Discussion:
NASA Scientist In 1971 Saw Human-Caused Coming Ice Age?
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-23 19:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Amusing...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------------

The 'Old' Consensus?

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/21/2007

Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist
in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old
Washington Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees
New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University
scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next
50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning
fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's
average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be
sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program
developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia
University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't
they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the
planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in
the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by
Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of
Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was
converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries
about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin,
who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters."
We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the
ice age theory in 1971?

People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a
closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing
wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at
honestly.

But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a
political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching
cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the
public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on
science, based on empirical evidence?

If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having
recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled,
the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the
early 1970s.

Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.
Ray O'Hara
2007-09-23 19:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?

i'm surprised you aren't claiming the sun orbits the earth as that was once
the learned opinion.


your idiocy is infinite hinesquartes, do you have stock in polluters r us?

if we stop polluting and it turns outclimate warming is not our fault , well
then "no harm no foul"
but if we do nothing and we are at fault , we are screwed and the future
will damn us.
nothing bad comes from protecting the enviroment, plenty bad comes from not
doing so.

why is that concept so hard for you to fathom..
"nightjar" .uk.com>
2007-09-24 00:12:50 UTC
Permalink
"Ray O'Hara" <***@rcn.com> wrote in message news:***@rcn.net...
...
Post by Ray O'Hara
if we stop polluting and it turns outclimate warming is not our fault , well
then "no harm no foul"...
Except that we have wasted huge sums of money that would have been better
spent on preparing the world for the effects of climate change. As the best
we can hope for, even if CO2 is a climate change driver, rather than, as
many scientists think, a result of climate change, is to delay the warming
by a fairly small number of years, I would prefer to spend the money on
preparing for the inevitable now, rather than when it is too late.

Colin Bignell
Mark Test
2007-09-24 06:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-24 07:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Perceptive...

And the SAME scientists who were wrong in 1971 won't even frankly and humbly
ADMIT they were wrong and the computer model they were using was worthless.

So, why should we believe they've got it *RIGHT* -- THIS TIME?

Perhaps they are fraudulent and dead wrong TODAY too -- just like those two
Cold Fusion Nut Scientists of a few years back.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
Ray O'Hara
2007-09-24 15:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Perceptive...
And the SAME scientists who were wrong in 1971 won't even frankly and humbly
ADMIT they were wrong and the computer model they were using was worthless.
So, why should we believe they've got it *RIGHT* -- THIS TIME?
Perhaps they are fraudulent and dead wrong TODAY too -- just like those two
Cold Fusion Nut Scientists of a few years back.
because they keep at it.
you seem to think being mistaken once makes you mistaken forever.

ironically you keep supporting bush in iraq when he's been wrong on
everything.

scientists were wrong when they thought the earth was the center of the
universe. maybe they are just as fraudulent now.

heiny, you are letting your political views lead you on issues of science.
"nightjar" .uk.com>
2007-09-24 07:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
The Russians think it is. They are predicting a cooling cycle will begin
around 2012.

Colin Bignell
Mark Test
2007-09-25 00:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
The Russians think it is. They are predicting a cooling cycle will begin
around 2012.
There are plenty of American scientists predicting the same...

Mark
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
La N
2007-09-25 00:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
The Russians think it is. They are predicting a cooling cycle will begin
around 2012.
There are plenty of American scientists predicting the same...
That makes sense. According to ancient Mayan calculations, 2012 is when the
world is ending!

- nilita
Billzz
2007-09-25 00:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by La N
Post by Mark Test
Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
The Russians think it is. They are predicting a cooling cycle will begin
around 2012.
There are plenty of American scientists predicting the same...
That makes sense. According to ancient Mayan calculations, 2012 is when
the world is ending!
- nilita
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Robert Frost
La N
2007-09-25 02:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billzz
Post by La N
Post by Mark Test
Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
The Russians think it is. They are predicting a cooling cycle will begin
around 2012.
There are plenty of American scientists predicting the same...
That makes sense. According to ancient Mayan calculations, 2012 is when
the world is ending!
- nilita
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost
Yeah! I love poetry, especiallly when it's on topic .. ;)

Here's a related one by one of my favourite poets, Dorothy Parker:

BRAGGART
- Dorothy Parker

The days will rally, wreathing
Their crazy tarantelle;
And you must go on breathing,
But I'll be safe in hell.

