too?
>>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27v967

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1

"In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The Christian Science Monitor
then declaimed, "Warning: Earth's climate is changing faster than even
experts expect," while The New York Times announced, "A major cooling of the
climate is widely considered inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming
represents the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding sacrifice to Gaia
for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways."

Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:07:41
From: Pete
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 08 Nov 2007 22:41:13
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Pete wrote:

> On the subject of the Barrier - it's closed now against a forecast
> tidal surge. So, there you go.

Judging by the warnings I just saw on TV it looks like 1953 all over again.
Storms & high tide combining. Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex look like
being hit.
:-((

Date: 06 Nov 2007 07:02:34
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 11:33 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> >> The main reason flood levels rise around the south of the island of
> >> Britain is that the southern portion of the island of Britain is
> >> sinking.
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > It's all that ego - the weight of it is just getting unbearable.
>
> More likely they're emulating their cross-pond cousins:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7002/437

I'm curious Donald, how did you know that I have access to the
University library files?

Date: 06 Nov 2007 06:06:26
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 5, 7:55 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:

> And yet strangely enough the lifespan in the world has never been
> higher. Again and again we hear about the death sentence of the way
> we're living while the expected lifespan of everyone continues to
> rise.

Life expectancy in most countries has never been higher but there are
countries where life expectancy has decreased compared to a couple of
decades ago. Lifespan and life expectancy are different things and
there's no evidence that lifespan has changed a bit, either up or
down.

Date: 05 Nov 2007 08:15:36
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 8:32 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 31, 5:20 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > [ A really good troll ]
>
> Dumbass -
>
> He's not trolling, he's arguing.
>
> A really good troll starts a thread, then leaves the carnage to
> everyone else.

We all realize that as an inheritance brat you've never been in the
real world for one second at a time, but the world troll comes from
fishing and it refers to dragging a lure on the end of a fishing line
and then fighting and landing the fish attracted by the lure.

Date: 05 Nov 2007 08:13:10
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 6:49 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > By the way, one of the projects I was on was the development of a
> > respiratory gas analyzer. So like you know - one had to learn about lung
> > diseases? So like I know that despite Kyle's claim ("Cleaner air, fewer
> > respiratory illnesses") that it is a little more complicated than that.
>
> Are you saying his premise is not true?

I'm saying that you don't know what you're talking about. We had two
brothers who were members of the yacht club I belong to and they never
smoked a day in their lives and lived and worked under the cleanest
conditions possible and they both died of emphasema. My father died
from the same disease, smoked as many as 8 packs of cigarettes a day
and lived three years less than the longest lived brother.

Some of the most noxious chemicals are given off by growing trees in
forests and yet people in these areas often live longer healthier
lives than those in cities.

Does it occur to you for even one second that the psychological
stresses and strains of city life are a great deal more determinitive
of your lifespan than the polutions in the cities these days?

Date: 05 Nov 2007 08:05:14
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 1:52 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> In regards to energy, it didn't ever cross my mind to take away stoves and
> ovens but that would certainly help reduce consumption.

The fact that you could write that sentence says a great deal about
your mental state.

> I was thinking
> that you could maintain the same level, roughly, of personal comfort while
> still reducing total energy use by increasing efficiency, you know,
> insulating and stuff like that.

Perhaps you could offer an estimate at the cost of the insullation vs
the savings in energy? Or in your book are suggestions simply more
important than real ideas?

> Also, instead of forcing people to turn
> their heat completely off, maybe just turn down temperature from 75 F to 68
> F, or raising the temperature of the air conditioner from 68 F to 75 F.

Strange, most places I've been the temperatures are set to 68 degrees
heating and 74 degrees or so cooling. But then I suppose your
exaggerations or more probable - your outright lying - is more
important than the truth.

> So I guess you are right, reducing energy consumption is dumb because the
> obvious effects are people dying en mass from hypothermia (or heat stroke)
> and salmonella while ambulances stand idly by, rusting into the ground,
> though it wouldn't matter if they were running because hospitals would be
> cold lifeless shells, all the doctors having been hung long ago for driving
> gas-guzzling luxury cars.

The real comic genius of you is that you've completely convinced me at
least that you don't understand the very basic requirements of the
society around you. I guess that's to be expected of a country where
the national debt in trillions of dollars is considered to be no big
deal.

Date: 05 Nov 2007 23:45:18
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

<snip >

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hGlYT38DZY

--
Bill Asher

Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:59:38
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 12:29 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you
> > believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness?
> > Some of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are
> > called that because of the extremely high particulate matter injected
> > into the air by the trees and other plants in that area.
>
> A brief primer:
>
> http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=315948

Steve, I have a bridge you'd love to own.

Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:58:30
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 12:22 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 7:38 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> >> Kyle Legate wrote:
> >>> Scott wrote:
> >>>> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
> >>>> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
> >>> Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.
> >> Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.
>
> >> Steve
>
> >> --
> >> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
> >> Brooklyn, NY
> >> 718-258-5001
>
> > Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>
> > Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
> > respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
> > cost.
>
> That would be tough. In all seriousness, I'm sure some will try to
> crunch the numbers. But because there are so many potential causes of
> lung disease, only the most egregious (smoking) is not refutable (not
> that they don't try). It is tough to point at one factor responsible
> for the significant increase in asthma and related diseases in the
> population. Also, the variable distribution of pollutants would likely
> make a meaningful prospective study difficult.
> This doesn't mean that products of petroleum combustion--both carbon
> based as well as sulfur and nitrogen oxides associated with their
> combustion haven't been demonstrated to be toxic--just that it would be
> tough to generate the statistics in the general population that would
> convince people disinclined to draw the (to me obvious) conclusions.

Steve, I hate to point this out but it is very likely that the
increased asthma and other allergic-type of illnesses has more to do
with raising kids in a clean environment rather than the polutants
around us.

Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:55:28
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 11:11 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
>
> This is just a bunch of horseshit. And that is because it fails to
> recognize that fossil fuel burning has environmental benefits, but you
> act like it is just "cost" by not including it in your analysis.
> Reducing emissions isn't a freebee: people lose the benefit derived
> from using the fossil fuel. In the world of tradeoffs -- the real
> world -- an individual may decide the upside outweighs the downside.
> The individual who uses energy does so for the very purpose of
> _improving_ their _environment_ -- that may be nothing more than
> heating their house in the winter.

Asher and those like him actually like the idea of old people freezing
to death and mass starvation. They are a lot more concerned about the
population explosion, polution and conservative thought than they are
about people being happy, relatively free and able to enjoy their
lives. Don't believe me? Reflect on just about every single posting
from Asher and his clones or his hangers-on like Legate or Kveck.

> In short, the benefits from burning fossil fuels may be valued more
> than the cost of reduced health.

And yet strangely enough the lifespan in the world has never been
higher. Again and again we hear about the death sentence of the way
we're living while the expected lifespan of everyone continues to
rise. We might even believe the "Liberals" to be devious liars but
then that would be name calling wouldn't it?

Date: 05 Nov 2007 22:25:10
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <1194278128.219565.236530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 31, 11:11 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is just a bunch of horseshit. And that is because it fails to
> > recognize that fossil fuel burning has environmental benefits, but you
> > act like it is just "cost" by not including it in your analysis.
> > Reducing emissions isn't a freebee: people lose the benefit derived
> > from using the fossil fuel. In the world of tradeoffs -- the real
> > world -- an individual may decide the upside outweighs the downside.
> > The individual who uses energy does so for the very purpose of
> > _improving_ their _environment_ -- that may be nothing more than
> > heating their house in the winter.
>
> Asher and those like him actually like the idea of old people freezing
> to death and mass starvation. They are a lot more concerned about the
> population explosion, polution and conservative thought than they are
> about people being happy, relatively free and able to enjoy their
> lives. Don't believe me?

Actaully, no. I don't believe you. You're just making that up, Tom.

> And yet strangely enough the lifespan in the world has never been
> higher. Again and again we hear about the death sentence of the way
> we're living while the expected lifespan of everyone continues to
> rise. We might even believe the "Liberals" to be devious liars but
> then that would be name calling wouldn't it?

Are you really so dumb as to not understand why life expectancy goes up in a world
where medical science, the ability to transport and store goods (such as food) and
communication are all so much better than they were in the past?

I think I know why you've been blathering about all the bad things about
"Liberals" do and "think" (according to you, but having no relationship to reality)
lately. You really expected the Republicans to retain power for the foreseeable
future but they choked. Just about every position that you think is a good one for
the "conservative cause" has proven to be an abject failure.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:45:20
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 7:00 pm, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net >
wrote:
>
> Oil is much to valuable as natural resource to burn up. It's the basis
> of an entire family of useful materials but it sure isn't too useful
> after being expelled in an oxidized form out of your tailpipe.

It isn't the ONLY source of those materials - it is the cheapest
source.

Date: 02 Nov 2007 12:16:00
From: John Everett
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:24:24 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com > wrote:

>Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
>going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
>I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought
>to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely
>nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists.

Clearly an important topic for a newsgroup dedicated to discussions of
bicycle racing. ;-)

--
jeverett3<AT >sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

Date: 02 Nov 2007 19:47:39
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Tom Kunich wrote:
>>Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
>>was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?

John Everett wrote:
> Clearly an important topic for a newsgroup dedicated to discussions of
> bicycle racing. ;-)

Global warming could affect training periodisation. Bompa will
have to write a sequel.

Date: 02 Nov 2007 03:32:27
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 10:10 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Oct 31, 9:29 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
> The actual core and persistant problem is that things like airborne
> particulates and gases are difficult to frame a price system about
> (where costs are internalized), so that the price becomes an easy way
> to grade the tradeoff, or at least get a hint at revealed preferences.
>
> Some people smoke cigarettes. To me that says some people actually
> like pollution.

Only if it makes you look cool.

> Are you ready to start building breeder reactors in a big way? You
> should get ready if you think CO2 and AGW is a major and looming
> doomsday problem. You don't have any time to mess around. Life is
> about tradeoffs. You can't have everything you want.

Are you stereotyping me as a Greenie? I haven't ever
written off nuclear power. In part because it would be
personally hypocritical: before I started picking your pocket
for my livelihood, nuclear power housed and fed me and sent
me to college^H^H^H^H Socialist training camp, and even
there I wasn't hypocritical enough to protest nukes. (My
father is a nuclear engineer, and his company also gave me
a scholarship.) However, I do think that the nuke industry
in 1978 was badly run and deserved a good long timeout.
There is still a domestic civilian nuke industry, you know,
they just build their plants in Spain, Taiwan, and South Korea.
The ones who are left in it may even be the ones who
deserved to survive. Evolve or die, and all that.

I'm still not against nuclear power, although I think that
building lots of reactors as a get-out-of-carbon-jail free
card, without attempting to incentivize (ha!) reducing
power consumption, would be a spectacularly bad idea.

Finally, I think breeder reactors are an even worse idea.
The uranium supply is not close to being the limiting
factor on power generation. Uranium fuel is a small
fraction of reactor power cost - most of it is capital.
For 1 MWatt * 1 year the fuel cost is only about $22,000.
(http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm , biased source, but
I think the numbers are right.)
That means the nuke industry could tolerate even quite
expensive methods of uranium ore extraction.
(http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf)

The bigger issue with fuel is that nobody knows what
to do with the leftovers. Breeders solve the non-problem
of supply at the price of making a huge waste problem -
in other words, the same thinking that got us into this
mess. Also, they're an enormous bomb-fuel proliferation
problem. Israel's jets only range so far.

Ben
RBR Dr. Atomic

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:29:24
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 5:02 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 1, 5:15 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 1, 1:46 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Most people who seem to me to be clued
> > > in on oil production think it will reach a maximum, at which point it can
> > > rise no further to meet a rise in demand. In this case petroleum will
> > > become more expensive as production relies on more costly sources (either
> > > things like oil shale or coal conversion).
>
> > In that case the problem will take care of itself. (Meaning fossil
> > fuels will become scare, with no substitutes, and thus more expensive,
> > and thus conservative style usage.) You don't need to fix it, and you
> > can't anyway.
>
> > Of course, substitutes do exist. To the extent the substitutes come
> > into play, fossil fuels will remain sitting in the ground at the end
> > of the oil age like stones from the stone age, copper from the bronze
> > age, iron from the iron age, and information from the information
> > age. Oh wait, strike that last one. All human history is the
> > information age. It started before Al Gore was born -- imagine that!
>
> You mean that people will switch to alternatives, and find them, when
> actual petroleum becomes more expensive, as opposed to insane taxes
> added to the cost??
> What a shocker....Last time I checked we're working through all the
> reasonably cheap oil resources. Now the Alberta oil sands have become
> viable due to rising per barrel prices but how many more sources are
> commercially viable in the future? Then how about the fact that a huge
> percentage of the petroleum the US needs is controlled by governments
> hostile to us, or pretty damned close, and the Chinese would happily
> buy the oil if they shut us off.
> Dependency on hostile foreign powers for critical strategic resources
> is suicide, or a guarantee for war.

http://www.google.com/search?q=breeder+reactors&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:02:16
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 5:15 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:46 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Most people who seem to me to be clued
> > in on oil production think it will reach a maximum, at which point it can
> > rise no further to meet a rise in demand. In this case petroleum will
> > become more expensive as production relies on more costly sources (either
> > things like oil shale or coal conversion).
>
> In that case the problem will take care of itself. (Meaning fossil
> fuels will become scare, with no substitutes, and thus more expensive,
> and thus conservative style usage.) You don't need to fix it, and you
> can't anyway.
>
> Of course, substitutes do exist. To the extent the substitutes come
> into play, fossil fuels will remain sitting in the ground at the end
> of the oil age like stones from the stone age, copper from the bronze
> age, iron from the iron age, and information from the information
> age. Oh wait, strike that last one. All human history is the
> information age. It started before Al Gore was born -- imagine that!

You mean that people will switch to alternatives, and find them, when
actual petroleum becomes more expensive, as opposed to insane taxes
added to the cost??
What a shocker....Last time I checked we're working through all the
reasonably cheap oil resources. Now the Alberta oil sands have become
viable due to rising per barrel prices but how many more sources are
commercially viable in the future? Then how about the fact that a huge
percentage of the petroleum the US needs is controlled by governments
hostile to us, or pretty damned close, and the Chinese would happily
buy the oil if they shut us off.
Dependency on hostile foreign powers for critical strategic resources
is suicide, or a guarantee for war.
Bill C

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:43:05
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1193961736.498484.86150@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Last time I checked we're working through all the
> reasonably cheap oil resources. Now the Alberta oil sands have become
> viable due to rising per barrel prices but how many more sources are
> commercially viable in the future?

There's something that is seldom noted - if it looks like some other source
of energy is going to become economically feasible the oil producers simply
overproduce for awhile making oil cheaper and putting the alternate sources
in the hole.

Regardless of what you've been hearing, there is still a whole lot of oil
out there.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 14:15:29
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 1:46 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Most people who seem to me to be clued
> in on oil production think it will reach a maximum, at which point it can
> rise no further to meet a rise in demand. In this case petroleum will
> become more expensive as production relies on more costly sources (either
> things like oil shale or coal conversion).

In that case the problem will take care of itself. (Meaning fossil
fuels will become scare, with no substitutes, and thus more expensive,
and thus conservative style usage.) You don't need to fix it, and you
can't anyway.

Of course, substitutes do exist. To the extent the substitutes come
into play, fossil fuels will remain sitting in the ground at the end
of the oil age like stones from the stone age, copper from the bronze
age, iron from the iron age, and information from the information
age. Oh wait, strike that last one. All human history is the
information age. It started before Al Gore was born -- imagine that!

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:06:40
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1193951729.592781.291670@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> In that case the problem will take care of itself. (Meaning fossil
> fuels will become scare, with no substitutes, and thus more expensive,
> and thus conservative style usage.) You don't need to fix it, and you
> can't anyway.

The implication behind all of these people's arguments is that they're going
to force you to do what they think is "right".

> Of course, substitutes do exist. To the extent the substitutes come
> into play, fossil fuels will remain sitting in the ground at the end
> of the oil age like stones from the stone age, copper from the bronze
> age, iron from the iron age, and information from the information
> age. Oh wait, strike that last one. All human history is the
> information age. It started before Al Gore was born -- imagine that!

The funniest thing is that these people can look at human history and learn
absolutely nothing except that "man will always start wars." Too bad they
never learned there was a great deal more to history.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 12:14:10
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 9:58 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 3:59 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 31, 2:52 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I was thinking
> >> > that you could maintain the same level, roughly, of personal
> >> > comfort while still reducing total energy use by increasing
> >> > efficiency, you know, insulating and stuff like that.
>
> >> Efficiency has steadily increased since the dawn of the industrial
> >> age. Coincidentally, energy use per capita has continued to rise
> >> throughout that entire time. Hmm.....
>
> > Not one Liberal would stop to think of the effect of market forces on
> > the increasing efficiency or the increased use of energy by
> > individuals. Like all jackasses they think that government control is
> > the answer to everything.
>
> And yet, conservation did decrease net energy consumption in the U.S. for a
> brief time (and since population was increasing, per capita use had to
> decrease hmmmm?).
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/total.html

I am not saying there can't be transient shocks downward. I wouldn't
say that. Of course there can be. There could even be "level
shifts" (an offset after transients appear to have settled).

Thanks for the link.

> The fact that the decrease wasn't sustained was more due to the fact that
> there was still excess production capacity. People realized they didn't
> have to conserve, or make small sacrifices in personal comfort (although
> not in overall lifestyle really), so they went back to using more energy.

Good grief no. I have no idea what "/excess/ production capacity" is,
aside from transient unsustainable efforts. Whatever productive
capacity there is, you have to assume-in that people may use it. It
is fundamental to the nature of human beings that "wants" are
insatiable. This is the basis for the unrelenting march to higher
productivity -- a thing that we see is inarguably true (in spite of
policy), at least it is as long as the energy to fuel the march
exists.

Humans are tool users/makers. (They are capitalists.) You can't make
a policy work that denies this basic nature. It would be doomed to
fail. It is in the basic nature of humans to find energy and ways to
harness it. The nature of humans will inevitably work around any
policy you could make that would counter that nature. The only
question is how long it would take. You could kill a lot of people
off though, if you don't know what you're doing.

The reality based world is one where you have the hope that the
policies, processes, and decisions you make take into account the
fundamental nature of "the thing" subject to the imposition.
Otherwise, the bridge might fall down.

> You're both assuming that the global energy system will always have excess
> capacity to produce BTUs at low cost, which I think is likely not true.

Well I don't think of it that way. If substitutes for fossil fuels
aren't found in a timely manner, then I would make no such assertion
and agree that nature itself would be imposing limits. The simple
fact is that massive amounts of energy are technologically available
by the use of breeder reactors. Why wouldn't breeders be used in the
world of tradeoffs?

I think you should drop the word "excess." It is basically a loaded
term that projects your biases. There isn't an "excess." There
simply is what "is."

> I strongly suspect that conservation will be forced on people,
> like it or not, because energy costs will rise to the point
> people simply can't afford their current lifestyle.

Really, there is a difference between nature "forcing" lower usage and
policy /forcing/ conservation. I think policy can have transient
effects, but long term prospects for policy "solutions" are poor.

As far as lifestyles changing, sure, there could be downward shocks --
from whatever cause -- that last for a good long while. There could
be wealth shifts too.

> They will save a dollar on energy so they can
> spend a dollar on food, and not spend that dollar on a different form of
> energy use. That certainly seems to have happened in the 70's. Hmmmm ...

We are talking global. What happened in the US alone is not the
question you are posing. A shift of dollars/wealth to the petroleum
generating nations doesn't imply one thing or another regarding total
enery use. The oil embargos may have shocked global consumption down
for awhile, but was that just a stockpile for future greater
consumption? How do you decide which time brackets are the "right"
ones? Look at those plots again.

This energy thing conflated with humans is a lot like The Second Law.
You won't win that game no matter how you play it. Know it.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 20:46:36
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

>
> Good grief no. I have no idea what "/excess/ production capacity" is,
> aside from transient unsustainable efforts. Whatever productive
> capacity there is, you have to assume-in that people may use it. It
> is fundamental to the nature of human beings that "wants" are
> insatiable. This is the basis for the unrelenting march to higher
> productivity -- a thing that we see is inarguably true (in spite of
> policy), at least it is as long as the energy to fuel the march
> exists.
>

It means that as demand rises, production can increase to meet the rise in
demand. Your assumption that energy use per capita will continue to
increase is predicated on this always being true. It isn't clear petroleum
will continue to obey this model. Most people who seem to me to be clued
in on oil production think it will reach a maximum, at which point it can
rise no further to meet a rise in demand. In this case petroleum will
become more expensive as production relies on more costly sources (either
things like oil shale or coal conversion). Tom may argue this isn't true,
that oil production won't peak, but Tom is a few fries short of a Happy
Meal(tm) in the objective analysis department.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:04:24
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns99DB8C22CA9B2FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> It means that as demand rises, production can increase to meet the rise in
> demand. Your assumption that energy use per capita will continue to
> increase is predicated on this always being true. It isn't clear
> petroleum
> will continue to obey this model. Most people who seem to me to be clued
> in on oil production think it will reach a maximum, at which point it can
> rise no further to meet a rise in demand. In this case petroleum will
> become more expensive as production relies on more costly sources (either
> things like oil shale or coal conversion). Tom may argue this isn't true,
> that oil production won't peak, but Tom is a few fries short of a Happy
> Meal(tm) in the objective analysis department.

Tell you what, since you seem to know me so well why don't you just post for
me this coming week?

Mind dead jackasses such as yourself show the world what sort of world it
would be if Liberals assumed power.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 10:56:20
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 8:05 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 31, 9:44 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>
> > Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
> > respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
> > cost.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Scott, with all of these horrible pollutions all around us why do you
> suppose the average age of death has never been higher? Do you really
> believe that without energy production which allows us an industrial
> and scientific base, that we would live longer?
>
> I often wonder what goes on in the minds of people who think that
> African natives or Aborigines are healthier and live longer.

Tom,

I think you've completely misread my post and you've misread where I
was going in my logic. I didn't say diddly about living longer
without an industrial base or energy production, or whatever. MY
point was that if you can't show significant measurable health
improvements from cutting back on carbon emissions, then you can't use
the notion of health improvements as a basis for cutting back.

Stop looking for an argument in every message and read what's written
so as to get the meaning.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:26:09
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193939780.812104.233990@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 8:05 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 9:44 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>>
>> > Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
>> > respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
>> > cost.
>>
>> Scott, with all of these horrible pollutions all around us why do you
>> suppose the average age of death has never been higher? Do you really
>> believe that without energy production which allows us an industrial
>> and scientific base, that we would live longer?
>>
>> I often wonder what goes on in the minds of people who think that
>> African natives or Aborigines are healthier and live longer.
>
> I think you've completely misread my post and you've misread where I
> was going in my logic. I didn't say diddly about living longer
> without an industrial base or energy production, or whatever. MY
> point was that if you can't show significant measurable health
> improvements from cutting back on carbon emissions, then you can't use
> the notion of health improvements as a basis for cutting back.
>
> Stop looking for an argument in every message and read what's written
> so as to get the meaning.

Scott, I wasn't arguing with you, I was commenting on your subject.

We're fighting this crazy idea that somehow industrialism is bad and
aboriginism is good. Nothing could be farther from the truth and yet it
keeps popping up as a motivation behind a lot of the arguments against the
first world.

What do you suppose is behind this looney idea that we should force people
to use less energy? Even though most of the people on this group operate
inside the economic laws and have bank accounts, apparently a substantial
percentage don't understand the basic tenets of capitalism and instead
ascribe evil intent to it all. Even though it is BY FAR the most effective
economic system ever developed people are still fighting it tooth and nail
to force themselves to be worse off.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:40:52
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <1193939780.812104.233990@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
Scott <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Stop looking for an argument in every message and read what's written
> so as to get the meaning.

You aren't holding your breath waiting for that to happen, are you, Scott?

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 01 Nov 2007 10:38:25
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 10:10 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
>
> Sure, there are by-products that reasonable people agree are
> undesirable. Most everything has an upside/downside character.

Consider - the Liberal hacks were decrying that we used a couple of
chemicals in the packaging of breakfast cereals and other products
that preserved the freshness. They DEMANDED that this be removed so
that the cereals would be nice and stale for them. Then science
discovered that the reason that stomach cancer is only 1% of what it
is in Japan was because we were being exposed to those awful
chemicals.

Have a good day Greg.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 10:34:26
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 10:02 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> No Tom, I don't. That's why the things I said are basically in
> agreement with what a world-renowned expert in hurricane intensification
> from MIT said.

If there's one thing we can depend upon you to tell us it's that you
agree with "WORLD REKNOWN" scientists whom you've never met and
probably know absolutely nothing about.

You know what? I work with information from PhD's all the time and
more than a good proportion of the time they're completely wrong.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 10:31:28
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 9:58 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> You're both assuming that the global energy system will always have excess
> capacity to produce BTUs at low cost, which I think is likely not true.

And of course it's your responsibility to know all about that and to
tell the rest of us what we should be doing. You still haven't gotten
what my argument is yet have you?

Date: 01 Nov 2007 20:17:16
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

> On Nov 1, 9:58 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> You're both assuming that the global energy system will always have
>> excess capacity to produce BTUs at low cost, which I think is likely
>> not true.
>
> And of course it's your responsibility to know all about that and to
> tell the rest of us what we should be doing. You still haven't gotten
> what my argument is yet have you?
>

Of course not. Truthfully, I barely read your posts, mainly skim them
enough to write a response sure to push your buttons (although, that really
isn't hard to do). Isn't that what everybody does?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 01 Nov 2007 10:10:31
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 9:29 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 7:30 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/oct/policy/lk_di...
>
> > I hate to point this out to someone so knowledgeable and all but the Great
> > Smokies aren't burning. What's more, particulate matter is vastly greater
> > over forests and some deserts than over cities. But don't let the facts
> > suggest anything to you at all.
>
> > By the way, one of the projects I was on was the development of a
> > respiratory gas analyzer. So like you know - one had to learn about lung
> > diseases? So like I know that despite Kyle's claim ("Cleaner air, fewer
> > respiratory illnesses") that it is a little more complicated than that.
>
> Kun-Kun,
>
> I grew up in Pittsburgh just before the mills closed.
> Western Pennsylvania river valleys get inversion layers,
> like L.A. Google Donora and killer fog if you must
> know. By the 70s, it was a lot cleaner, but every morning
> the radio weather report listed numeric levels of nitrogen
> oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulates (I can still hear
> the way they said it). Sometimes, the air was brown, and
> smelled sharp, like sulfur. It didn't usually make
> your eyes water like I hear an old-time California smog
> alert did, though. L.A. doesn't have smog alerts nearly
> as often as it once did, and a big reason for that is
> mean old liberals killing the car industry by forcing
> them to reduce tailpipe emissions.

The California government heavily distorted the transportation
industry. They built a lot of roads and incentivized car/highway
travel and the ensuing pollution. (I didn't want to miss a chance to
scratch your eyes out w/ an rbr approved bullshit bingo word.)

> I didn't wind up with respiratory ailments, but give me
> the choice of bicycling through and breathing deep in
> the Great Smoky Mountains vs. 1970s Pittsburgh, L.A.,
> or even sometimes-smogged-in San Jose, and I know which
> I'll take. You would too.

Sure, there are by-products that reasonable people agree are
undesirable. Most everything has an upside/downside character. What
is unbalanced is to say that undesired byproducts must be eliminated
at any cost, only report the negatives, or to fail to report positives
that might be taken away and missed. What is unbalanced is to not be
honest and admit that some pollution is okay and even inevitable in
the real world of tradeoffs.

The actual core and persistant problem is that things like airborne
particulates and gases are difficult to frame a price system about
(where costs are internalized), so that the price becomes an easy way
to grade the tradeoff, or at least get a hint at revealed preferences.

Some people smoke cigarettes. To me that says some people actually
like pollution.

Are you ready to start building breeder reactors in a big way? You
should get ready if you think CO2 and AGW is a major and looming
doomsday problem. You don't have any time to mess around. Life is
about tradeoffs. You can't have everything you want.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 08:11:27
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 7:50 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 9:44 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>
> >> Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
> >> respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
> >> cost.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Scott, with all of these horrible pollutions all around us why do you
> > suppose the average age of death has never been higher? Do you really
> > believe that without energy production which allows us an industrial
> > and scientific base, that we would live longer?
>
> > I often wonder what goes on in the minds of people who think that
> > African natives or Aborigines are healthier and live longer.
>
> Who said that?

That is the central implication of virtually ALL Liberal propaganda -
the noble savage was a much better "shepard" of the land. Most of
those talking about it had no idea that the American Indians were
dying out when the white man arrived. Those who weren't busy murdering
each other were living in such savagery that they're life expectancy
was 25 years or so.

> We could do better, though:

By all means tell me how we could do better? By doing what YOU think
is correct? By doing what I think is correct? Here's a clue - there is
a vast population out there all doing the BEST that they can and the
leftist forcing them to do otherwise will only have one final outcome
- a pogrom.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:09:36
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
> By all means tell me how we could do better? By doing what YOU think
> is correct? By doing what I think is correct? Here's a clue - there is
> a vast population out there all doing the BEST that they can and the
> leftist forcing them to do otherwise will only have one final outcome
> - a pogrom.
>

I'm not the guy with all the answers Tom. Yeah, we do the best we can.
Take a deep breath and relax.
Nice touch though, lecturing a Jewish guy about pogroms.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:18:22
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C81CAB.34730E40
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote in message
news:4TmWi.8$Vf.6@trndny05...
>
> I'm not the guy with all the answers Tom. Yeah, we do the best we can.
> Take a deep breath and relax.
> Nice touch though, lecturing a Jewish guy about pogroms.

Just so we're clear on this:

"In January 1942, SS official Reinhard Heydrich held a meeting of Nazi
government officials to present the Final Solution. At this meeting, known
as the Wannsee Conference , the Nazi officials agreed to SS plans for the
transport and destruction of all 11 million Jews of Europe. The Nazis would
use the latest in twentieth century technology, cost efficient engineering
and mass production techniques for the sole purpose of killing off the
following racial groups: Jews, Russian prisoners of war, and Gypsies
(Sinti-Roma). Their long-range plans, unrealized, included targeting some 30
million Slavs for death."

I'm Slav.

------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C81CAB.34730E40
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="DEFN.GIF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/I/DEFN.GIF

R0lGODlhHQAKAKL/AP///4iIiHd3dzMzMwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAAP8ALAAAAAAdAAoAAANR
CCHT/jC6ANgAODiMyeUEsDWCdhGhBaDoySrNOngxLZ6PHFc4jeOgnYzT29g8q5YLGerMjLVfNOr0
DQPMnNVD8RBMHIEtqPslKViWes1mCwAJADs=

------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C81CAB.34730E40--

Date: 01 Nov 2007 08:06:51
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 7:25 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
>
> Interesting stuff--but it's hard to believe there is a net increase in
> trees as all the suburbs have expanded into previously rural areas. It
> does say this applies in "some parts of the country".

Steve, there's a HUGE increase in trees since the 1800's. Maybe you
don't remember that the Bison herds kept the vast majority of the
central USA bare of trees?

Date: 01 Nov 2007 15:25:02
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 1, 7:25 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>> Interesting stuff--but it's hard to believe there is a net increase in
>> trees as all the suburbs have expanded into previously rural areas. It
>> does say this applies in "some parts of the country".
>
> Steve, there's a HUGE increase in trees since the 1800's. Maybe you
> don't remember that the Bison herds kept the vast majority of the
> central USA bare of trees?
>

If God wanted us to be vegetarians, how come he made bison out of meat?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 01 Nov 2007 08:05:22
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 6:56 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> On the other hand, the argument that cutting down on carbon emissions
> is good IF it involves cutting back on Middle East oil consumption,
> I'm for it. Unless, of course, it cripples our economy to do so AND
> the Chinese and others, who haven't cut back, are still polluting AND
> still growing their economies. Then, I'm not so much for it anymore.

And indeed that's the very problem, Scott.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 08:02:46
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 1, 3:59 am, Stu Fleming <stew...@wic.co.nz > wrote:
> Pete wrote:
> > Because the inhabitants of certain areas (Richmond, for starters)
> > don't like it when a spring tide goes over the banks and floods their
> > houses and cars. Apparently this never used to happen, now the tide
> > occasionally (every few months) gets that high. Closing the barrier
>
> I saw a picture of an Icelandic shorefront the other day. I had
> forgotten how pronounced the machair was on northern shores. "Never
> used to happen" = "In living memory".

Err, it was my understanding that Machair was formed by the sea level
going down.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:02:37
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 1, 3:59 am, Stu Fleming <stew...@wic.co.nz> wrote:
>> Pete wrote:
>>> Because the inhabitants of certain areas (Richmond, for starters)
>>> don't like it when a spring tide goes over the banks and floods their
>>> houses and cars. Apparently this never used to happen, now the tide
>>> occasionally (every few months) gets that high. Closing the barrier
>> I saw a picture of an Icelandic shorefront the other day. I had
>> forgotten how pronounced the machair was on northern shores. "Never
>> used to happen" = "In living memory".
>
> Err, it was my understanding that Machair was formed by the sea level
> going down.
>
Machair is the grassy meadows that grow on the sand dunes formed by
broken down cockle shells which created the beaches
http://www.wildlifehebrides.com/environment/machair/

Date: 01 Nov 2007 07:55:13
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 3:59 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2:52 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I was thinking
> > that you could maintain the same level, roughly, of personal comfort while
> > still reducing total energy use by increasing efficiency, you know,
> > insulating and stuff like that.
>
> Efficiency has steadily increased since the dawn of the industrial
> age. Coincidentally, energy use per capita has continued to rise
> throughout that entire time. Hmm.....

Not one Liberal would stop to think of the effect of market forces on
the increasing efficiency or the increased use of energy by
individuals. Like all jackasses they think that government control is
the answer to everything.

Asher simply doesn't have the capability to understand that the world
is composed of individuals all doing what they can. In his small world
view they are all pawns open for his experimentation and manipulation.
Anyone else have the idea that this was the guy everyone beat up in
3rd grade? It seemns to have damaged him for life.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:58:38
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

> On Oct 31, 3:59 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 2:52 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I was thinking
>> > that you could maintain the same level, roughly, of personal
>> > comfort while still reducing total energy use by increasing
>> > efficiency, you know, insulating and stuff like that.
>>
>> Efficiency has steadily increased since the dawn of the industrial
>> age. Coincidentally, energy use per capita has continued to rise
>> throughout that entire time. Hmm.....
>
> Not one Liberal would stop to think of the effect of market forces on
> the increasing efficiency or the increased use of energy by
> individuals. Like all jackasses they think that government control is
> the answer to everything.

And yet, conservation did decrease net energy consumption in the U.S. for a
brief time (and since population was increasing, per capita use had to
decrease hmmmm?).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/total.html

The fact that the decrease wasn't sustained was more due to the fact that
there was still excess production capacity. People realized they didn't
have to conserve, or make small sacrifices in personal comfort (although
not in overall lifestyle really), so they went back to using more energy.

You're both assuming that the global energy system will always have excess
capacity to produce BTUs at low cost, which I think is likely not true. I
strongly suspect that conservation will be forced on people, like it or
not, because energy costs will rise to the point people simply can't afford
their current lifestyle. They will save a dollar on energy so they can
spend a dollar on food, and not spend that dollar on a different form of
energy use. That certainly seems to have happened in the 70's. Hmmmm ...

Hey, I have to get back to my dirt-floor hovel on the savannah plotting to
overthrow society and have Hillary be president. Then who will be sorry?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Bill Asher

p.s. Notice how I am not so cranky? That's all the fiber. Ahhhhhhhh!

Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:37:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <Xns99DB657C3383EFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> p.s. Notice how I am not so cranky? That's all the fiber. Ahhhhhhhh!

He ate so much fiber he got rope burn out his ass.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 01 Nov 2007 23:51:17
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Global Warming

William Asher wrote:
>
> Hey, I have to get back to my dirt-floor hovel on the savannah plotting to
> overthrow society and have Hillary be president. Then who will be sorry?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Everyone?

Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:47:57
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

> Asher simply doesn't have the capability to understand that the world
> is composed of individuals all doing what they can. In his small world
> view they are all pawns open for his experimentation and manipulation.
> Anyone else have the idea that this was the guy everyone beat up in
> 3rd grade? It seemns to have damaged him for life.

Oooh, that's a better track of insults for me. The gay slurs weren't
working, grade-school hazing might resonate better. I suggest you focus on
hgh school though. I hated high school, grade school wasn't so bad.

Try some more and I will let you know how you're doing. I could simplify
this by just going "warmer" or "colder."

--
Bill Asher

Date: 01 Nov 2007 07:50:11
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 2:52 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> In regards to energy, it didn't ever cross my mind to take away stoves and
> ovens but that would certainly help reduce consumption. I was thinking
> that you could maintain the same level, roughly, of personal comfort while
> still reducing total energy use by increasing efficiency, you know,
> insulating and stuff like that.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us what you know about the cost of
manufacturing these insulators, the cost of installation, the cost of
removal and disposal and all? Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate that
you're at least AWARE that nothing is free. But I highly doubt your
ability to understand that.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 07:46:11
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 12:11 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
>
> This is just a bunch of horseshit. And that is because it fails to
> recognize that fossil fuel burning has environmental benefits, but you
> act like it is just "cost" by not including it in your analysis.
> Reducing emissions isn't a freebee: people lose the benefit derived
> from using the fossil fuel. In the world of tradeoffs -- the real
> world -- an individual may decide the upside outweighs the downside.
> The individual who uses energy does so for the very purpose of
> _improving_ their _environment_ -- that may be nothing more than
> heating their house in the winter.
>
> In short, the benefits from burning fossil fuels may be valued more
> than the cost of reduced health. In point of fact, living in a warm
> rather than cold room may have health benefits. What if someone dies
> because they ate uncooked food -- cooking heat (energy) could have
> otherwise killed a killer bacteria. As usual, the analysis contains
> only what is seen, not what is lost and thus unseen. What if someone
> doesn't get to the hospital on time and dies because they didn't have
> a speedy fossil fuel burning automobile? How did you count that in
> your analysis. Numbers are not automatically facts. Facts do not
> speak for themselves.

These morons don't understand this mostly because they can't
understand anything that isn't fed to them like pablum by their
Liberal masters.

Imagine anyone believing that living in a heated and cooled home with
all the comforts is somehow inferior to living in a dirt hovel in the
middle of a savanna? Imagine anyone believing that eating a steak is
inferior to digging up roots and crapping 12 lbs of "fiber" every
single day. Imgaine the minds of those who try to keep primative
tribes primative apparently in the belief that they're better off that
way?