Like January weather,
The years will bite and smart,
And pull your bones together
To wrap your chattering heart.

The pretty stuff you're made of
Will crack and crease and dry.
The thing you are afraid of
Will look from every eye.

You will go faltering after
The bright, imperious line,
And split your throat on laughter,
And burn your eyes with brine.

You will be frail and musty
With peering, furtive head,
Whilst I am young and lusty
Among the roaring dead.

- nilita
Ray O'Hara
2007-09-25 04:28:54 UTC
Permalink
"La N" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%7_Ji.76727$***@edtnps82...

I doubt that i will ever see,
a billboard pretty as a tree,
and if the bills soon don't fall,
I doubt i'll see a tree at all,

ogden nash.

that is poetry.
Ray O'Hara
2007-09-25 04:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
The Russians think it is. They are predicting a cooling cycle will begin
around 2012.
There are plenty of American scientists predicting the same...
Mark
yeah, all the ones working in the petro-chemical industry
"nightjar" .uk.com>
2007-09-25 22:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Mark Test
Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
The Russians think it is. They are predicting a cooling cycle will begin
around 2012.
There are plenty of American scientists predicting the same...
Mark
yeah, all the ones working in the petro-chemical industry
Even if that were true, it would not mean they have to be wrong. There is a
lot of money and a lot of votes to be gained by pushing the green agenda.

Colin Bignell
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-25 23:35:18 UTC
Permalink
This is all just GREAT NEWS!

I'll be able to grow Hibiscus, Bouganvillea and Mangos in the "back yard" of
one of my homes on the Mainland....

And if parts of New York City are submerged, that's Good News too.

<G>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult
AUK Registrar
2007-09-26 22:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
This is all just GREAT NEWS!
I'll be able to grow Hibiscus, Bouganvillea and Mangos in the "back yard" of
one of my homes on the Mainland....
And if parts of New York City are submerged, that's Good News too.
Only if you are in residence there at the time.
John Kane
2007-09-24 13:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .

As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it is[1].
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.

Not doing something while global warming is true leaves us with
droughts, floods, famines, epidemics etc. All we would be missing are
those 4 guys on horseback.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

1. I think I have only heard of 2-3 reputable scientists who do
research in the area who think global warming is a myth and as Kuhn
pointed out there are always a few people who don't get the new
paradigm.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2007-09-24 13:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it is[1].
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.

Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or are you one of those who
only think "we have to do something" as long as you're not expected
to do it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Or will you be one of those screaming blue murder when the govern-
ment comes along to pick your pocket to fund that which costs
"essentially nothing"?
Post by John Kane
1. I think I have only heard of 2-3 reputable scientists who do
research in the area who think global warming is a myth and as Kuhn
pointed out there are always a few people who don't get the new
paradigm.
Really? I can point you to a website with the electronic signatures
of over 17,000 scientists...all urging caution about jumping on the
GW bandwagon. I can also point you to the 2000 who signed the
Heidelberg Appeal. Maybe you're simply not looking hard enough...
or perhaps, not looking at all?

Deirdre
z***@netscape.net
2007-09-24 16:04:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 24, 9:57 am, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it is[1].
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or are you one of those who
only think "we have to do something" as long as you're not expected
to do it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Or will you be one of those screaming blue murder when the govern-
ment comes along to pick your pocket to fund that which costs
"essentially nothing"?
Post by John Kane
1. I think I have only heard of 2-3 reputable scientists who do
research in the area who think global warming is a myth and as Kuhn
pointed out there are always a few people who don't get the new
paradigm.
Really? I can point you to a website with the electronic signatures
of over 17,000 scientists...all urging caution about jumping on the
GW bandwagon. I can also point you to the 2000 who signed the
Heidelberg Appeal. Maybe you're simply not looking hard enough...
or perhaps, not looking at all?
Well, that doesn't really make that much of difference now.
Since the reason we brought the whole subject up
for the Hollywood morons going on 60 YEARS ago now.
is that there are *16,000* scientists who are experts with *F-16s*.
And there are *1000* scientists who are experts with Stealth
Bombers.
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Deirdre
Ray O'Hara
2007-09-24 16:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it is[1].
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or are you one of those who
only think "we have to do something" as long as you're not expected
to do it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Or will you be one of those screaming blue murder when the govern-
ment comes along to pick your pocket to fund that which costs
"essentially nothing"?
and new technologies will be developed that will make money.
and is a low tax rate an excuse for destroyng the planet?