The mental illness of the left is what really needs to be addressed.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:31:18
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <1193928371.214631.148130@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> These morons don't understand this mostly because they can't
> understand anything that isn't fed to them like pablum by their
> Liberal masters.
>
> Imagine anyone believing that living in a heated and cooled home with
> all the comforts is somehow inferior to living in a dirt hovel in the
> middle of a savanna? Imagine anyone believing that eating a steak is
> inferior to digging up roots and crapping 12 lbs of "fiber" every
> single day. Imgaine the minds of those who try to keep primative
> tribes primative apparently in the belief that they're better off that
> way?

Oh yes, do let's imagine that. Because that's exactly where it happens - in your
imagination.

> The mental illness of the left is what really needs to be addressed.

"Oh, there's going to be a pogrom and they'll send me to a re-education camp!
They'll have a Final Solution! Hillary will be the last president this country will
ever have!"

Mental illness, huh? Hmmmmmmmm...

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:01:30
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom wrote:
> These morons don't understand

Shirley you meant gay morons.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 15:21:38
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Donald Munro wrote:
> cyclintom wrote:
>> These morons don't understand
>
> Shirley you meant gay morons.
>

http://billtush.com/blog/archives/000009.html

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 01 Nov 2007 07:05:52
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 9:44 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>
> Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
> respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
> cost.- Hide quoted text -

Scott, with all of these horrible pollutions all around us why do you
suppose the average age of death has never been higher? Do you really
believe that without energy production which allows us an industrial
and scientific base, that we would live longer?

I often wonder what goes on in the minds of people who think that
African natives or Aborigines are healthier and live longer.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 14:50:24
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 31, 9:44 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>>
>> Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
>> respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
>> cost.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Scott, with all of these horrible pollutions all around us why do you
> suppose the average age of death has never been higher? Do you really
> believe that without energy production which allows us an industrial
> and scientific base, that we would live longer?
>
> I often wonder what goes on in the minds of people who think that
> African natives or Aborigines are healthier and live longer.
>

Who said that?

We could do better, though:

http://tinyurl.com/254nx7

http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa03/images/p24.gif

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:14:57
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote in message
news:QIlWi.2$Ie.1@trndny04...
>
> We could do better, though:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/254nx7

You are aware that Tokyo and other industrialized Japanese cities have far
dirtier air than the USA?

> http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa03/images/p24.gif

Does it occur to you for even one second that we're the only country letting
in large quantities of third world citizens and that THEIR death rate is
what's greatly effecting the US averages?

Date: 02 Nov 2007 13:43:08
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
> news:QIlWi.2$Ie.1@trndny04...
>>
>> We could do better, though:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/254nx7
>
> You are aware that Tokyo and other industrialized Japanese cities have
> far dirtier air than the USA?
>
>> http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa03/images/p24.gif
>
> Does it occur to you for even one second that we're the only country
> letting in large quantities of third world citizens and that THEIR death
> rate is what's greatly effecting the US averages?

Oh, DO tell. I'm sure the Brits and the French would agree with that.

That's kinda like core inflation. If ya omit energy and food, it looks
pretty good!
We were all pretty third-world when we came over--and you know it.

Steve

Date: 02 Nov 2007 17:00:12
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

> Does it occur to you for even one second that we're the only country
> letting in large quantities of third world citizens and that THEIR death
> rate is what's greatly effecting the US averages?

Tell my friends in France that the US is the only country letting in "large
quantities of third world citizens" and you might get a earful.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:13ikr03ad6njra9@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
> news:QIlWi.2$Ie.1@trndny04...
>>
>> We could do better, though:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/254nx7
>
> You are aware that Tokyo and other industrialized Japanese cities have far
> dirtier air than the USA?
>
>> http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa03/images/p24.gif
>
> Does it occur to you for even one second that we're the only country
> letting in large quantities of third world citizens and that THEIR death
> rate is what's greatly effecting the US averages?

Date: 02 Nov 2007 13:57:30
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Dans le message de news:wIIWi.52184$RX.33813@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net,
Mike Jacoubowsky <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> Does it occur to you for even one second that we're the only country
>> letting in large quantities of third world citizens and that THEIR
>> death rate is what's greatly effecting the US averages?
>
> Tell my friends in France that the US is the only country letting in
> "large quantities of third world citizens" and you might get a earful.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Or Germany, or Spain, or the UK .....
--
--
Sandy

--
Si les autres parties du monde ont des singes ; l'Europe a des Fran�ais.
Cela se compense.
[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Date: 01 Nov 2007 06:58:07
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 7:02 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150
> @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> The
> >> point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
> >> were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
>
> > There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort
> > to lies.
>
> Tom:
>
> You said:
>
> "I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
> leftists."
>
> Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of
> 4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay
> Area, it seemed mild"?

You really don't understand what you're talking about do you?

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:02:44
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

> On Oct 31, 7:02 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150
>> @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The
>> >> point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that
>> >> there were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
>>
>> > There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side
>> > resort to lies.
>>
>> Tom:
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> "I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally
>> mild ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs.
>> That is - absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of
>> their beloved leftists."
>>
>> Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total
>> of 4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in
>> the Bay Area, it seemed mild"?
>
> You really don't understand what you're talking about do you?
>

No Tom, I don't. That's why the things I said are basically in
agreement with what a world-renowned expert in hurricane intensification
from MIT said. You, on the other hand, are in agreement with NewsMax and
the guys from on the usenet group
alt.I.Gave.Rush.A.HandJob.and.He.Came.In.My.Hair.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 01 Nov 2007 06:56:31
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 7:38 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> >> Kyle Legate wrote:
> >>> Scott wrote:
> >>>> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
> >>>> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
> >>> Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.
> >> Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.
>
> >> Steve
>
> >> --
> >> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
> >> Brooklyn, NY
> >> 718-258-5001
>
> > Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>
> > Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
> > respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
> > cost.
>
> That would be tough. In all seriousness, I'm sure some will try to
> crunch the numbers. But because there are so many potential causes of
> lung disease, only the most egregious (smoking) is not refutable (not
> that they don't try). It is tough to point at one factor responsible
> for the significant increase in asthma and related diseases in the
> population. Also, the variable distribution of pollutants would likely
> make a meaningful prospective study difficult.
> This doesn't mean that products of petroleum combustion--both carbon
> based as well as sulfur and nitrogen oxides associated with their
> combustion haven't been demonstrated to be toxic--just that it would be
> tough to generate the statistics in the general population that would
> convince people disinclined to draw the (to me obvious) conclusions.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In response to your last paragraph, it seems (I could be wrong) that
you may be one of those "if it saves even one life" types. I'm not
convinced by that argument and if the best folks can come up with is
that its obvious that burning fossil fuels is bad, but we can tell you
how bad or how much better it will be if we quit, I'm not persuaded.

On the other hand, the argument that cutting down on carbon emissions
is good IF it involves cutting back on Middle East oil consumption,
I'm for it. Unless, of course, it cripples our economy to do so AND
the Chinese and others, who haven't cut back, are still polluting AND
still growing their economies. Then, I'm not so much for it anymore.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 14:45:50
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Scott wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 7:38 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>>> <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>>>> Kyle Legate wrote:
>>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>>> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
>>>>>> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>>>>> Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.
>>>> Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.
>>>> Steve
>>>> --
>>>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>>>> Brooklyn, NY
>>>> 718-258-5001
>>> Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>>> Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
>>> respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
>>> cost.
>> That would be tough. In all seriousness, I'm sure some will try to
>> crunch the numbers. But because there are so many potential causes of
>> lung disease, only the most egregious (smoking) is not refutable (not
>> that they don't try). It is tough to point at one factor responsible
>> for the significant increase in asthma and related diseases in the
>> population. Also, the variable distribution of pollutants would likely
>> make a meaningful prospective study difficult.
>> This doesn't mean that products of petroleum combustion--both carbon
>> based as well as sulfur and nitrogen oxides associated with their
>> combustion haven't been demonstrated to be toxic--just that it would be
>> tough to generate the statistics in the general population that would
>> convince people disinclined to draw the (to me obvious) conclusions.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> --
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In response to your last paragraph, it seems (I could be wrong) that
> you may be one of those "if it saves even one life" types.

No, I'm not. And while I spent 4 months ferrying my father to Memorial
Hospital last month to ultimately have the upper lobe of his right lung
removed (he did have a smoking history), I heard of more and more
emphysema, lung cancer and pulmonary fibrosis cases in patients with no
known risk factors. Clearly this isn't all from burning of petroleum
and coal-based fuels (radon gas is supposed to be a significant
contributor, as is chemical pollution not directly tied to the petroleum
industry), I suspect that if it were possible to do a controlled study
it would be a very significant contributor.
Unfortunately, the world is likely filled with bad things you can't
prove, so people wind up acting on what they want to believe. I don't
think I'm necessarily any smarter than anyone else on this issue, and I
still drive my car.

Steve

I'm not
> convinced by that argument and if the best folks can come up with is
> that its obvious that burning fossil fuels is bad, but we can tell you
> how bad or how much better it will be if we quit, I'm not persuaded.
>
> On the other hand, the argument that cutting down on carbon emissions
> is good IF it involves cutting back on Middle East oil consumption,
> I'm for it. Unless, of course, it cripples our economy to do so AND
> the Chinese and others, who haven't cut back, are still polluting AND
> still growing their economies. Then, I'm not so much for it anymore.
>

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 01 Nov 2007 06:49:06
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 11:32 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > Your second response makes more sense, but that notwithstanding, the
> > article you reference doesn't say much of anything about how great the
> > problem is with regards to CO emissions or how great the reduction in
> > CO emissions must be before we see significant improvements in the
> > related health issues. Which leads me to conclude that if the numbers
> > were all that impressive they wouldn't have left them out, and which
> > leads me rephrase the question for you, what exactly are the
> > significant, quantifiable non-environmental benefits we'll reap with
> > reduced carbon emissions?
>
> I'm not sure you can put a quantifiable number on these things, yet. But
> to argue there is no implied environmental benefits to decreasing the
> burning of fossil fuels is illogical. For instance, the benefits in terms
> of reduced NOx formation (both from vehicles and point sources) and the
> impact that would have on tropospheric ozone could be significant (see
> reference below). In urban environments, reducing the amount of fugitive
> fuel emissions per day (which would be a side-product of using less fuel
> (pump less, less evaporative losses during fuel transfer)), would reduce
> the primary organics that produce the SOA that forms the PM2.5 from
> photochemical smog. There is not enough data at this point to determine
> what level emissions would have to fall to for there to be a measurable
> effect on PM2.5, or what level PM2.5 has to fall to for there to be a
> decrease in its impact on human health. It is likely there will never be
> enough data for that, given the difficulty of doing that sort of study on
> human populations, but to claim there is no reasonable expectation of a
> benefit is wrong.
>
> Example of the sort of paper out there in the literature related to this
> (the implication being that if power plants burned less coal, they would
> produce less NOx):
>
> NOx emissions from large point sources: variability in ozone production,
> resulting health damages and economic costs
>
> Denise L. Mauzerall, Babar Sultanc, Namsoug Kima and David F. Bradford
>
> Atmospheric Environment
> Volume 39, Issue 16, May 2005, Pages 2851-2866
>
> Abstract: We present a proof-of-concept analysis of the measurement of the
> health damage of ozone (O3) produced from nitrogen oxides (NOx=NO+NO2)
> emitted by individual large point sources in the eastern United States. We
> use a regional atmospheric model of the eastern United States, the
> Comprehensive Air quality Model with Extensions (CAMx), to quantify the
> variable impact that a fixed quantity of NOx emitted from individual
> sources can have on the downwind concentration of surface O3, depending on
> temperature and local biogenic hydrocarbon emissions. We also examine the
> dependence of resulting O3-related health damages on the size of the
> exposed population. The investigation is relevant to the increasingly
> widely used "cap and trade" approach to NOx regulation, which presumes that
> shifts of emissions over time and space, holding the total fixed over the
> course of the summer O3 season, will have minimal effect on the
> environmental outcome. By contrast, we show that a shift of a unit of NOx
> emissions from one place or time to another could result in large changes
> in resulting health effects due to O3 formation and exposure. We indicate
> how the type of modeling carried out here might be used to attach
> externality-correcting prices to emissions. Charging emitters fees that are
> commensurate with the damage caused by their NOx emissions would create an
> incentive for emitters to reduce emissions at times and in locations where
> they cause the largest damage.
>
> (From the conclusions, ibid.: Using an integrated assessment model without
> chemistry, analyses of the benefits of an annual (rather than just summer)
> NOx emissions cap were found to yield substantial net benefits due to
> reduction of PM2.5 concentrations and its detrimental health effects
> (Burtraw et al., 2001 and Burtraw et al., 2003). )
>
> But, in my opinion, the greatest benefit we would get from reducing our
> dependence on oil is being able to tell Prince Bandar and the entire
> miserable lot of the House of Saud, along with the Emir of Kuwait, to all
> go fuck themselves.
>
> --
> Bill Asher

I wasn't implying that there aren't any benefits. I asked someone who
was clearly claiming non-environmental benefits to please elaborate.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 09:40:25
From: Pete
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 1 Nov, 02:34, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Pete, what is the reason that they are closing the Thames off from the sea?
> I notice that the government is now declaring that there is another "danger"
> from flooding and they're going to have to build some bigger and better
> gates. That would make me terribly suspicious.

Because the inhabitants of certain areas (Richmond, for starters)
don't like it when a spring tide goes over the banks and floods their
houses and cars. Apparently this never used to happen, now the tide
occasionally (every few months) gets that high. Closing the barrier
stops that happening; though you still don't want to park your car too
close to the river around thoes times, or it will get wet. Slightly
higher sea levels, slightly lower Southern England, and those few
centimetres difference in the high tide mark do make a difference.

Right now you'll find it easy to persuade people to pay for flood
defence systems (we had about the worst flooding in memory this summer
due to continuous rain), and also floods that occur due to the tides
annoy people more - imagine being told in March when you're buying new
carpets that yes, you will be flooded again in September in exactly
the same way because the tide patterns work that way...

Pete
who lives a few metres above the high tide mark, well out of any flood
risk for now

Date: 02 Nov 2007 00:52:36
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article
<1193910025.307445.158090@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
Pete <petersr1088@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On 1 Nov, 02:34, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > Pete, what is the reason that they are closing the Thames off from the sea?
> > I notice that the government is now declaring that there is another "danger"
> > from flooding and they're going to have to build some bigger and better
> > gates. That would make me terribly suspicious.
>
> Because the inhabitants of certain areas (Richmond, for starters)
> don't like it when a spring tide goes over the banks and floods their
> houses and cars. Apparently this never used to happen, now the tide
> occasionally (every few months) gets that high. Closing the barrier
> stops that happening; though you still don't want to park your car too
> close to the river around thoes times, or it will get wet. Slightly
> higher sea levels, slightly lower Southern England, and those few
> centimetres difference in the high tide mark do make a difference.
>
> Right now you'll find it easy to persuade people to pay for flood
> defence systems (we had about the worst flooding in memory this summer
> due to continuous rain), and also floods that occur due to the tides
> annoy people more - imagine being told in March when you're buying new
> carpets that yes, you will be flooded again in September in exactly
> the same way because the tide patterns work that way...
>
> Pete
> who lives a few metres above the high tide mark, well out of any flood
> risk for now

The main reason flood levels rise around the south of
the island of Britain is that the southern portion
of the island of Britain is sinking.

--
Michael Press

Date: 01 Nov 2007 18:02:01
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-FE9A79.17523601112007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <1193910025.307445.158090@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Pete <petersr1088@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1 Nov, 02:34, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> > Pete, what is the reason that they are closing the Thames off from the
>> > sea?
>> > I notice that the government is now declaring that there is another
>> > "danger"
>> > from flooding and they're going to have to build some bigger and better
>> > gates. That would make me terribly suspicious.
>>
>> Because the inhabitants of certain areas (Richmond, for starters)
>> don't like it when a spring tide goes over the banks and floods their
>> houses and cars. Apparently this never used to happen, now the tide
>> occasionally (every few months) gets that high. Closing the barrier
>> stops that happening; though you still don't want to park your car too
>> close to the river around thoes times, or it will get wet. Slightly
>> higher sea levels, slightly lower Southern England, and those few
>> centimetres difference in the high tide mark do make a difference.
>>
>> Right now you'll find it easy to persuade people to pay for flood
>> defence systems (we had about the worst flooding in memory this summer
>> due to continuous rain), and also floods that occur due to the tides
>> annoy people more - imagine being told in March when you're buying new
>> carpets that yes, you will be flooded again in September in exactly
>> the same way because the tide patterns work that way...
>>
>> Pete
>> who lives a few metres above the high tide mark, well out of any flood
>> risk for now
>
> The main reason flood levels rise around the south of
> the island of Britain is that the southern portion
> of the island of Britain is sinking.

It's all that ego - the weight of it is just getting unbearable.

Date: 02 Nov 2007 09:33:54
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Michael Press wrote:
>> The main reason flood levels rise around the south of the island of
>> Britain is that the southern portion of the island of Britain is
>> sinking.

Tom Kunich wrote:
> It's all that ego - the weight of it is just getting unbearable.

More likely they're emulating their cross-pond cousins:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7002/437

Date: 01 Nov 2007 23:59:29
From: Stu Fleming
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Pete wrote:

> Because the inhabitants of certain areas (Richmond, for starters)
> don't like it when a spring tide goes over the banks and floods their
> houses and cars. Apparently this never used to happen, now the tide
> occasionally (every few months) gets that high. Closing the barrier

I saw a picture of an Icelandic shorefront the other day. I had
forgotten how pronounced the machair was on northern shores. "Never
used to happen" = "In living memory".

Date: 01 Nov 2007 12:56:50
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Stu Fleming wrote:

> I saw a picture of an Icelandic shorefront the other day. I had
> forgotten how pronounced the machair was on northern shores. "Never
> used to happen" = "In living memory".

I was just in the Outer Hebrides a few weeks ago. The machair there (on
the West coasts)is still very strong, and the sand dunes very
impressive. But some storms are getting so bad it is not stopping sea
spray getting right into the centre of islands like Benbecula. My aged
aunt of 90 odd years says she has never known anything like "but they
don't have the winter cold" they used to.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 10:45:48
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Dans le message de news:5ou0o7Foovg5U1@mid.individual.net,
Dan Gregory <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > a r�fl�chi, et puis
a d�clar� :
> Stu Fleming wrote:
>
>> I saw a picture of an Icelandic shorefront the other day. I had
>> forgotten how pronounced the machair was on northern shores. "Never
>> used to happen" = "In living memory".
>
> I was just in the Outer Hebrides a few weeks ago. The machair there
> (on the West coasts)is still very strong, and the sand dunes very
> impressive. But some storms are getting so bad it is not stopping sea
> spray getting right into the centre of islands like Benbecula. My aged
> aunt of 90 odd years says she has never known anything like "but they
> don't have the winter cold" they used to.

Good to know there's a positive side to this.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:33:22
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Dan Gregory wrote:
>> I was just in the Outer Hebrides a few weeks ago. The machair there (on
>> the West coasts)is still very strong, and the sand dunes very
>> impressive. But some storms are getting so bad it is not stopping sea
>> spray getting right into the centre of islands like Benbecula. My aged
>> aunt of 90 odd years says she has never known anything like "but they
>> don't have the winter cold" they used to.

Sandy wrote:
> Good to know there's a positive side to this.

That they're sentencing those accused of anti-social crimes like filling
more than one garbage bag in London to the Outer Hebrides ?

Date: 31 Oct 2007 21:32:11
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 5:20 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> [ A really good troll ]

Dumbass -

He's not trolling, he's arguing.

A really good troll starts a thread, then leaves the carnage to
everyone else.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 01 Nov 2007 04:29:23
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 7:30 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/oct/policy/lk_di...
>
> I hate to point this out to someone so knowledgeable and all but the Great
> Smokies aren't burning. What's more, particulate matter is vastly greater
> over forests and some deserts than over cities. But don't let the facts
> suggest anything to you at all.
>
> By the way, one of the projects I was on was the development of a
> respiratory gas analyzer. So like you know - one had to learn about lung
> diseases? So like I know that despite Kyle's claim ("Cleaner air, fewer
> respiratory illnesses") that it is a little more complicated than that.

Kun-Kun,

I grew up in Pittsburgh just before the mills closed.
Western Pennsylvania river valleys get inversion layers,
like L.A. Google Donora and killer fog if you must
know. By the 70s, it was a lot cleaner, but every morning
the radio weather report listed numeric levels of nitrogen
oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulates (I can still hear
the way they said it). Sometimes, the air was brown, and
smelled sharp, like sulfur. It didn't usually make
your eyes water like I hear an old-time California smog
alert did, though. L.A. doesn't have smog alerts nearly
as often as it once did, and a big reason for that is
mean old liberals killing the car industry by forcing
them to reduce tailpipe emissions.

I didn't wind up with respiratory ailments, but give me
the choice of bicycling through and breathing deep in
the Great Smoky Mountains vs. 1970s Pittsburgh, L.A.,
or even sometimes-smogged-in San Jose, and I know which
I'll take. You would too.

Ben

Date: 31 Oct 2007 15:59:45
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 2:52 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> I was thinking
> that you could maintain the same level, roughly, of personal comfort while
> still reducing total energy use by increasing efficiency, you know,
> insulating and stuff like that.

Efficiency has steadily increased since the dawn of the industrial
age. Coincidentally, energy use per capita has continued to rise
throughout that entire time. Hmm.....

"But such an improvement of the engine, when effected, will only
accelerate anew the consumption of coal." -- William Stanley Jevons,
_The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation,
and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines_, 1865

http://www.eoearth.org/article/The_Coal_Question:_Of_the_Economy_of_Fuel

> Also, instead of forcing people to turn
> their heat completely off, maybe just turn down temperature from 75 F to 68
> F, or raising the temperature of the air conditioner from 68 F to 75 F.

Ceteris paribus, that won't change (world) aggregate energy
consumption by a single joule. We've been over this before. If you
save a dollar on your heating bill, or in your gas tank, what do you
do with the dollar?

> In
> my defense though, I don't live in a binary all-or-nothing world like you
> do and you've thought this through more than I have, you being the chess
> player and all.

Ah, you're just being disingenuous.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 22:38:40
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 6:20 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> [ A really good troll ]
>
> After all these years I can't figure out why people still
> respond to this shit. But lots of you do. Go figure.

This is like wondering why dogs fetch sticks when you
throw them. After all, you're just going to throw
the stick again, so why bring it back in the first
place? From the Masters Fattie point of view, it
would be simpler to ignore the stick and curl up
with a beer or a bowl of kibble - but that's not
the way the dog thinks about playing fetch.

[Swami mode on] RBR is a journey, not a destination.
Yes, it's a _stupid_ journey. But that's missing
the point.

Ben

Date: 31 Oct 2007 13:38:38
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 12:33 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> > Numbers are not automatically facts.
>
> Especially imaginary numbers.

I ironically find imaginary numbers very real, on a daily basis.

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

> > "Life is about tradeoffs." -- Ben Franklin, 1759
>
> He's right. I had to give up Paris Hilton for my job as official WADA
> breast implant checker and to find the time to post to rbr.

"Life is a bitch. Literally." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

Date: 31 Oct 2007 12:25:14
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 12:15 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in messagenews:1193855320.911020.207590@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 31, 9:35 am, Dan Gregory
> > <dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> > Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude
> >> > 6?
>
> >> A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening
>
> > Maybe it got my professor primate out of bed and off autopilot.
>
> Not too likely. I believe he lives in Marin county, so if he felt it at all,
> it was pretty mild.

I'm in Sonoma County and I didn't feel it. But I could have been
driving by RBR, since it is on the way.

http://www.intowine.com/files/IMG_0397_0.JPG

How weird is it that I drive by that RBR sign everyday?

Date: 31 Oct 2007 12:11:18
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 10:32 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Scott wrote:

> > Which leads me to conclude that if the numbers
> > were all that impressive they wouldn't have left them out, and which
> > leads me rephrase the question for you, what exactly are the
> > significant, quantifiable non-environmental benefits we'll reap with
> > reduced carbon emissions?
>
> I'm not sure you can put a quantifiable number on these things, yet.

Good god! Sounds like we need a new government agency and to expand
University of California @ Berkeley funding. We need more
statisticians, and especially more government mandated primates busily
at work in their taxpayer supported lab, doing tireless research for
the purpose of saving ourselves from ourselves. I am glad they
appreciate my generous support of this important work.

> But
> to argue there is no implied environmental benefits to decreasing the
> burning of fossil fuels is illogical. For instance, the benefits in terms
> of reduced NOx formation (both from vehicles and point sources) and the
> impact that would have on tropospheric ozone could be significant (see
> reference below). In urban environments, reducing the amount of fugitive
> fuel emissions per day (which would be a side-product of using less fuel
> (pump less, less evaporative losses during fuel transfer)), would reduce
> the primary organics that produce the SOA that forms the PM2.5 from
> photochemical smog. There is not enough data at this point to determine
> what level emissions would have to fall to for there to be a measurable
> effect on PM2.5, or what level PM2.5 has to fall to for there to be a
> decrease in its impact on human health. It is likely there will never be
> enough data for that, given the difficulty of doing that sort of study on
> human populations, but to claim there is no reasonable expectation of a
> benefit is wrong.

This is just a bunch of horseshit. And that is because it fails to
recognize that fossil fuel burning has environmental benefits, but you
act like it is just "cost" by not including it in your analysis.
Reducing emissions isn't a freebee: people lose the benefit derived
from using the fossil fuel. In the world of tradeoffs -- the real
world -- an individual may decide the upside outweighs the downside.
The individual who uses energy does so for the very purpose of
_improving_ their _environment_ -- that may be nothing more than
heating their house in the winter.

In short, the benefits from burning fossil fuels may be valued more
than the cost of reduced health. In point of fact, living in a warm
rather than cold room may have health benefits. What if someone dies
because they ate uncooked food -- cooking heat (energy) could have
otherwise killed a killer bacteria. As usual, the analysis contains
only what is seen, not what is lost and thus unseen. What if someone
doesn't get to the hospital on time and dies because they didn't have
a speedy fossil fuel burning automobile? How did you count that in
your analysis. Numbers are not automatically facts. Facts do not
speak for themselves.

"Life is about tradeoffs." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

The only way for you to get any traction on this is to talk about
spillover effects and methods to internalize costs. Some people
choose to smoke cigarettes because of how it makes them feel. Why?

> Example of the sort of paper out there in the literature related to this
> (the implication being that if power plants burned less coal, they would
> produce less NOx):

If it were not for the actions of so-called "environmentalists" over
the past 40 years there would be fewer coal plants in the US than
there are now.

> NOx emissions from large point sources: variability in ozone production,
> resulting health damages and economic costs

The NOx emissions are a side effect from energy production, which is
perceived by the consumer/user (of energy) to have economic benefits.

> Denise L. Mauzerall, Babar Sultanc, Namsoug Kima and David F. Bradford
>
> <snip junk>

> But, in my opinion, the greatest benefit we would get from reducing our
> dependence on oil is being able to tell Prince Bandar and the entire
> miserable lot of the House of Saud, along with the Emir of Kuwait, to all
> go fuck themselves.

Implementing your need to say fuck you by guvmint fiat sure sounds
like a spillover effect to me. Okay, maybe a political rent instead.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 21:52:07
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> On Oct 31, 10:32 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>
>> > Which leads me to conclude that if the numbers
>> > were all that impressive they wouldn't have left them out, and
>> > which leads me rephrase the question for you, what exactly are the
>> > significant, quantifiable non-environmental benefits we'll reap
>> > with reduced carbon emissions?
>>
>> I'm not sure you can put a quantifiable number on these things, yet.
>
> Good god! Sounds like we need a new government agency and to expand
> University of California @ Berkeley funding. We need more
> statisticians, and especially more government mandated primates busily
> at work in their taxpayer supported lab, doing tireless research for
> the purpose of saving ourselves from ourselves. I am glad they
> appreciate my generous support of this important work.
>
>> But
>> to argue there is no implied environmental benefits to decreasing the
>> burning of fossil fuels is illogical. For instance, the benefits in
>> terms of reduced NOx formation (both from vehicles and point sources)
>> and the impact that would have on tropospheric ozone could be
>> significant (see reference below). In urban environments, reducing
>> the amount of fugitive fuel emissions per day (which would be a
>> side-product of using less fuel (pump less, less evaporative losses
>> during fuel transfer)), would reduce the primary organics that
>> produce the SOA that forms the PM2.5 from photochemical smog. There
>> is not enough data at this point to determine what level emissions
>> would have to fall to for there to be a measurable effect on PM2.5,
>> or what level PM2.5 has to fall to for there to be a decrease in its
>> impact on human health. It is likely there will never be enough data
>> for that, given the difficulty of doing that sort of study on human
>> populations, but to claim there is no reasonable expectation of a
>> benefit is wrong.
>
> This is just a bunch of horseshit. And that is because it fails to
> recognize that fossil fuel burning has environmental benefits, but you
> act like it is just "cost" by not including it in your analysis.
> Reducing emissions isn't a freebee: people lose the benefit derived
> from using the fossil fuel. In the world of tradeoffs -- the real
> world -- an individual may decide the upside outweighs the downside.
> The individual who uses energy does so for the very purpose of
> _improving_ their _environment_ -- that may be nothing more than
> heating their house in the winter.
>
> In short, the benefits from burning fossil fuels may be valued more
> than the cost of reduced health. In point of fact, living in a warm
> rather than cold room may have health benefits. What if someone dies
> because they ate uncooked food -- cooking heat (energy) could have
> otherwise killed a killer bacteria. As usual, the analysis contains
> only what is seen, not what is lost and thus unseen. What if someone
> doesn't get to the hospital on time and dies because they didn't have
> a speedy fossil fuel burning automobile? How did you count that in
> your analysis. Numbers are not automatically facts. Facts do not
> speak for themselves.
>
> "Life is about tradeoffs." -- Ben Franklin, 1759
>
> The only way for you to get any traction on this is to talk about
> spillover effects and methods to internalize costs. Some people
> choose to smoke cigarettes because of how it makes them feel. Why?
>
>> Example of the sort of paper out there in the literature related to
>> this (the implication being that if power plants burned less coal,
>> they would produce less NOx):
>
> If it were not for the actions of so-called "environmentalists" over
> the past 40 years there would be fewer coal plants in the US than
> there are now.
>
>> NOx emissions from large point sources: variability in ozone
>> production, resulting health damages and economic costs
>
> The NOx emissions are a side effect from energy production, which is
> perceived by the consumer/user (of energy) to have economic benefits.
>
>> Denise L. Mauzerall, Babar Sultanc, Namsoug Kima and David F.
>> Bradford
>>
>> <snip junk>
>
>> But, in my opinion, the greatest benefit we would get from reducing
>> our dependence on oil is being able to tell Prince Bandar and the
>> entire miserable lot of the House of Saud, along with the Emir of
>> Kuwait, to all go fuck themselves.
>
> Implementing your need to say fuck you by guvmint fiat sure sounds
> like a spillover effect to me. Okay, maybe a political rent instead.

You seem angry. Why is that?

In regards to energy, it didn't ever cross my mind to take away stoves and
ovens but that would certainly help reduce consumption. I was thinking
that you could maintain the same level, roughly, of personal comfort while
still reducing total energy use by increasing efficiency, you know,
insulating and stuff like that. Also, instead of forcing people to turn
their heat completely off, maybe just turn down temperature from 75 F to 68
F, or raising the temperature of the air conditioner from 68 F to 75 F. In
my defense though, I don't live in a binary all-or-nothing world like you
do and you've thought this through more than I have, you being the chess
player and all.

So I guess you are right, reducing energy consumption is dumb because the
obvious effects are people dying en mass from hypothermia (or heat stroke)
and salmonella while ambulances stand idly by, rusting into the ground,
though it wouldn't matter if they were running because hospitals would be
cold lifeless shells, all the doctors having been hung long ago for driving
gas-guzzling luxury cars.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 31 Oct 2007 21:33:30
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Good god! Sounds like we need a new government agency and to expand
> University of California @ Berkeley funding. We need more statisticians,
> and especially more government mandated primates busily at work in their
> taxpayer supported lab, doing tireless research for the purpose of saving
> ourselves from ourselves.

They'll get around to that after they finish typing up the complete
works of Shakespeare aka Ben Franklin.

> Numbers are not automatically facts.

Especially imaginary numbers.

> "Life is about tradeoffs." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

He's right. I had to give up Paris Hilton for my job as official WADA
breast implant checker and to find the time to post to rbr.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 11:28:40
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 9:35 am, Dan Gregory
<dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?
>
> A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

Maybe it got my professor primate out of bed and off autopilot.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 12:15:40
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1193855320.911020.207590@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 9:35 am, Dan Gregory
> <dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> > Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude
>> > 6?
>>
>> A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening
>
> Maybe it got my professor primate out of bed and off autopilot.

Not too likely. I believe he lives in Marin county, so if he felt it at all,
it was pretty mild.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:00:53
From: Pete
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 31 Oct, 14:02, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 31, 3:54 am, Pete <petersr1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 31 Oct, 03:03, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > "Dan Gregory" <dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
> > > >> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
> > > >> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
> > > >> than a small fortune.
> > > > They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
> > > > able to cope with rising tides!
>
> > > That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that
> > > the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
> > > decommissioned.
>
> > Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
> > the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
> > flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
> > some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
> > Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
> > barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
> > flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
> > yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
> > (rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
> > notice this pretty quickly.
>
> > Pete-
>
> Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
> the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
> about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
> them sticking when the barrier was tested.

This is true: it doesn't work first time very often, and some gates
have to be given a kick (not literally!). But that is not a difficult
or very slow thing to do, and it gets done.

Pete

Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:34:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Pete" <petersr1088@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193853653.943494.79320@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Oct, 14:02, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
>> the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
>> about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
>> them sticking when the barrier was tested.
>
> This is true: it doesn't work first time very often, and some gates
> have to be given a kick (not literally!). But that is not a difficult
> or very slow thing to do, and it gets done.

Pete, what is the reason that they are closing the Thames off from the sea?
I notice that the government is now declaring that there is another "danger"
from flooding and they're going to have to build some bigger and better
gates. That would make me terribly suspicious.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 09:44:43
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 7:38 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
>
> >> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
> >> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>
> > Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.
>
> Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001

Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.

Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
cost.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 20:22:14
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Scott wrote:
> On Oct 31, 7:38 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>> Kyle Legate wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
>>>> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>>> Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.
>> Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> --
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001
>
> Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
>
> Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
> respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
> cost.
>

That would be tough. In all seriousness, I'm sure some will try to
crunch the numbers. But because there are so many potential causes of
lung disease, only the most egregious (smoking) is not refutable (not
that they don't try). It is tough to point at one factor responsible
for the significant increase in asthma and related diseases in the
population. Also, the variable distribution of pollutants would likely
make a meaningful prospective study difficult.
This doesn't mean that products of petroleum combustion--both carbon
based as well as sulfur and nitrogen oxides associated with their
combustion haven't been demonstrated to be toxic--just that it would be
tough to generate the statistics in the general population that would
convince people disinclined to draw the (to me obvious) conclusions.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 31 Oct 2007 09:38:40
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 4:19 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> > That article is about partical matter pollution and from what I can
> > tell, it doesn't really include carbon emissions. For example, the
> > article states, ""Particulate matter," also known as particle
> > pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
> > liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of
> > components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
> > chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles."
>
> > Doesn't say anything about carbon emissions, does it? My guess is
> > that if carbon emissions has anything to do with this, it's very small
> > as they don't even bother to mention it in the article.
>
> > Want to try again?
>
> This took me 10 seconds. After this you're on your own self-delusional
> trip--be my guest.
>
> http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35332
>
> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Steve,

I'm not delusional. The issue was what benefits would be derived from
reducing carbon emissions. You sent a link to a web article about
particle pollution which had nothing to do with carbon emissions. I
pointed that out, and you responded to a separate web article about
carbon monoxide pollution, which doesn't have anything to do with your
early reference to particle pollution.

You don't need to get snippy with me because you provided a poor
response, which I noted for you.

Your second response makes more sense, but that notwithstanding, the
article you reference doesn't say much of anything about how great the
problem is with regards to CO emissions or how great the reduction in
CO emissions must be before we see significant improvements in the
related health issues. Which leads me to conclude that if the numbers
were all that impressive they wouldn't have left them out, and which
leads me rephrase the question for you, what exactly are the
significant, quantifiable non-environmental benefits we'll reap with
reduced carbon emissions?

Date: 31 Oct 2007 17:32:46
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Scott wrote:

> Your second response makes more sense, but that notwithstanding, the
> article you reference doesn't say much of anything about how great the
> problem is with regards to CO emissions or how great the reduction in
> CO emissions must be before we see significant improvements in the
> related health issues. Which leads me to conclude that if the numbers
> were all that impressive they wouldn't have left them out, and which
> leads me rephrase the question for you, what exactly are the
> significant, quantifiable non-environmental benefits we'll reap with
> reduced carbon emissions?
>

I'm not sure you can put a quantifiable number on these things, yet. But
to argue there is no implied environmental benefits to decreasing the
burning of fossil fuels is illogical. For instance, the benefits in terms
of reduced NOx formation (both from vehicles and point sources) and the
impact that would have on tropospheric ozone could be significant (see
reference below). In urban environments, reducing the amount of fugitive
fuel emissions per day (which would be a side-product of using less fuel
(pump less, less evaporative losses during fuel transfer)), would reduce
the primary organics that produce the SOA that forms the PM2.5 from
photochemical smog. There is not enough data at this point to determine
what level emissions would have to fall to for there to be a measurable
effect on PM2.5, or what level PM2.5 has to fall to for there to be a
decrease in its impact on human health. It is likely there will never be
enough data for that, given the difficulty of doing that sort of study on
human populations, but to claim there is no reasonable expectation of a
benefit is wrong.

Example of the sort of paper out there in the literature related to this
(the implication being that if power plants burned less coal, they would
produce less NOx):

NOx emissions from large point sources: variability in ozone production,
resulting health damages and economic costs

Denise L. Mauzerall, Babar Sultanc, Namsoug Kima and David F. Bradford

Atmospheric Environment
Volume 39, Issue 16, May 2005, Pages 2851-2866

Abstract: We present a proof-of-concept analysis of the measurement of the
health damage of ozone (O3) produced from nitrogen oxides (NOx=NO+NO2)
emitted by individual large point sources in the eastern United States. We
use a regional atmospheric model of the eastern United States, the
Comprehensive Air quality Model with Extensions (CAMx), to quantify the
variable impact that a fixed quantity of NOx emitted from individual
sources can have on the downwind concentration of surface O3, depending on
temperature and local biogenic hydrocarbon emissions. We also examine the
dependence of resulting O3-related health damages on the size of the
exposed population. The investigation is relevant to the increasingly
widely used �cap and trade� approach to NOx regulation, which presumes that
shifts of emissions over time and space, holding the total fixed over the
course of the summer O3 season, will have minimal effect on the
environmental outcome. By contrast, we show that a shift of a unit of NOx
emissions from one place or time to another could result in large changes
in resulting health effects due to O3 formation and exposure. We indicate
how the type of modeling carried out here might be used to attach
externality-correcting prices to emissions. Charging emitters fees that are
commensurate with the damage caused by their NOx emissions would create an
incentive for emitters to reduce emissions at times and in locations where
they cause the largest damage.