only fools likr you will be screaming murder.
i can remember heading up u.s. rte 3 in nashua new hampshirein the 60s , as
you aproached the nashua river{about 20 feet wide} the smellwould gag you
for a mile in each direction. lo and behold the EPA came along and now you
don't even notice crossing it.
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will cost money"
well the health problems and destroyed envioment cost money and lives too.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2007-09-24 17:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it is[1].
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or are you one of those who
only think "we have to do something" as long as you're not expected
to do it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Or will you be one of those screaming blue murder when the govern-
ment comes along to pick your pocket to fund that which costs
"essentially nothing"?
and new technologies will be developed that will make money.
and is a low tax rate an excuse for destroyng the planet?
You'd be surprised how dirty many of those "new technologies"
are...the fact that they run clean doesn't automatically imply
they're clean to manufacture.

Thinking things through isn't your forte, is it?
Post by Ray O'Hara
only fools likr you will be screaming murder.
Can't imagine why...I've no problem paying my taxes or spending
more to use eco-friendly products. The people who'll be shouting
are the ones who've deluded themselves into thinking that it
"costs nothing".

Deirdre
Ray O'Hara
2007-09-24 19:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it is[1].
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or are you one of those who
only think "we have to do something" as long as you're not expected
to do it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Or will you be one of those screaming blue murder when the govern-
ment comes along to pick your pocket to fund that which costs
"essentially nothing"?
and new technologies will be developed that will make money.
and is a low tax rate an excuse for destroyng the planet?
You'd be surprised how dirty many of those "new technologies"
are...the fact that they run clean doesn't automatically imply
they're clean to manufacture.
Thinking things through isn't your forte, is it?
oww brilliant comeback.
show us how they are dirty to make,
you are just making more excuses for doing nothing.
and running clean is an improvement.
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ray O'Hara
only fools likr you will be screaming murder.
Can't imagine why...I've no problem paying my taxes or spending
more to use eco-friendly products. The people who'll be shouting
are the ones who've deluded themselves into thinking that it
"costs nothing".
Deirdre
who said it costs nothing? you are setting up and knocking down straw men.
let me guess, you vote republican
James Hogg
2007-09-24 19:56:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:16:28 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
Post by John Kane
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it
is[1].
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or are you one of those who
only think "we have to do something" as long as you're not expected
to do it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Or will you be one of those screaming blue murder when the govern-
ment comes along to pick your pocket to fund that which costs
"essentially nothing"?
and new technologies will be developed that will make money.
and is a low tax rate an excuse for destroyng the planet?
You'd be surprised how dirty many of those "new technologies"
are...the fact that they run clean doesn't automatically imply
they're clean to manufacture.
Thinking things through isn't your forte, is it?
oww brilliant comeback.
show us how they are dirty to make,
you are just making more excuses for doing nothing.
and running clean is an improvement.
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ray O'Hara
only fools likr you will be screaming murder.
Can't imagine why...I've no problem paying my taxes or spending
more to use eco-friendly products. The people who'll be shouting
are the ones who've deluded themselves into thinking that it
"costs nothing".
Deirdre
who said it costs nothing? you are setting up and knocking down straw men.
let me guess, you vote republican
Do pay attention, Ray. Read the whole message you just posted,
including the bits that other people wrote.

What part of "John Kane wrote ... Doing something about global warming
costs essentially nothing" do you not understand?