(From the conclusions, ibid.: Using an integrated assessment model without
chemistry, analyses of the benefits of an annual (rather than just summer)
NOx emissions cap were found to yield substantial net benefits due to
reduction of PM2.5 concentrations and its detrimental health effects
(Burtraw et al., 2001 and Burtraw et al., 2003). )

But, in my opinion, the greatest benefit we would get from reducing our
dependence on oil is being able to tell Prince Bandar and the entire
miserable lot of the House of Saud, along with the Emir of Kuwait, to all
go fuck themselves.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 31 Oct 2007 22:11:06
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

William Asher wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Your second response makes more sense, but that notwithstanding, the
>> article you reference doesn't say much of anything about how great the
>> problem is with regards to CO emissions or how great the reduction in
>> CO emissions must be before we see significant improvements in the
>> related health issues. Which leads me to conclude that if the numbers
>> were all that impressive they wouldn't have left them out, and which
>> leads me rephrase the question for you, what exactly are the
>> significant, quantifiable non-environmental benefits we'll reap with
>> reduced carbon emissions?
>>
>
> I'm not sure you can put a quantifiable number on these things, yet. But
> to argue there is no implied environmental benefits to decreasing the
> burning of fossil fuels is illogical. For instance, the benefits in terms
> of reduced NOx formation (both from vehicles and point sources) and the
> impact that would have on tropospheric ozone could be significant (see
> reference below). In urban environments, reducing the amount of fugitive
> fuel emissions per day (which would be a side-product of using less fuel
> (pump less, less evaporative losses during fuel transfer)), would reduce
> the primary organics that produce the SOA that forms the PM2.5 from
> photochemical smog. There is not enough data at this point to determine
> what level emissions would have to fall to for there to be a measurable
> effect on PM2.5, or what level PM2.5 has to fall to for there to be a
> decrease in its impact on human health. It is likely there will never be
> enough data for that, given the difficulty of doing that sort of study on
> human populations, but to claim there is no reasonable expectation of a
> benefit is wrong.
>
> Example of the sort of paper out there in the literature related to this
> (the implication being that if power plants burned less coal, they would
> produce less NOx):
>
> NOx emissions from large point sources: variability in ozone production,
> resulting health damages and economic costs
>
> Denise L. Mauzerall, Babar Sultanc, Namsoug Kima and David F. Bradford
>
> Atmospheric Environment
> Volume 39, Issue 16, May 2005, Pages 2851-2866
>
> Abstract: We present a proof-of-concept analysis of the measurement of the
> health damage of ozone (O3) produced from nitrogen oxides (NOx=NO+NO2)
> emitted by individual large point sources in the eastern United States. We
> use a regional atmospheric model of the eastern United States, the
> Comprehensive Air quality Model with Extensions (CAMx), to quantify the
> variable impact that a fixed quantity of NOx emitted from individual
> sources can have on the downwind concentration of surface O3, depending on
> temperature and local biogenic hydrocarbon emissions. We also examine the
> dependence of resulting O3-related health damages on the size of the
> exposed population. The investigation is relevant to the increasingly
> widely used �cap and trade� approach to NOx regulation, which presumes that
> shifts of emissions over time and space, holding the total fixed over the
> course of the summer O3 season, will have minimal effect on the
> environmental outcome. By contrast, we show that a shift of a unit of NOx
> emissions from one place or time to another could result in large changes
> in resulting health effects due to O3 formation and exposure. We indicate
> how the type of modeling carried out here might be used to attach
> externality-correcting prices to emissions. Charging emitters fees that are
> commensurate with the damage caused by their NOx emissions would create an
> incentive for emitters to reduce emissions at times and in locations where
> they cause the largest damage.
>
> (From the conclusions, ibid.: Using an integrated assessment model without
> chemistry, analyses of the benefits of an annual (rather than just summer)
> NOx emissions cap were found to yield substantial net benefits due to
> reduction of PM2.5 concentrations and its detrimental health effects
> (Burtraw et al., 2001 and Burtraw et al., 2003). )
>
>
> But, in my opinion, the greatest benefit we would get from reducing our
> dependence on oil is being able to tell Prince Bandar and the entire
> miserable lot of the House of Saud, along with the Emir of Kuwait, to all
> go fuck themselves.
>

Thanks for this.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 31 Oct 2007 07:06:14
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 7:02 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150
> @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> The
> >> point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
> >> were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
>
> > There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort
> > to lies.
>
> Tom:
>
> You said:
>
> "I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
> leftists."
>
> Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of
> 4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay
> Area, it seemed mild"?

Bill, you can pretend that 4 are more dangerous than 11 if you wish.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 09:25:00
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

<cyclintom@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193839574.976925.43090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 7:02 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150
>> @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The
>> >> point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
>> >> were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
>>
>> > There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort
>> > to lies.
>>
>> Tom:
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> "I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
>> ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
>> absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
>> leftists."
>>
>> Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of
>> 4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay
>> Area, it seemed mild"?
>
> Bill, you can pretend that 4 are more dangerous than 11 if you wish.

Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Date: 31 Oct 2007 16:35:44
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:36:34
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5orp5oFobcrvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?
>
> A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

Sorry but no one even bothered with that. All day long the news reports have
had breathless reporters interviewing convenience store owners who were
telling their tales of troubles - some bottles fell off the shelves. Since
even my cat didn't bother with it, plainly it wasn't something to worry
about.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 09:42:39
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5orp5oFobcrvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?
>
> A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I happen
to reside.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Date: 31 Oct 2007 17:28:25
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5orp5oFobcrvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>> Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?
>> A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening
>
> An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I happen
> to reside.
I used to love riding from SF down to Half Moon bay, San Gregorio, La
Honda, Sky line back to Half Moon & home! Back in the day!!
:-))

Date: 31 Oct 2007 17:59:00
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Global Warming

>> An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I
>> happen to reside.
> I used to love riding from SF down to Half Moon bay, San Gregorio, La
> Honda, Sky line back to Half Moon & home! Back in the day!!
> :-))

When really bored, you can go to www.ChainReaction.com/diary.htm and read
all about the latest Tuesday/Thursday-morning ride, which goes up Kings Mtn,
south on Skyline to 84, down west 84 to Old LaHonda, back to Sky L'onda and
down 84 into Woodside. 104 times/year, no matter what the weather (or
earthquake).

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5ors83Fo11efU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> "Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:5orp5oFobcrvU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude
>>>> 6?
>>> A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening
>>
>> An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I
>> happen to reside.
> I used to love riding from SF down to Half Moon bay, San Gregorio, La
> Honda, Sky line back to Half Moon & home! Back in the day!!
> :-))

Date: 31 Oct 2007 07:05:16
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 6:38 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
>
> >> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
> >> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>
> > Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.
>
> Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.

Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you
believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness?
Some of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are
called that because of the extremely high particulate matter injected
into the air by the trees and other plants in that area.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 20:29:21
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you
> believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness?
> Some of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are
> called that because of the extremely high particulate matter injected
> into the air by the trees and other plants in that area.
>

A brief primer:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=315948

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 31 Oct 2007 20:12:36
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom wrote:
> Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you
> believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness? Some
> of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are called that
> because of the extremely high particulate matter injected into the air by
> the trees and other plants in that area.

Yes but burning trees don't cause cancer:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/oct/policy/lk_dieselcancer.html

Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:30:56
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4728c592$0$2901$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> cyclintom wrote:
>> Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you
>> believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness? Some
>> of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are called that
>> because of the extremely high particulate matter injected into the air by
>> the trees and other plants in that area.
>
> Yes but burning trees don't cause cancer:
> http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/oct/policy/lk_dieselcancer.html

I hate to point this out to someone so knowledgeable and all but the Great
Smokies aren't burning. What's more, particulate matter is vastly greater
over forests and some deserts than over cities. But don't let the facts
suggest anything to you at all.

By the way, one of the projects I was on was the development of a
respiratory gas analyzer. So like you know - one had to learn about lung
diseases? So like I know that despite Kyle's claim ("Cleaner air, fewer
respiratory illnesses") that it is a little more complicated than that.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 22:49:44
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4728c592$0$2901$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> cyclintom wrote:
>>> Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you
>>> believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness? Some
>>> of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are called that
>>> because of the extremely high particulate matter injected into the
>>> air by
>>> the trees and other plants in that area.
>>
>> Yes but burning trees don't cause cancer:
>> http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/oct/policy/lk_dieselcancer.html
>>
>
> I hate to point this out to someone so knowledgeable and all but the
> Great Smokies aren't burning. What's more, particulate matter is vastly
> greater over forests and some deserts than over cities. But don't let
> the facts suggest anything to you at all.

What kind of particulate matter is vastly greater over forests than cities?
>
> By the way, one of the projects I was on was the development of a
> respiratory gas analyzer. So like you know - one had to learn about lung
> diseases? So like I know that despite Kyle's claim ("Cleaner air, fewer
> respiratory illnesses") that it is a little more complicated than that.

Are you saying his premise is not true?

Steve
>

Date: 31 Oct 2007 21:59:20
From: Steven L. Sheffield
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 10/31/2007 08:49 PM, in article 13iifma8vr17p68@corp.supernews.com,
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net > wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4728c592$0$2901$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>> cyclintom wrote:
>>>> Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you
>>>> believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness? Some
>>>> of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are called that
>>>> because of the extremely high particulate matter injected into the
>>>> air by
>>>> the trees and other plants in that area.
>>>
>>> Yes but burning trees don't cause cancer:
>>> http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/oct/policy/lk_dieselcan
>>> cer.html
>>>
>>
>> I hate to point this out to someone so knowledgeable and all but the
>> Great Smokies aren't burning. What's more, particulate matter is vastly
>> greater over forests and some deserts than over cities. But don't let
>> the facts suggest anything to you at all.
>
> What kind of particulate matter is vastly greater over forests than cities?

Dunno if it's greater, but trees (especially sweetgum trees) are the one of
the leading causes of ozone pollution ...

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml

So while I wouldn't go so far as to say that Reagan was right, his old quote
isn't far off base.

>> By the way, one of the projects I was on was the development of a
>> respiratory gas analyzer. So like you know - one had to learn about lung
>> diseases? So like I know that despite Kyle's claim ("Cleaner air, fewer
>> respiratory illnesses") that it is a little more complicated than that.
>
> Are you saying his premise is not true?
>
> Steve
>>

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash

Date: 01 Nov 2007 14:25:31
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>
>
> Dunno if it's greater, but trees (especially sweetgum trees) are the one of
> the leading causes of ozone pollution ...
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml
>
> So while I wouldn't go so far as to say that Reagan was right, his old quote
> isn't far off base.

Interesting stuff--but it's hard to believe there is a net increase in
trees as all the suburbs have expanded into previously rural areas. It
does say this applies in "some parts of the country".

Steve
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:09:24
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote in message
news:vllWi.4357$mv.467@trndny08...
>
> Interesting stuff--but it's hard to believe there is a net increase in
> trees as all the suburbs have expanded into previously rural areas. It
> does say this applies in "some parts of the country".

Just about anything that contradicts your world view is "hard to believe"?
Come on Steve, you seem a great deal smarter than you've been posting.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 07:02:39
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 31, 3:54 am, Pete <petersr1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 31 Oct, 03:03, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dan Gregory" <dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
> > >> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
> > >> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
> > >> than a small fortune.
> > > They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
> > > able to cope with rising tides!
>
> > That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that
> > the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
> > decommissioned.
>
> Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
> the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
> flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
> some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
> Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
> barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
> flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
> yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
> (rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
> notice this pretty quickly.
>
> Pete-

Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
them sticking when the barrier was tested.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 09:22:56
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

>> Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
>> the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
>> flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
>> some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
>> Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
>> barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
>> flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
>> yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
>> (rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
>> notice this pretty quickly.
>>
>> Pete-
>
> Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
> the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
> about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
> them sticking when the barrier was tested.

Tom, you screwed up. You thought you were reading a conservative-friendly
publication, but should have known better. ALL the media is owned by the
liberal establishment. What you read was a deliberate plant, an article
penned by an environmentalist wanting to discredit the conservatives by
feeding information that he knew would make the reader look foolish when
regurgitating the claims.

ALL the media is run by the liberal environmentalist establishment, even
Rush is a shill for them. You think he's actually made some of his
embarrassing remarks out of stupidity? C'mon. The Michael J Fox stuff?
Deliberate. The Vince Foster debacle? Carefully planned. His constant
attacks on homosexuals? An attempt by the far-left to force their brethren
out of the closet and take action.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<cyclintom@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193839359.487812.24970@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 3:54 am, Pete <petersr1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 Oct, 03:03, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Dan Gregory" <dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>> > message
>>
>> >news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > > cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > >> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to
>> > >> keep
>> > >> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a
>> > >> couple
>> > >> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
>> > >> than a small fortune.
>> > > They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to
>> > > be
>> > > able to cope with rising tides!
>>
>> > That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said
>> > that
>> > the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
>> > decommissioned.
>>
>> Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
>> the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
>> flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
>> some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
>> Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
>> barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
>> flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
>> yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
>> (rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
>> notice this pretty quickly.
>>
>> Pete-
>
> Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
> the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
> about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
> them sticking when the barrier was tested.
>

Date: 31 Oct 2007 06:49:38
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> The
> point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
> were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.

There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort
to lies.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 14:02:45
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> The
>> point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
>> were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
>
> There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort
> to lies.
>

Tom:

You said:

"I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
leftists."

Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of
4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay
Area, it seemed mild"?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 31 Oct 2007 06:48:09
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 9:17 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>
> You would do so much better if you left out stuff like that.

Ahh, so Hillary didn't write "It Takes A Village" meaning that the
state should raise your children?

Date: 31 Oct 2007 08:20:22
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Tom Kunich wrote:

[ A really good troll ]

After all these years I can't figure out why people still
respond to this shit. But lots of you do. Go figure.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:14:51
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> [ A really good troll ]
>
> After all these years I can't figure out why people still
> respond to this shit. But lots of you do. Go figure.

It's like the Peanuts cartoon where Charlie Brown talks about taking his
baseball glove to the game so that he can catch the wicked line drive and
Leo Durocher leans out of the dugout and yells "Sign that kid!" except
there is no baseball glove, line drive, or manager.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:24:40
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Global Warming

William Asher wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> [ A really good troll ]
>>
>> After all these years I can't figure out why people still
>> respond to this shit. But lots of you do. Go figure.
>
> It's like the Peanuts cartoon where Charlie Brown talks about taking his
> baseball glove to the game so that he can catch the wicked line drive and
> Leo Durocher leans out of the dugout and yells "Sign that kid!" except
> there is no baseball glove, line drive, or manager.

Thank you for bringing a touch of Fellini to rbr.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 31 Oct 2007 20:04:34
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> [ A really good troll ]
>
> After all these years I can't figure out why people still respond to this
> shit. But lots of you do. Go figure.

Are you bragging about the new multi-threaded trolling co-routines ?

Date: 31 Oct 2007 10:54:38
From: Pete
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 31 Oct, 03:03, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Dan Gregory" <dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
> >> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
> >> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
> >> than a small fortune.
> > They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
> > able to cope with rising tides!
>
> That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that
> the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
> decommissioned.

Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
(rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
notice this pretty quickly.

Pete

Date: 31 Oct 2007 04:04:24
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 31 Oct 2007 05:22:07
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in
news:1193803464.791256.245550@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> Remember, Mark Twain said "Everybody talks about
> the weather, but nobody does anything about it." And
> that's how you can tell Mark Twain was a born appeaser,
> French-speaking, freedom-hating Commie.

That was Franklin who said that.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:18:36
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 6:52 pm, "Mark Fennell" <marco_fenne...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > What is the most pressing problem of our times?
>
> Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
> eventually, right?

Hey, I can concoct doomsday just as well as the next scaremonger.

> Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
> that even comes close to your ideals?

I don't know, I've mostly been trying to understand the ones (fed,
state, local) I already have. Since I was brought up and lived my
entire life in what can roughly be called American Culture, that is
where I feel most comfortable, regardless of its comparative strengths
or weaknesses when it comes to the associated governance.

I have trouble discovering my ideals, even within myself. I don't
know -- I haven't found a grand unifying theory for social
organization (interpersonal rules of conduct), and I really don't
think there is such a thing. But I think I can say that if there must
be government, "it" should be a good deal more restrained than our
current federal and state governments are.

For all its problems, people are still trying to get into the US. On a
comparative basis, it is still a relatively free society. To the
extent we deal with reality, the US is still one of the better places
to be on the planet.

> BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.

Thank you very much, but know that Bob S will be unhappy with that.
He'll think I feel somehow encouraged to let loose with my ascii. If
I could get control of that personal issue, as much as I wish the
guvmint could get itself under control, well then I think I could
support a few more primates with all the newly found time. I might
even have time to ride/train!

> Markhttp://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

Date: 31 Oct 2007 08:15:33
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Global Warming

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Oct 30, 6:52 pm, "Mark Fennell" <marco_fenne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.
>
> Thank you very much, but know that Bob S will be unhappy with that.
> He'll think I feel somehow encouraged to let loose with my ascii. If
> I could get control of that personal issue, as much as I wish the
> guvmint could get itself under control, well then I think I could
> support a few more primates with all the newly found time. I might
> even have time to ride/train!

The decision of how many primates you'll be supporting isn't up
to you. It's up to Chung, if he makes any more primates.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:57:33
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> Thank you very much, but know that Bob S will be unhappy with that.
>> He'll think I feel somehow encouraged to let loose with my ascii. If I
>> could get control of that personal issue, as much as I wish the guvmint
>> could get itself under control, well then I think I could support a few
>> more primates with all the newly found time. I might even have time to
>> ride/train!

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> The decision of how many primates you'll be supporting isn't up to you.
> It's up to Chung, if he makes any more primates.

Sounds like he sick of changing nappies on his existing mini-me primates.

Date: 30 Oct 2007 18:59:18
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 10:14 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
> > was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
> > beloved leftists.
>
> Doubting Thomas:
>
> Here is a link to Emmanuel's Nature paper on the relationship between
> hurricane *intensity* and a warming planet. Note that the link is not in
> storm frequency, but on storm intensity. In other words, what the model
> says is that of the storms that do occur, more will be bigger.

Dumbasses -

Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the
storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 30 Oct 2007 20:13:42
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193795958.956027.126210@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the
> storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.

Dumbass - maybe you ought to go give Asher that blowjob you've always wanted
to give him. That still won't change the fact that weather is and always has
been cyclical and the supremely ignorant claim that looking at a 20 year
period of the earth's history and proclaiming you've found a pattern
demonstrates the sort of intellectualism we've come to expect from Asher and
his ideals.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 05:35:21
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in
news:13ifsn6igs0m94a@corp.supernews.com:

> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1193795958.956027.126210@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the
>> storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.
>
> Dumbass - maybe you ought to go give Asher that blowjob you've always
> wanted to give him. That still won't change the fact that weather is
> and always has been cyclical and the supremely ignorant claim that
> looking at a 20 year period of the earth's history and proclaiming
> you've found a pattern demonstrates the sort of intellectualism we've
> come to expect from Asher and his ideals.
>

You know, I don't mean to insult Henry, but if I wanted a blow job from a
guy, I could probably do better than him.

--
Bill Asher

p.s. You're still losing the intellectual part of this argument as well.

Date: 30 Oct 2007 23:32:04
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <Xns99D9E5CE71B64FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> news:13ifsn6igs0m94a@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1193795958.956027.126210@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the
> >> storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.
> >
> > Dumbass - maybe you ought to go give Asher that blowjob you've always
> > wanted to give him. That still won't change the fact that weather is
> > and always has been cyclical and the supremely ignorant claim that
> > looking at a 20 year period of the earth's history and proclaiming
> > you've found a pattern demonstrates the sort of intellectualism we've
> > come to expect from Asher and his ideals.
> >
>
> You know, I don't mean to insult Henry, but if I wanted a blow job from a
> guy, I could probably do better than him.
>
> p.s. You're still losing the intellectual part of this argument as well.

Consider the source, Bill. Calling you names and insinuating you're teh gay *is*
the intellectual part of his argument.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 31 Oct 2007 16:19:25
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Howard Kveck wrote:

<snip >
>
> Consider the source, Bill. Calling you names and insinuating you're
> teh gay *is*
> the intellectual part of his argument.
>

Talking to Tom is like living in a Fellini movie. I keep expecting a
midget nun to run out and heard him back into the padded wagon. I know,
kinky.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:22:42
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <Xns99DA5ED6F86D6FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Consider the source, Bill. Calling you names and insinuating you're
> > teh gay *is*
> > the intellectual part of his argument.
> >
>
> Talking to Tom is like living in a Fellini movie. I keep expecting a
> midget nun to run out and heard him back into the padded wagon. I know,
> kinky.

The thought of Tom in Satyricon is very disquieting.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 31 Oct 2007 20:03:24
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

William Asher wrote:
> Talking to Tom is like living in a Fellini movie. I keep expecting a
> midget nun to run out and heard him back into the padded wagon. I know,
> kinky.

Do they have midget nun throwing contests in Fellini movies ?

Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:14:47
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Donald Munro wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> Talking to Tom is like living in a Fellini movie. I keep expecting a
>> midget nun to run out and heard him back into the padded wagon. I know,
>> kinky.
>
> Do they have midget nun throwing contests in Fellini movies ?
>

No, that's not symbolic enough unless you had a masked half-naked satyr
throwing a midget nun off a parapet in a blizzard.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 30 Oct 2007 17:05:11
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 11:14 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> This season wasn't mild, there just weren't a lot of storms and the ones
> there were didn't kill white people.

In your own defense, I suppose that was funnier before you wrote it,
since it wasn't funny when you did.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 05:32:54
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in
news:1193789111.232540.241000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 30, 11:14 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This season wasn't mild, there just weren't a lot of storms and the
>> ones there were didn't kill white people.
>
> In your own defense, I suppose that was funnier before you wrote it,
> since it wasn't funny when you did.

It wasn't meant to be funny, why on earth did you think it was supposed
to be? That seems sort of weird to me that you would be offended, I
mean, you being the paragon of non-political correctness and all. The
point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007. But there were. Dean
came ashore as a Cat 5, so did Felix. We just didn't hear about them in
the media because Trent Lott's home wasn't damaged. Or does that offend
you as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Felix_(2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dean_(2007)

--
Bill Asher

Date: 30 Oct 2007 17:03:48
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 12:49 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
> >> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com...
>
> If the left & right weren't so anxious to battle each
> other, we'd be a lot better off. But danged few
> politicians are doing much to seek a middle ground
> these days.
>
> ...
>
> My mother is a conservative and couldn't tell you the
> basis of her beliefs either. In fact, I'd guess conservatives
> have an easier time not knowing what they believe, because
> in general they prefer things not to change or progress.
> Thus "conservative."

I suppose there is a presumption in there that conservativism is
"right wing." I can assure you that leftists are generally no more
aware than rightists regarding the ideological origins of their
beliefs, although I would agree the nature of the source is not the
same. The left is more dangerous in its facade of intellectualism and
false rationalism. In point of fact, so-called progressives
(leftists) aren't progressing at all. They haven't had a new idea in
at least 80 years. It is same-old-same-old socialism, although fresh
faces like Obama give the old movement new makeup. "Conservatives"
have recently provided leftist acts like No Child Left Behind and
medicare prescription drug benefits. Hayek was decidely correct when
he wrote that conservative movements will absorb anything: the only
criteria is simply that the practices have been around for awhile so
that the conservative becomes comfortable with it. (And that agrees
with what you wrote.)

So really, there is no call to find a middle ground, since the middle
is a muddle headed affair. Things like federal (really national now)
involvement in health, medicare, social security, education, and on
and on, are all frankly illegal -- they are flatly unconstitutional.
The government does not obey its own laws; it does not follow its own
sharp restrictions on what it may do via the few enumerated powers it
was granted over 200 years past. The rule of five, in practice,
became an anti-constitutional force. The US government has rendered
itself illegitimate.

I actually blame the left for paving the road for the neo-cons. They
did that; they made everything wrong Bush did possible under the guise
of "legality." People became rightly disenchanted with the left, they
gave neo-cons a chance. Both are morally and intellectually bankrupt
movements. The margin of badness goes to the left, since they
politically dominated the 20th century. You want a middle ground
between these two? Whoa!

Only a radical change, which casts off the middle, can improve the
outlook for peace and prosperity. I do not think radical change is
now politically or practically possible. Therefore I am am sadly
pessimistic. I think there will be a gradual and increasing gnashing
of teeth. The tension will continue to rise through time until it
finally snaps, like the plates under the earth's surface. Then there
will be bloody violence, perhaps a revolution. People won't
understand why things are so hard, they'll just know they are, and
want change -- any change. Politicians will make even worse
unfulfillable promises based on their own misunderstandings, and even
dishonesty. I fear for the people of the future. Global warming,
even if true, is nothing compared to what people can do to each other.
What is the most pressing problem of our times?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 17:52:36
From: Mark Fennell
Subject: Re: Global Warming

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
<snip >
> What is the most pressing problem of our times?

Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
eventually, right?

Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
that even comes close to your ideals?

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.

Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:55:00
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:MmQVi.14542$xP1.13743@newsfe11.phx...
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> <snip>
>> What is the most pressing problem of our times?
>
> Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
> eventually, right?

You've that right. I figure that by 2050 or so the new generation is going
to be damned fed up with supporting all you old jackasses in the manner
you've demanded to become accustomed - at someone else's expense. At that
point there is going to be another night of the long knives and a whole new
government will dawn. Hopefully one that is able to move on after totally
evening the score.

> Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
> that even comes close to your ideals?
>
> BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.

Singapore and Thailand are in practice good government though in detail
pretty creepy.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 02:12:48
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <MmQVi.14542$xP1.13743@newsfe11.phx >,
"Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com > wrote:

> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> <snip>
> > What is the most pressing problem of our times?
>
> Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
> eventually, right?

Hah! We're pretty much past peak birthrate now. Global peak birthrate.

> Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
> that even comes close to your ideals?

Sealand. It burned. Next, probably Nevada.

> BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.
>
> Mark
> http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Date: 31 Oct 2007 07:48:24
From: Mark Fennell
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> > What is the most pressing problem of our times?
>>
>> Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
>> eventually, right?
>
> Hah! We're pretty much past peak birthrate now. Global peak birthrate.

True that--birth rates are lower now than in decades past. But globally
we're still replacing ourselves at a rate greater than 1:1 and will continue
to do so well into this century. And as I'm sure you know, many of the
places where growth is the greatest are (arguably) the least able to handle
it.

Over my expected lifetime, the world population will triple, from ~3 billion
to ~9 billion. That just blows me away. We're pooping too much in our petri
dish to sustain it.

But more significant to you Ryan, your liquor-cabinet hero Mark P-G upgraded
to cat 2 this season! I hear he's a legit field sprinter.

Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

Date: 31 Oct 2007 16:41:25
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

* "Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com > a �crit profondement:

Date: 31 Oct 2007 12:49:41
From: Mark Fennell
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Davey wrote:
>* Mark Fennell a �crit profondement:
>

Date: 31 Oct 2007 21:47:01
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

* "Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com > a �crit profondement:

Date: 30 Oct 2007 15:02:14
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 3:48 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> > Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
> > back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>
> For one:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/33fjej
>
> Steve

That article is about partical matter pollution and from what I can
tell, it doesn't really include carbon emissions. For example, the
article states, ""Particulate matter," also known as particle
pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of
components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles."

Doesn't say anything about carbon emissions, does it? My guess is
that if carbon emissions has anything to do with this, it's very small
as they don't even bother to mention it in the article.

Want to try again?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 18:19:01
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Scott wrote:
>
> That article is about partical matter pollution and from what I can
> tell, it doesn't really include carbon emissions. For example, the
> article states, ""Particulate matter," also known as particle
> pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
> liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of
> components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
> chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles."
>
> Doesn't say anything about carbon emissions, does it? My guess is
> that if carbon emissions has anything to do with this, it's very small
> as they don't even bother to mention it in the article.
>
> Want to try again?
>

This took me 10 seconds. After this you're on your own self-delusional
trip--be my guest.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35332

Steve

Date: 30 Oct 2007 14:43:14
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 29, 10:44 pm, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net >
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
> > was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
> > beloved leftists.
>
> Hurricanes will trend up in frequency. That does not predict anything
> specific for a particular year.
>
> The issue isn't global climate change. That's a fact. The question is
> how much man can affect it. It's a tough call, but cutting back on our
> carbon emissions will have benefits even if it doesn't affect climate in
> any way.
>
> -paul

Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 21:00:10
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Scott wrote:

> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>

The resultant technology of not burning fossil fuels for various
purposes will allow us to exist at current levels of civilization after
the fossil fuels run out.

Oil is much to valuable as natural resource to burn up. It's the basis
of an entire family of useful materials but it sure isn't too useful
after being expelled in an oxidized form out of your tailpipe.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 08:24:32
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Scott wrote:
>
>
> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>

Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 13:38:23
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Kyle Legate wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
>> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>>
>
> Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.

Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 30 Oct 2007 17:48:11
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Scott wrote:
>
> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>

For one:

http://tinyurl.com/33fjej

Steve

Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:59:18
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:13if9kt10ipl014@corp.supernews.com...
> Scott wrote:
>>
>> Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
>> back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
>
> For one:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/33fjej

Steve, you really ought to try to understand what's being discovered. Really
what they're saying is that diseased lungs show more particulate matter than
non-diseased lungs. That is SIGNIFICANT and means absolutely nothing about
the effects of particulate matter itself.

Date: 30 Oct 2007 14:18:32
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bill:

Where can I find a time series of Emanuel's PDI?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 21:50:37
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

> Bill:
>
> Where can I find a time series of Emanuel's PDI?
>
>

This is also a nice summary of hurricanes and climate:

http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

(As a side note, the first reference in that document is Bosart and Bartlo,
Bartlo being *the* Bartlo of sci.geo.meteorology and other usenet weather
groups.)

--
Bill Asher

Date: 30 Oct 2007 21:44:34
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

> Bill:
>
> Where can I find a time series of Emanuel's PDI?
>
>

I think this is what you are looking for:

http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Papers_data_graphics.htm

But if a woman answers, hang up.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 30 Oct 2007 13:51:33
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 1:43 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>I don't see Tom as violent.

I punched a guy about 20 years ago and he fell over and hit his head
against the edge of a car door. Luckily he had a head like a stone and
wasn't really hurt but I haven't hit anyone since. Wouldn't have hit
him then if he wasn't about to throw up on me.

> Neither are us lefties. But we ain't going away.

Wanna bet? The younger generation has gone through the schools with
all of the super leftists teaching in them. My guess is that sooner or
later they'll come into power and there'll be a pogrom. Let's remember
that Jack Kennedy would be declared an extreme right wing nut these
days.

>Frankly, I don't know which leftists made absurd claims about global
> warming. While scientists can be political, science ain't. It is what
> it is. I don't argue with the flat earth society.

Maybe you don't know your hero and leader Al Gore?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 23:48:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <1193777493.059955.272650@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 30, 1:43 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >I don't see Tom as violent.
>
> I punched a guy about 20 years ago and he fell over and hit his head
> against the edge of a car door. Luckily he had a head like a stone and
> wasn't really hurt but I haven't hit anyone since. Wouldn't have hit
> him then if he wasn't about to throw up on me.

Hmm, so are all the threats of "disconnecting [someone] from reality", lynching
fantasies and other threats you've made just empty chest beating? Or are you sort of
forgetting about a few other events, like smacking your girlfriend or knocking down
members of your "Toms" club?

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 17:11:57
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 30, 1:43 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> I don't see Tom as violent.
>
> I punched a guy about 20 years ago and he fell over and hit his head
> against the edge of a car door. Luckily he had a head like a stone and
> wasn't really hurt but I haven't hit anyone since. Wouldn't have hit
> him then if he wasn't about to throw up on me.
>
>> Neither are us lefties. But we ain't going away.
>
> Wanna bet? The younger generation has gone through the schools with
> all of the super leftists teaching in them. My guess is that sooner or
> later they'll come into power and there'll be a pogrom. Let's remember
> that Jack Kennedy would be declared an extreme right wing nut these
> days.

That's pretty funny.

Steve

>
>> Frankly, I don't know which leftists made absurd claims about global
>> warming. While scientists can be political, science ain't. It is what
>> it is. I don't argue with the flat earth society.
>
> Maybe you don't know your hero and leader Al Gore?
>

Date: 30 Oct 2007 23:48:30
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <13if7gvqp1broc2@corp.supernews.com >,
Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net > wrote:

> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 1:43 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> I don't see Tom as violent.
> >
> > I punched a guy about 20 years ago and he fell over and hit his head
> > against the edge of a car door. Luckily he had a head like a stone and
> > wasn't really hurt but I haven't hit anyone since. Wouldn't have hit
> > him then if he wasn't about to throw up on me.
> >
> >> Neither are us lefties. But we ain't going away.
> >
> > Wanna bet? The younger generation has gone through the schools with
> > all of the super leftists teaching in them. My guess is that sooner or
> > later they'll come into power and there'll be a pogrom. Let's remember
> > that Jack Kennedy would be declared an extreme right wing nut these
> > days.
>
> That's pretty funny.

Tom is one of those people who thinks Kennedy's views would be static if he was
alive (er, if JFK was alive, not if , oh you know what I mean). I laugh at the idea
of a "pogrom" here. That gets back to good old "Two Guns" and TK's assertion that if
"Liberals get power they'll have their own Final Solution." Wee bit of
catastrophising there, no?

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 12:53:21
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 30, 11:14 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
> > was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
> > beloved leftists.
>
> Doubting Thomas:
>
> Here is a link to Emmanuel's Nature paper on the relationship between
> hurricane *intensity* and a warming planet. Note that the link is not in
> storm frequency, but on storm intensity. In other words, what the model
> says is that of the storms that do occur, more will be bigger.
>
> ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf
>
> Now, cut to the 2007 hurricane season. There were two cat 5 hurricanes out
> of a total of 4 storms, which is a fraction of 0.5 (not to mention that
> both cat 5's followed essentially the same track, which is unprecedented in
> the history of observations (plus you had Humberto, which intensified
> faster than any storm even so close to landfall (go to the NHC website
> archives and find the forecasters comments on Humberto if you don't believe
> me, which you don't, but you won't check, but you should, because I am
> right and it will save you from looking foolish when you call me names and
> I then provide the link from the NHC website))). If you go back through
> the archives and calculate the fraction of major hurricanes to total
> hurricanes each season back to 1980 or so, you will find a fairly steady
> increase in this fraction. This is Emmanuel's point, in a warming climate,
> the total number of cyclones that form is still a function of vertical
> shear and tropospheric forcing, but *if* you form a cyclone, it has a
> better chance of turning into a major storm.
>
> Interestingly, if you do the same exercise for typhoons, you find the same
> thing. Total typhoon number from 1980 through 2006 is highly variable,
> with frequency not really correlating from year to year. However, the
> fraction of all typhoons that become super typhoons (equivalent to a cat 3
> or bigger hurricane) increases steadily from about 0.2 in 1980 to double
> that 0.4 in 2006. Again, maybe not more storms, but of the storms that do
> form, more are bigger.
>
> I am not surprised you think this season was exceptionally mild. The two
> cat 5's, which made landfall as cat 5's (also unusual), killed brown people
> so they didn't get much coverage here. However, I had the distinct
> pleasure of flying into the outer fringes of Dean and it was intensely
> cool. There was this huge container ship, at least 250 m long, sitting
> there in the Gulf of Mexico. At that location, it was maybe 200 miles from
> the storm's eye after it crossed the Yucatan and was in the Bay of
> Campeche. We looked down and thought it odd that the ship had no wake. We
> realized it was hove to, making no headway and treading water, just trying
> to survive in the wave field kicked off by Dean.
>
> This season wasn't mild, there just weren't a lot of storms and the ones
> there were didn't kill white people.

What I find interesting is that dumbass Asher doesn't think that
anyone will call him on his bullshit.

So far this season there's been four hurricanes. This hurricane season
is essentially over as well though there are occasionally November
hurricanes they're rare.

And of course he demonstrates a level of ignorance about hurricanes
that's almost funny.

In 1995 when his hero Bill Clinton was thumping young girls (Asher far
prefers young boys) we had 11 hurricanes and 8 tropical storms which
are almost-hurricanes.
In 1996 when his hero Bill Clinton was thumping young girls (Asher far
prefers young boys) we had 9 hurricanes and 4 tropical storms.
In 1998 when his hero Bill Clinton was thumping young girls (Asher far
prefers young boys) we had 10 hurricanes and 4 tropical storms.
In 1999 when his hero Bill Clinton was trying to lie about thumping
young girls there were 8 hurricanes and 4 tropical storms.

By all means Asher, tell us all about how those hurricanes weren't any
big deal but like two Cat 5 hurricanes today are.

How about you actually learn something before you shoot your stoopid
face off about it?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 21:02:01
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

>
> By all means Asher, tell us all about how those hurricanes weren't any
> big deal but like two Cat 5 hurricanes today are.
>
> How about you actually learn something before you shoot your stoopid
> face off about it?

Tom:

Here's what I am talking about in the case of typhoons:

Year Typhoon Super Fraction 3-yr backwards
Typhoon moving average
1980 15 2 0.13
1981 16 2 0.13
1982 16 2 0.13 0.13
1983 12 2 0.17 0.14
1985 16 2 0.13 0.14
1985 17 1 0.08 0.12
1986 19 3 0.16 0.11
1987 18 6 0.33 0.18
1988 13 1 0.08 0.19
1989 21 6 0.29 0.23
1990 21 4 0.19 0.18
1991 20 5 0.25 0.24
1992 21 5 0.24 0.23
1993 19 3 0.16 0.22
1994 21 6 0.29 0.23
1995 15 5 0.33 0.26
1996 21 6 0.29 0.30
1997 24 11(!) 0.46 0.36
1998 9 3 0.33 0.36
1999 11 1 0.09 0.29
2000 15 5 0.33 0.25
2001 16 3 0.19 0.20
2002 15 8 0.53 0.35
2003 17 5 0.29 0.34
2004 19 7 0.37 0.40
2005 16 7 0.44 0.37
2006 15 7 0.47 0.42
2007 10 4 0.40 0.43

The first column is the year starting with 1986. The second column is
total number of typhoons in that year. The third column is the number of
super typhoons, the fourth column is the fraction of the all typhoons that
became super typhoons, the fifth column is a 3-yr running average of the
fraction. Note how the values in the 5th column, which is the
average super-typhoon count divided by the typhoon count, increases from
1986 to 2007? This is what Emmanuel says will happen, that of the typhoons
that do develop, more will grow to super-typhoon category. The frequency
of storm occurrence is not the key parameter, it is storm intensity.