Who is setting up a strawman? Not Deirdre for sure.

James
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2007-09-24 20:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kane
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it
is[1].
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or are you one of those who
only think "we have to do something" as long as you're not expected
to do it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Or will you be one of those screaming blue murder when the govern-
ment comes along to pick your pocket to fund that which costs
"essentially nothing"?
and new technologies will be developed that will make money.
and is a low tax rate an excuse for destroyng the planet?
You'd be surprised how dirty many of those "new technologies"
are...the fact that they run clean doesn't automatically imply
they're clean to manufacture.
Thinking things through isn't your forte, is it?
oww brilliant comeback.
show us how they are dirty to make,
you are just making more excuses for doing nothing.
and running clean is an improvement.
If you were any more dense we could use you as radiation
shielding.

Solar power needs for vast tracts of land, usually in desert areas.
They also require large amounts of cooling water if they are to
function properly, a resource which, not surprisingly, isn't overly
abundant in desert regions. The cost effectiveness of solar power
is often offset, if not entirely negated, by the cost of pumping
water over miles of arid terrain. Additionally, while the operation
of such plants is pollution free, the manufacture and installation
of the components and the fossil fuels required to produce them
are not. Photo-voltaic cells require cadmium and arsenic, both
notoriously hazardous, and even the silicon, which is reasonably
inert while in operation, is not without significant hazard during
manufacture.

Geothermal is high in sulphur, ammonia, methane and carbon di-
oxide...a veritable Pandora's Box of greenhouse gases. The sludge
produced during operation is laden with chlorides, mercury, arsenic,
nickel and vanadium and there's a problem of where to dispose of
this solid waste once is is brought to the surface.

Hydro-power, although a well developed technology, requires vast
amounts of land and the dams permanently change local environ-
ments. Although it is a pollution free source of power, dam failures
have occurred in living memory and they are almost always accom-
panied by catastrophic loss of human life.

THINK, you fool..._nothing_ is without cost, the _real_ question is
what cost are we willing to bear. So far the answer from the general
public is "We're not willing to bear any of the costs or make any sacri-
fices...it's someone else's problem." It's not. It's _everyone's_ prob-
lem. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Post by John Kane
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ray O'Hara
only fools likr you will be screaming murder.
Can't imagine why...I've no problem paying my taxes or spending
more to use eco-friendly products. The people who'll be shouting
are the ones who've deluded themselves into thinking that it
"costs nothing".
Deirdre
who said it costs nothing? you are setting up and knocking down straw men.
let me guess, you vote republican
John Kane said it cost nothing, you twit...not only do you not think
but you can't read either?

And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation. I'm the
person trying to find ways to clean up the mess left behind by idjits
like you demanding unlimited power.

Deirdre
Vince
2007-09-24 20:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,

CH3CH2OH + NAD+ → CH3CHO + NADH + H+

followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction

CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA → acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+

There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation

Glad to see you are on the job

Vince Brannigan
Professor
Fire Protection Engineering
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2007-09-24 20:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ âݒ CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA âݒ acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Glad to see you are on the job
My primary thrust is trying to find a way to remediate,
in situ, the waste radionuclides which are leaching into
the ground/drinking water.

It wasn't there until we started throwing this rubbish into
French drains and storing it in single walled (now breached)
underground tanks. The Cold War legacy is staggering...
almost 2 trillion gallons of contaminated groundwater with
over 5000 distinct plumes...it's a sort of job security I'd
be happy to live without.

Deirdre
Cory Bhreckan
2007-09-24 21:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ âÝ’ CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA âÝ’ acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Glad to see you are on the job
My primary thrust is trying to find a way to remediate,
in situ, the waste radionuclides which are leaching into
the ground/drinking water.
It wasn't there until we started throwing this rubbish into
French drains
Yet another reason for Adam to hate the French.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-09-25 03:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ âݒ CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA âݒ acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Glad to see you are on the job
My primary thrust is trying to find a way to remediate,
in situ, the waste radionuclides which are leaching into
the ground/drinking water. It wasn't there until we started throwing this
rubbish into French drains
Yet another reason for Adam to hate the French.
As if another were needed.
Told you they stink.
Cory Bhreckan
2007-09-24 20:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ ? CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA ? acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Much better than adding ice.
Post by Vince
Glad to see you are on the job
Vince Brannigan
Professor
Fire Protection Engineering
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-24 21:07:13 UTC
Permalink
<G>

NO!