As always, I remain in awe of your ability to evade all form of rational
debate.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 30 Oct 2007 18:14:13
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Tom Kunich wrote:

> Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
> was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
> beloved leftists.
>

Doubting Thomas:

Here is a link to Emmanuel's Nature paper on the relationship between
hurricane *intensity* and a warming planet. Note that the link is not in
storm frequency, but on storm intensity. In other words, what the model
says is that of the storms that do occur, more will be bigger.

ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf

Now, cut to the 2007 hurricane season. There were two cat 5 hurricanes out
of a total of 4 storms, which is a fraction of 0.5 (not to mention that
both cat 5's followed essentially the same track, which is unprecedented in
the history of observations (plus you had Humberto, which intensified
faster than any storm even so close to landfall (go to the NHC website
archives and find the forecasters comments on Humberto if you don't believe
me, which you don't, but you won't check, but you should, because I am
right and it will save you from looking foolish when you call me names and
I then provide the link from the NHC website))). If you go back through
the archives and calculate the fraction of major hurricanes to total
hurricanes each season back to 1980 or so, you will find a fairly steady
increase in this fraction. This is Emmanuel's point, in a warming climate,
the total number of cyclones that form is still a function of vertical
shear and tropospheric forcing, but *if* you form a cyclone, it has a
better chance of turning into a major storm.

Interestingly, if you do the same exercise for typhoons, you find the same
thing. Total typhoon number from 1980 through 2006 is highly variable,
with frequency not really correlating from year to year. However, the
fraction of all typhoons that become super typhoons (equivalent to a cat 3
or bigger hurricane) increases steadily from about 0.2 in 1980 to double
that 0.4 in 2006. Again, maybe not more storms, but of the storms that do
form, more are bigger.

I am not surprised you think this season was exceptionally mild. The two
cat 5's, which made landfall as cat 5's (also unusual), killed brown people
so they didn't get much coverage here. However, I had the distinct
pleasure of flying into the outer fringes of Dean and it was intensely
cool. There was this huge container ship, at least 250 m long, sitting
there in the Gulf of Mexico. At that location, it was maybe 200 miles from
the storm's eye after it crossed the Yucatan and was in the Bay of
Campeche. We looked down and thought it odd that the ship had no wake. We
realized it was hove to, making no headway and treading water, just trying
to survive in the wave field kicked off by Dean.

This season wasn't mild, there just weren't a lot of storms and the ones
there were didn't kill white people.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 29 Oct 2007 22:44:35
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 30 Oct 2007 06:57:25
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 29, 9:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
> > going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
> > leftists.
>
> But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just act
> like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at
> times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would want
> anyway.

Mike, I've always put a smaller footprint on the earth. Of course we
called it "conservationism" and not "environmentalism".

But if you think that doing everything the leftists asked would
satisfy them you're sadly mistaken. Like all psychologically damamged
people (did you know that the vast majority of "environmentalists"
couldn't tell you the basis of their beliefs?) they want you to dance
to their tune because they crave a feeling of power.

You being a reasonable person can't understand that and probably won't
believe it because of your very reasonableness but that is the case.

Date: 30 Oct 2007 12:49:30
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
>> messagenews:13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
>> > was
>> > going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>>
>> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
>> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
>> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
>> > beloved
>> > leftists.
>>
>> But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just act
>> like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at
>> times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would
>> want
>> anyway.
>
> Mike, I've always put a smaller footprint on the earth. Of course we
> called it "conservationism" and not "environmentalism".

Tom: If we want to solve problems, letting words get in the way isn't going
to help. At some point it makes sense to accept that there are reasonable
connections between "conservationism" and "environmentalism." If the left &
right weren't so anxious to battle each other, we'd be a lot better off. But
danged few politicians are doing much to seek a middle ground these days.
And the advent of the 'net hasn't helped either, because no matter what you
believe, you'll find large amounts of support for it. And little on the 'net
ever suggests compromise as a strategy.

> But if you think that doing everything the leftists asked would
> satisfy them you're sadly mistaken. Like all psychologically damamged
> people (did you know that the vast majority of "environmentalists"
> couldn't tell you the basis of their beliefs?) they want you to dance
> to their tune because they crave a feeling of power.

My mother is a conservative and couldn't tell you the basis of her beliefs
either. In fact, I'd guess conservatives have an easier time not knowing
what they believe, because in general they prefer things not to change or
progress. Thus "conservative."

> You being a reasonable person can't understand that and probably won't
> believe it because of your very reasonableness but that is the case.

Don't insult me by suggesting I'm reasonable! My son very definitely didn't
think I was reasonable taking him up Redwood Gulch for the first time on
Sunday.

But don't get too wound up by any of this. You win in the end, almost
guaranteed. Try to show me an scenarion in which a democrat becomes
President next November. Unless another candidate comes from nowhere, things
don't look good. Obama could be a great President in the future, but not
yet. Not enough experience. And Hillary is going to lose a ton of votes when
she beats up on him, reinforcing the worst stereotypes of her image. I have
no idea who's going to emerge from the Republican camp; I don't think
Giuliani is electable (it's a bit late for the 2001 coattails to remain
effective), and people are scared of Romney in a way that reminds one of the
fears of electing a Catholic back in 1960 (of course, Kennedy *did* win...).
McCain is frankly too old; 8 years ago, I think he would have been a great
choice. What does that leave us with... Fred Thompson?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

<cyclintom@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193752645.489807.274440@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 29, 9:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
>> messagenews:13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
>> > was
>> > going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>>
>> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
>> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
>> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
>> > beloved
>> > leftists.
>>
>> But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just act
>> like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at
>> times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would
>> want
>> anyway.
>
> Mike, I've always put a smaller footprint on the earth. Of course we
> called it "conservationism" and not "environmentalism".
>
> But if you think that doing everything the leftists asked would
> satisfy them you're sadly mistaken. Like all psychologically damamged
> people (did you know that the vast majority of "environmentalists"
> couldn't tell you the basis of their beliefs?) they want you to dance
> to their tune because they crave a feeling of power.
>
> You being a reasonable person can't understand that and probably won't
> believe it because of your very reasonableness but that is the case.
>

Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:48:57
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:fVLVi.3132$Bk.1290@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
>>> > was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>>>
>>> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
>>> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
>>> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
>>> > beloved leftists.
>>>
>>> But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just act
>>> like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at
>>> times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would
>>> want anyway.
>>
>> Mike, I've always put a smaller footprint on the earth. Of course we
>> called it "conservationism" and not "environmentalism".
>
> Tom: If we want to solve problems, letting words get in the way isn't
> going to help. At some point it makes sense to accept that there are
> reasonable connections between "conservationism" and "environmentalism."\

No, Mike, there isn't. Environmentalism is a twisted leftist idea used
purely to garner more power. Conservationism was an individual movement by
concerned INDIVIDUALS. And individuals too smart to believe anything Al Gore
had to lie about. Remember that Hillary claims that it takes a village?
Please don't think of that as just some catch words. She, like all good
little communists, believes that the state should raise your children and
not you.

If you think that you're going to compare conservationism with
environmentalism you're simply going to fail.

> If the left & right weren't so anxious to battle each other, we'd be a lot
> better off.

The problem is that I'm middle of the road circa 1965 which to people these
days means that I'm about a mile to the left of the John Birch Society. Not
that anyone today even has a clue who they were and what they stood for.
Look, I've watched true communism fail completely. I've watched Socialism in
Europe tear them to pieces and it wasn't until they undid a great deal of
the stupid socialist crap that they began to dig themselves out and now the
leftists here are telling us what wonderful lives socialists live.

Mike, I believe you have kids. You'd better start being concerned about what
the leftists intend for your children.

>> But if you think that doing everything the leftists asked would
>> satisfy them you're sadly mistaken. Like all psychologically damamged
>> people (did you know that the vast majority of "environmentalists"
>> couldn't tell you the basis of their beliefs?) they want you to dance
>> to their tune because they crave a feeling of power.
>
> My mother is a conservative and couldn't tell you the basis of her beliefs
> either. In fact, I'd guess conservatives have an easier time not knowing
> what they believe, because in general they prefer things not to change or
> progress. Thus "conservative."

So you think of change as progress? Maybe you'd better start there. A
conservative is someone that requires a reason to change something. Liberals
simply believe that EVERYTHING is wrong and has to be changed.

I'm hoping that a REAL(tm) Presidential candidate will appear pretty quick.

Date: 30 Oct 2007 21:17:32
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

> Mike, I believe you have kids. You'd better start being concerned about
> what the leftists intend for your children.

I don't know what they "intend" for my children, but I *do* know what the
school system is teaching. And it's nothing "liberal" or "environmental"
whatsoever. My kids seem to be learning little more than how to be good
consumers. I would *love* for them to come home from school some day, filled
with all manner of silly radical ideas, and have a real discussion. That's
how it was when I was in Jr. High. I'd learn every day how my parents
generation was destroying the planet (this was the 60s) and come home angry
at them. And then my dad would sit me down and have a rational conversation
about how things work, how you learn for yourself what's going on, and the
importance of not accepting everything you hear at face value.

How I would love to have such conversations with my own kids!!! But no.
Everything is focused on passing tests these days, and those tests do not
include anything resembling critical/independent thought. If it doesn't help
a school look better than other schools, or get more state aid, it's not
taught anymore.

> No, Mike, there isn't. Environmentalism is a twisted leftist idea used
> purely to garner more power. Conservationism was an individual movement by
> concerned INDIVIDUALS. And individuals too smart to believe anything Al
> Gore had to lie about. Remember that Hillary claims that it takes a
> village? Please don't think of that as just some catch words. She, like
> all good little communists, believes that the state should raise your
> children and not you.

You would do so much better if you left out stuff like that. There are very
intelligent arguments for conservatism that don't resort to calling people
names. Go after what they do. If somebody wants to attach a label, let them
do so themselves. Calling someone a "communist" eliminates any possibility
that someone who disagrees with you might see something reasonable in your
position and change their mind.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:13ifr90k4uild69@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
> news:fVLVi.3132$Bk.1290@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
>>>> messagenews:13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global
>>>> > warming was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>>>>
>>>> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally
>>>> > mild
>>>> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That
>>>> > is -
>>>> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
>>>> > beloved leftists.
>>>>
>>>> But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just
>>>> act
>>>> like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at
>>>> times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would
>>>> want anyway.
>>>
>>> Mike, I've always put a smaller footprint on the earth. Of course we
>>> called it "conservationism" and not "environmentalism".
>>
>> Tom: If we want to solve problems, letting words get in the way isn't
>> going to help. At some point it makes sense to accept that there are
>> reasonable connections between "conservationism" and "environmentalism."\
>
> No, Mike, there isn't. Environmentalism is a twisted leftist idea used
> purely to garner more power. Conservationism was an individual movement by
> concerned INDIVIDUALS. And individuals too smart to believe anything Al
> Gore had to lie about. Remember that Hillary claims that it takes a
> village? Please don't think of that as just some catch words. She, like
> all good little communists, believes that the state should raise your
> children and not you.
>
> If you think that you're going to compare conservationism with
> environmentalism you're simply going to fail.
>
>> If the left & right weren't so anxious to battle each other, we'd be a
>> lot better off.
>
> The problem is that I'm middle of the road circa 1965 which to people
> these days means that I'm about a mile to the left of the John Birch
> Society. Not that anyone today even has a clue who they were and what they
> stood for. Look, I've watched true communism fail completely. I've watched
> Socialism in Europe tear them to pieces and it wasn't until they undid a
> great deal of the stupid socialist crap that they began to dig themselves
> out and now the leftists here are telling us what wonderful lives
> socialists live.
>
> Mike, I believe you have kids. You'd better start being concerned about
> what the leftists intend for your children.
>
>>> But if you think that doing everything the leftists asked would
>>> satisfy them you're sadly mistaken. Like all psychologically damamged
>>> people (did you know that the vast majority of "environmentalists"
>>> couldn't tell you the basis of their beliefs?) they want you to dance
>>> to their tune because they crave a feeling of power.
>>
>> My mother is a conservative and couldn't tell you the basis of her
>> beliefs either. In fact, I'd guess conservatives have an easier time not
>> knowing what they believe, because in general they prefer things not to
>> change or progress. Thus "conservative."
>
> So you think of change as progress? Maybe you'd better start there. A
> conservative is someone that requires a reason to change something.
> Liberals simply believe that EVERYTHING is wrong and has to be changed.
>
> I'm hoping that a REAL(tm) Presidential candidate will appear pretty
> quick.
>

Date: 30 Oct 2007 06:53:18
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 29, 10:49 pm, <Da...@Crockett.Net > wrote:
> * "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a =E9crit profondement:
>

Date: 15 Nov 2007 18:12:20
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 15, 12:51 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:

> "Fraud"? In the context of academic papers, fraud may refer to
> plagiarism or faking data. Sokal did neither.

I'm saying that a referee can rarely detect when a
clever author knows that what he is saying is not true.

> > I think the fact that he never mentions the requests
> > for revision indicates that he was taking a cheap shot.
>
> Bad faith? Maybe. But the journal's editors chose to publish. As the
> kids say these days, FAIL.

Sokal pwned them. Nobody should deny this. He did
in a way to guarantee maximum humor, embarrassment,
and publicity value too.

But after pwning them, Sokal embarked on a campaign
(which was pretty much devoid of the previous humor)
to claim that this showed the emptiness of an entire
field, made sweeping statements about where
philosophers and litterateurs ought not to tread,
and so on. He wrote a book about it. Or maybe
more than one. This is where I think he tripped
over from prankster into ideologist, and where his
disingenuity about struggling with the editors to
get the paper accepted was a problem.

> At the time the Sokal Hoax went down, liberal arts types were actively
> and routinely discussing whether or not the Scientific Method was
> essentially a social construct, with no effective claim to empiricism.
>
> Now, I'm enough of a clever boy to recognize both the compelling claims
> of relativism in this way, and to recognize that entire college
> faculties have not only recognized those claims, but accepted it whole
> as virtually axiomatic in their fields. But I think those claims have
> actively devastated the abilities of those fields of knowledge to
> actually produce any new knowledge. I'm looking at you, English
> literature.
>
> Sokal et al understood the ramifications of that sort of thinking in the
> hard sciences: bad.

However, practicing scientists mostly don't worry
about whether science is or is not a social construct.
They just do it, like riding a bike.

So I disagree that creeping relativism would have endangered
the hard sciences. You might want to argue that it would
endanger philosophy of science departments. I'd argue
that the books of people like Bruno Latour and Peter Galison
indicate that you can do interesting studies of how
science is done by networks of people in a society
(sort of a social construct) and not lead to 2+2=5.
FWIW, both of those guys are more substantial than
Andrew Ross, the editor of Social Text - although even
Ross didn't deserve all the hate mail he got.

BTW, there are people out there who will tell you
that string theory is math, and therefore not a science.
I don't know - I'm too dumb to understand it, so like
the editors of Social Text, I don't know whether it's
science or not.

Ben

Date: 15 Nov 2007 18:41:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:e59bdf7a-78e3-42d6-af50-3a6944ab828e@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 15, 12:51 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Fraud"? In the context of academic papers, fraud may refer to
>> plagiarism or faking data. Sokal did neither.
>
> I'm saying that a referee can rarely detect when a
> clever author knows that what he is saying is not true.

I wonder if you've ever served on a jury when both prosecutor and
defendant's attorney know that they're both lying through their teeth
because the prosecutor couldn't care less whether someone is guilty or
innocent but is only interested in whether he can convict someone or not.

Date: 14 Nov 2007 19:32:30
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 14, 4:46 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:

> "My article is a theoretical essay based entirely on
> publicly available sources, all of which I have
> meticulously footnoted. All works cited are real, and
> all quotations are rigorously accurate; none are
> invented. Now, it's true that the author doesn't
> believe his own argument. But why should that matter?
> The editors' duty as scholars is to judge the validity
> and interest of ideas, without regard for their
> provenance. (That is why many scholarly journals
> practice blind refereeing.) If the Social Text editors
> find my arguments convincing, then why should they be
> disconcerted simply because I don't? Or are they more
> deferent to the so-called ``cultural authority of
> technoscience'' than they would care to admit?"
>
> "I say this not in glee but in sadness.

So okay. This is a really dead story, but I don't
believe this. I mean that he wasn't gleeful.
I also think it's an ethical violation to submit an
article that you don't believe. I've refereed plenty
of papers, and while a referee must check for
correctness, and the Social Text people screwed up,
I also know that a referee cannot detect fraud,
unless it's grossly incompetent fraud. There's an
element of trust of the author, and Sokal abused that.

Also, Sokal has never acknowledged (AFAIK) that the
editors of the journal went back and forth with him
to try to make the article clearer, and he refused
to revise it substantially, so they finally accepted
it as is. They thought they were doing him a favor.
I think the fact that he never mentions the requests
for revision indicates that he was taking a cheap shot.

Obviously, they should have run it past some
physicist, but it was an article seemingly about
physics, not an article doing physics (if I'm making
the difference clear). It wasn't a physics journal.
If someone wrote a real article on the intellectual
structure of modern physics, it might have to be
reviewed by a philosopher of science, not a working
physicist. We don't know what we do, but we know
how to it - like riding a bike.

Anyway, I don't think physics was ever in danger
of being run over by scary deconstructionists, and
it still boggles me that people thought that was
a problem. As long as you can make stuff (cars,
computers etc) with what comes out of physics and
engineering departments, English profs are never
going to wipe them off the campus. Fortunately, the
rise of new creationists and the like has drawn more
attention to the real anti-science brigade.

Ben

Date: 15 Nov 2007 07:51:12
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article
<db26a68f-90ba-47b9-8447-f410049544b4@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> On Nov 14, 4:46 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > "My article is a theoretical essay based entirely on
> > publicly available sources, all of which I have
> > meticulously footnoted. All works cited are real, and
> > all quotations are rigorously accurate; none are
> > invented. Now, it's true that the author doesn't
> > believe his own argument. But why should that matter?
> > The editors' duty as scholars is to judge the validity
> > and interest of ideas, without regard for their
> > provenance. (That is why many scholarly journals
> > practice blind refereeing.) If the Social Text editors
> > find my arguments convincing, then why should they be
> > disconcerted simply because I don't? Or are they more
> > deferent to the so-called ``cultural authority of
> > technoscience'' than they would care to admit?"
> >
> > "I say this not in glee but in sadness.
>
> So okay. This is a really dead story, but I don't
> believe this. I mean that he wasn't gleeful.
> I also think it's an ethical violation to submit an
> article that you don't believe. I've refereed plenty
> of papers, and while a referee must check for
> correctness, and the Social Text people screwed up,
> I also know that a referee cannot detect fraud,
> unless it's grossly incompetent fraud. There's an
> element of trust of the author, and Sokal abused that.

"Fraud"? In the context of academic papers, fraud may refer to
plagiarism or faking data. Sokal did neither.

> Also, Sokal has never acknowledged (AFAIK) that the
> editors of the journal went back and forth with him
> to try to make the article clearer, and he refused
> to revise it substantially, so they finally accepted
> it as is. They thought they were doing him a favor.
> I think the fact that he never mentions the requests
> for revision indicates that he was taking a cheap shot.

Bad faith? Maybe. But the journal's editors chose to publish. As the
kids say these days, FAIL.

> Obviously, they should have run it past some
> physicist, but it was an article seemingly about
> physics, not an article doing physics (if I'm making
> the difference clear). It wasn't a physics journal.
> If someone wrote a real article on the intellectual
> structure of modern physics, it might have to be
> reviewed by a philosopher of science, not a working
> physicist. We don't know what we do, but we know
> how to it - like riding a bike.

So you're saying "Social Text" published a paper which they didn't
understand and were probably incompetent to analyze? That's actually
worse than what Sokal thinks they did.

There's a reason papers are supposed to be rejected.

> Anyway, I don't think physics was ever in danger
> of being run over by scary deconstructionists, and
> it still boggles me that people thought that was
> a problem. As long as you can make stuff (cars,
> computers etc) with what comes out of physics and
> engineering departments, English profs are never
> going to wipe them off the campus. Fortunately, the
> rise of new creationists and the like has drawn more
> attention to the real anti-science brigade.

At the time the Sokal Hoax went down, liberal arts types were actively
and routinely discussing whether or not the Scientific Method was
essentially a social construct, with no effective claim to empiricism.

Now, I'm enough of a clever boy to recognize both the compelling claims
of relativism in this way, and to recognize that entire college
faculties have not only recognized those claims, but accepted it whole
as virtually axiomatic in their fields. But I think those claims have
actively devastated the abilities of those fields of knowledge to
actually produce any new knowledge. I'm looking at you, English
literature.

Sokal et al understood the ramifications of that sort of thinking in the
hard sciences: bad.

Unfortunately, at the outer limits of theoretical physics, we're
dangerously close to being in the land of nonsense anyways, since large
chunks of the current attempts to create a Grand Unified Theory (aka
Theory of Everything) are essentially untestable with current
instruments.

The acme of this nightmare is surely the Bogdanov Affair, in which
world-class physicists are in substantial disagreement over whether the
Bogdanov's peer-reviewed, published work qualifies as an actual physics
theory (as opposed, I suppose, to being classified as "not even wrong,"
as Pauli put it).

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

This is the embarrassment for which modern physics has to answer, though
it doesn't appear to be a hoax. Like the Sokal Affair, it primarily
highlights the weaknesses of the peer-reviewed journal system, though
the enduring debate on the quality of the Bogdanov papers (current
consensus: low) also displays the best strengths of the current system
of scientific review.

But the Bogdanov Affair certainly suggests that the Sokal Affair proves
less than its fans would like, and even Sokal would admit that. That
said, I think that Sokal was right to see the battle against
postmodernist wackiness intruding on the domains of the hard sciences
was a conflict worthy of his time.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Date: 15 Nov 2007 20:17:37
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>
> Unfortunately, at the outer limits of theoretical physics, we're
> dangerously close to being in the land of nonsense anyways, since large
> chunks of the current attempts to create a Grand Unified Theory (aka
> Theory of Everything) are essentially untestable with current
> instruments.
>
That may soon change:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770

Surfer Dude ftw.

Date: 15 Nov 2007 19:01:09
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article
<rcousine-AE5FE5.23511114112007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvo
x.net] >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:

> In article
> <db26a68f-90ba-47b9-8447-f410049544b4@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 4:46 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "My article is a theoretical essay based entirely on
> > > publicly available sources, all of which I have
> > > meticulously footnoted. All works cited are real, and
> > > all quotations are rigorously accurate; none are
> > > invented. Now, it's true that the author doesn't
> > > believe his own argument. But why should that matter?
> > > The editors' duty as scholars is to judge the validity
> > > and interest of ideas, without regard for their
> > > provenance. (That is why many scholarly journals
> > > practice blind refereeing.) If the Social Text editors
> > > find my arguments convincing, then why should they be
> > > disconcerted simply because I don't? Or are they more
> > > deferent to the so-called ``cultural authority of
> > > technoscience'' than they would care to admit?"
> > >
> > > "I say this not in glee but in sadness.
> >
> > So okay. This is a really dead story, but I don't
> > believe this. I mean that he wasn't gleeful.
> > I also think it's an ethical violation to submit an
> > article that you don't believe. I've refereed plenty
> > of papers, and while a referee must check for
> > correctness, and the Social Text people screwed up,
> > I also know that a referee cannot detect fraud,
> > unless it's grossly incompetent fraud. There's an
> > element of trust of the author, and Sokal abused that.
>
> "Fraud"? In the context of academic papers, fraud may refer to
> plagiarism or faking data. Sokal did neither.
>
> > Also, Sokal has never acknowledged (AFAIK) that the
> > editors of the journal went back and forth with him
> > to try to make the article clearer, and he refused
> > to revise it substantially, so they finally accepted
> > it as is. They thought they were doing him a favor.
> > I think the fact that he never mentions the requests
> > for revision indicates that he was taking a cheap shot.
>
> Bad faith? Maybe. But the journal's editors chose to publish. As the
> kids say these days, FAIL.
>
> > Obviously, they should have run it past some
> > physicist, but it was an article seemingly about
> > physics, not an article doing physics (if I'm making
> > the difference clear). It wasn't a physics journal.
> > If someone wrote a real article on the intellectual
> > structure of modern physics, it might have to be
> > reviewed by a philosopher of science, not a working
> > physicist. We don't know what we do, but we know
> > how to it - like riding a bike.
>
> So you're saying "Social Text" published a paper which they didn't
> understand and were probably incompetent to analyze? That's actually
> worse than what Sokal thinks they did.
>
> There's a reason papers are supposed to be rejected.
>
> > Anyway, I don't think physics was ever in danger
> > of being run over by scary deconstructionists, and
> > it still boggles me that people thought that was
> > a problem. As long as you can make stuff (cars,
> > computers etc) with what comes out of physics and
> > engineering departments, English profs are never
> > going to wipe them off the campus. Fortunately, the
> > rise of new creationists and the like has drawn more
> > attention to the real anti-science brigade.
>
> At the time the Sokal Hoax went down, liberal arts types were actively
> and routinely discussing whether or not the Scientific Method was
> essentially a social construct, with no effective claim to empiricism.
>
> Now, I'm enough of a clever boy to recognize both the compelling claims
> of relativism in this way, and to recognize that entire college
> faculties have not only recognized those claims, but accepted it whole
> as virtually axiomatic in their fields. But I think those claims have
> actively devastated the abilities of those fields of knowledge to
> actually produce any new knowledge. I'm looking at you, English
> literature.
>
> Sokal et al understood the ramifications of that sort of thinking in the
> hard sciences: bad.
>
> Unfortunately, at the outer limits of theoretical physics, we're
> dangerously close to being in the land of nonsense anyways, since large
> chunks of the current attempts to create a Grand Unified Theory (aka
> Theory of Everything) are essentially untestable with current
> instruments.
>
> The acme of this nightmare is surely the Bogdanov Affair, in which
> world-class physicists are in substantial disagreement over whether the
> Bogdanov's peer-reviewed, published work qualifies as an actual physics
> theory (as opposed, I suppose, to being classified as "not even wrong,"
> as Pauli put it).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
>
> This is the embarrassment for which modern physics has to answer, though
> it doesn't appear to be a hoax. Like the Sokal Affair, it primarily
> highlights the weaknesses of the peer-reviewed journal system, though
> the enduring debate on the quality of the Bogdanov papers (current
> consensus: low) also displays the best strengths of the current system
> of scientific review.
>
> But the Bogdanov Affair certainly suggests that the Sokal Affair proves
> less than its fans would like, and even Sokal would admit that. That
> said, I think that Sokal was right to see the battle against
> postmodernist wackiness intruding on the domains of the hard sciences
> was a conflict worthy of his time.

Sokal said that he was not and is not worried that
literary criticism is a threat to physics. The threat
he addressed was to a social cause he supports.

--
Michael Press

Date: 15 Nov 2007 10:39:58
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

We should recruit these guys to come and troll in rbr in July.

Date: 15 Nov 2007 15:40:01
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <473c0681$0$1785$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
>
> We should recruit these guys to come and troll in rbr in July.

They pretty notoriously used sock puppets (including impersonating
famous physicists) in their online debates. Who says they aren't here
already?

I'm thinking...Gene Daniels? Ben?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Date: 15 Nov 2007 07:19:32
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 12 Nov 2007 15:44:59
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Nov 11, 9:07 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> > What did you think of the benthic bacteria global warming paper?
>
> I ... uh ... well ... see ... I hadn't heard of it until you mentioned
> it. Although it does explain a little of the chatter I saw on
> sci.geo.meteorology. Pretty funny though. Almost as good "Transgressing
> the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
> Gravity" that got published in a real journal.

I've always had mixed feelings about the Sokal paper. In that case, it
was kinda funny but mostly snide. In this case, it was kinda snide but
mostly funny. The difference is that not many secondary sources touted
the Social Text article, while here the touting was by the nutbars
themselves.

Date: 12 Nov 2007 17:08:15
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming

wrote:

> On Nov 11, 9:07 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > What did you think of the benthic bacteria global warming paper?
>>
>> I ... uh ... well ... see ... I hadn't heard of it until you
>> mentioned it. Although it does explain a little of the chatter I saw
>> on sci.geo.meteorology. Pretty funny though. Almost as good
>> "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics
>> of Quantum Gravity" that got published in a real journal.
>
> I've always had mixed feelings about the Sokal paper. In that case, it
> was kinda funny but mostly snide. In this case, it was kinda snide but
> mostly funny. The difference is that not many secondary sources touted
> the Social Text article, while here the touting was by the nutbars
> themselves.
>
>

Yeah, the Sokol paper was poking fun at people who, while being annoyingly
pretentious, were essentially harmless. The benthic bacteria paper was
poking fun at people who are not harmless.

Having read a little more on it, now, it is fairly amusing that Spencer
goes to great lengths to point out *he* wasn't taken in for a second. Yet
Limbaugh, whom Spencer advises on climate, was completely fooled. You
would have thought Limbaugh would have talked to Spencer, who would have
told Limbaugh it was a hoax.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 12 Nov 2007 15:36:21
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <Xns99E65CEFE5334FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 9:07 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > What did you think of the benthic bacteria global warming paper?
> >>
> >> I ... uh ... well ... see ... I hadn't heard of it until you
> >> mentioned it. Although it does explain a little of the chatter I saw
> >> on sci.geo.meteorology. Pretty funny though. Almost as good
> >> "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics
> >> of Quantum Gravity" that got published in a real journal.
> >
> > I've always had mixed feelings about the Sokal paper. In that case, it
> > was kinda funny but mostly snide. In this case, it was kinda snide but
> > mostly funny. The difference is that not many secondary sources touted
> > the Social Text article, while here the touting was by the nutbars
> > themselves.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, the Sokol paper was poking fun at people who, while being annoyingly
> pretentious, were essentially harmless.

Not harmless, and that is why Sokal took up arms.
He saw those "harmless" people doing serious harm to a
cause he believes in. Read what he has to say
about his decision to write "Transgressing the Boundaries".

--
Michael Press

Date: 14 Nov 2007 15:46:26
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article
<rubrum-ECD182.15362112112007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.
net >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:

> In article <Xns99E65CEFE5334FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>,
> William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 11, 9:07 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > What did you think of the benthic bacteria global warming paper?
> > >>
> > >> I ... uh ... well ... see ... I hadn't heard of it until you
> > >> mentioned it. Although it does explain a little of the chatter I saw
> > >> on sci.geo.meteorology. Pretty funny though. Almost as good
> > >> "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics
> > >> of Quantum Gravity" that got published in a real journal.
> > >
> > > I've always had mixed feelings about the Sokal paper. In that case, it
> > > was kinda funny but mostly snide. In this case, it was kinda snide but
> > > mostly funny. The difference is that not many secondary sources touted
> > > the Social Text article, while here the touting was by the nutbars
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, the Sokol paper was poking fun at people who, while being annoyingly
> > pretentious, were essentially harmless.
>
> Not harmless, and that is why Sokal took up arms.
> He saw those "harmless" people doing serious harm to a
> cause he believes in. Read what he has to say
> about his decision to write "Transgressing the Boundaries".

Bueller?

"My article is a theoretical essay based entirely on
publicly available sources, all of which I have
meticulously footnoted. All works cited are real, and
all quotations are rigorously accurate; none are
invented. Now, it's true that the author doesn't
believe his own argument. But why should that matter?
The editors' duty as scholars is to judge the validity
and interest of ideas, without regard for their
provenance. (That is why many scholarly journals
practice blind refereeing.) If the Social Text editors
find my arguments convincing, then why should they be
disconcerted simply because I don't? Or are they more
deferent to the so-called ``cultural authority of
technoscience'' than they would care to admit?"

"I say this not in glee but in sadness. After all, I'm
a leftist too (under the Sandinista government I taught
mathematics at the National University of Nicaragua).
On nearly all practical political issues--including
many concerning science and technology--I'm on the
same side as the Social Text editors. But I'm a leftist
(and feminist) because of evidence and logic, not in
spite of it. Why should the right wing be allowed to
monopolize the intellectual high ground?

And why should self-indulgent nonsense--whatever its
professed political orientation--be lauded as the
height of scholarly achievement?"

"In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any
competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate
physics or math major) would realize that it is a
spoof. Evidently the editors of Social Text felt
comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics
without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in
the subject."

And the piece of resistance

"Like the genre it is meant to satirize--myriad
exemplars of which can be found in my reference list--
my article is a melange of truths, half-truths,
quarter-truths, falsehoods, non sequiturs, and
syntactically correct sentences that have no meaning
whatsoever. (Sadly, there are only a handful of the
latter: I tried hard to produce them, but I found that,
save for rare bursts of inspiration, I just didn't have
the knack.)"

--
Michael Press

Date: 30 Oct 2007 23:56:57
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article
<1193752398.515931.269530@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 29, 10:49 pm, <Da...@Crockett.Net> wrote:
> > * "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a ?crit profondement:
> >

Date: 30 Oct 2007 15:51:29
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

* cyclintom@gmail.com a �crit profondement:

Date: 30 Oct 2007 14:40:52
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
> than a small fortune.
They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
able to cope with rising tides!

Date: 30 Oct 2007 20:03:22
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
>> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
>> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
>> than a small fortune.
> They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
> able to cope with rising tides!

That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that
the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
decommissioned.

Date: 31 Oct 2007 10:53:08
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
>>> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
>>> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
>>> than a small fortune.
>> They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to
>> be able to cope with rising tides!
>
> That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said
> that the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
> decommissioned.
>
Where was that article? Try this for a more current take.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6964281.stm

Date: 31 Oct 2007 09:31:14
From: Bob Martin
Subject: Re: Global Warming

in 556897 20071031 030322 "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
>>> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
>>> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
>>> than a small fortune.
>> They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
>> able to cope with rising tides!
>
>That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that
>the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
>decommissioned.

Wherever you read that, it was totally wrong. The barrier is working well and is closed more
and more frequently. However it is not expected to be able to meet future water levels and
planning for a larger version is already well-advanced.

"Before 1990, the number of barrier closures was one to two per year on average.
Since 1990, the number of barrier closures has increased to an average of about four per year.
In 2003 the Barrier was closed on 14 consecutive tides."

Date: 30 Oct 2007 06:51:25
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Oct 29, 11:49 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <13id5eodm5f7...@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
> > going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought
> > to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely
> > nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists.
>
> The weather is never consistent from year to year. Some years have more
> hurricanes, some less. One thing that we can sure will be consistent is that you'll
> find a way to say something inane about a topic you don't understand so you can
> criticise the demon "Liberals."

If there's one thing more consistent than the sun coming up it's your
moronic replies to things you not only know nothing about but with
which you haven't the intellectual capacity to understand.

Date: 29 Oct 2007 23:49:36
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com >, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
> going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought
> to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely
> nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists.

The weather is never consistent from year to year. Some years have more
hurricanes, some less. One thing that we can sure will be consistent is that you'll
find a way to say something inane about a topic you don't understand so you can
criticise the demon "Liberals."

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 30 Oct 2007 14:32:11
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>> Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
>> going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>>
>> I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought
>> to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely
>> nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists.
>
> The weather is never consistent from year to year. Some years have more
> hurricanes, some less. One thing that we can sure will be consistent is that you'll
> find a way to say something inane about a topic you don't understand so you can
> criticise the demon "Liberals."
>

Howard, you're a good egg

Steve (inveterate lefty)

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:55:32
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Howard Kveck wrote:
>> The weather is never consistent from year to year. Some years have more
>> hurricanes, some less. One thing that we can sure will be consistent is that you'll
>> find a way to say something inane about a topic you don't understand so you can
>> criticise the demon "Liberals."
>>
>
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Howard, you're a good egg

I bet Kunich would like to make an omelet out of him.

Date: 30 Oct 2007 16:43:57
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Donald Munro wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> The weather is never consistent from year to year. Some years have more
>>> hurricanes, some less. One thing that we can sure will be consistent is that you'll
>>> find a way to say something inane about a topic you don't understand so you can
>>> criticise the demon "Liberals."
>>>
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> Howard, you're a good egg
>
> I bet Kunich would like to make an omelet out of him.
>

I don't see Tom as violent. Neither are us lefties. But we ain't
going away.
Frankly, I don't know which leftists made absurd claims about global
warming. While scientists can be political, science ain't. It is what
it is. I don't argue with the flat earth society.

Steve

Date: 30 Oct 2007 06:49:47
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

* "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > a �crit profondement:

Date: 29 Oct 2007 21:08:53
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com...
> Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
> going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
> leftists.

So the idea is that this frees up huge amounts of working capital that can
now be used to sponsor Pro-Tour teams?

But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just act
like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at
times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would want
anyway. It's funny how we don't think twice about making the smallest impact
possible in wilderness areas, but when it comes to the rest of the planet,
watch out, I don't care where that sewage flows or how much of that
pesticide goes into the food chain or how many areas we might be saving huge
amounts of $$$ if we thought a bit and figured out how to do things with a
bit less packaging. And the amount we drive our cars... once again, forget
about global warming, just look at the smog some days. Doesn't it seem like
something we'd be better off with a bit less of?

We can be better caretakers of this planet without having western
civilization grind to a halt. Right now, I'm going to go turn some lights
off in the house. There's no reason for so many to be on; there's nobody in
the entry hall, or the main hall, or the kitchen right now... all areas I
can see from where I am, all lit up. Even the light in the back yard was on,
and I'll be the dog could care less.

So I've just lengthened the time before I have to replace more lights
(eventually with those fluorescent lights that look sorta like a soft ice
cream cone), I'll save a few pennies on the electric bill, and somehow it
even seems like a house with fewer lights on is a bit less stressful to be
in.

Now, about that computer farm in the living room... kids computer, mom's
computer, file server, and my main computer in the family room... sigh. At
least when I replaced the kids computer last week, I made choices that
resulted in a far-quieter & faster machine that uses less than half as much
power as their older one. Probably spent about $30 more than I might have
otherwise.

Little things that aren't going to make even the tiniest little dent by
themselves, but just make sense in a being-nice-to-the-planet sort of way.

But what does any of this have to do with rbr?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com