The Baltimore Irish Drunk, Vincent Brannigan, is NOT going to get my supply
of Scottish 43/57 ethanol/water Lagavulin mixtures stored in glass bottles.

I will carry out ALL the Bioremediation and Bioprocessing MYSELF -- in
concert with my Good Wife, of course.

The Irish Drunk wouldn't appreciate it anyway and it would be wasted in any
bioremediation exercises he might perform on it.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Alba gu bragh!
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ ? CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA ? acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Glad to see you are on the job
Vince Brannigan
Professor
Fire Protection Engineering
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2007-09-24 21:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
<G>
NO!
The Baltimore Irish Drunk, Vincent Brannigan, is NOT going to get my supply
of Scottish 43/57 ethanol/water Lagavulin mixtures stored in glass bottles.
I will carry out ALL the Bioremediation and Bioprocessing MYSELF -- in
concert with my Good Wife, of course.
That's very good of you to make the sacrifice. :-)

Deirdre
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-24 21:23:08 UTC
Permalink
<G>

Thank you kindly.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by D. Spencer Hines
<G>
NO!
The Baltimore Irish Drunk, Vincent Brannigan, is NOT going to get my
supply of Scottish 43/57 ethanol/water Lagavulin mixtures stored in glass
bottles.
I will carry out ALL the Bioremediation and Bioprocessing MYSELF -- in
concert with my Good Wife, of course.
The Irish Drunk wouldn't appreciate it anyway and it would be wasted in
any bioremediation exercises he might perform on it.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Alba gu bragh!
That's very good of you to make the sacrifice. :-)
Deirdre
Peter Skelton
2007-09-24 21:28:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:07:13 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
<G>
NO!
The Baltimore Irish Drunk, Vincent Brannigan, is NOT going to get my supply
of Scottish 43/57 ethanol/water Lagavulin mixtures stored in glass bottles.
I will carry out ALL the Bioremediation and Bioprocessing MYSELF -- in
concert with my Good Wife, of course.
I think your bad wife would be the woman of choice for this
exercise - the good wife is unlikely to approve of either your
drunken act or your greed.


Peter Skelton
Vince
2007-09-24 22:58:05 UTC
Permalink
There is work for all hands

But I'll note the typical abuse.

Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
<G>
NO!
The Baltimore Irish Drunk, Vincent Brannigan, is NOT going to get my supply
of Scottish 43/57 ethanol/water Lagavulin mixtures stored in glass bottles.
I will carry out ALL the Bioremediation and Bioprocessing MYSELF -- in
concert with my Good Wife, of course.
The Irish Drunk wouldn't appreciate it anyway and it would be wasted in any
bioremediation exercises he might perform on it.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Alba gu bragh!
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ ? CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA ? acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Glad to see you are on the job
Vince Brannigan
Professor
Fire Protection Engineering
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-09-25 03:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ ? CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA ? acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Does that include 12 year old Macallan by any chance?
I'd be willing to do my bit.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-25 05:01:44 UTC
Permalink
A Plebeian Scotch.

DSH
--------------------------------------
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ ? CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA ? acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Does that include 12 year old Macallan by any chance?
I'd be willing to do my bit.
John Briggs
2007-09-25 09:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A Plebeian Scotch.
Is there no limit to your ignorance?
--
John Briggs
Eugene Griessel
2007-09-25 09:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A Plebeian Scotch.
Is there no limit to your ignorance?
Nope - I think he is perfect proof of Einstein's adage that stupidity
has no limits.

Eugene L Griessel

Whose cruel idea was it for the word 'lisp' to have an 's' in it?

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Vince
2007-09-25 13:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A Plebeian Scotch.
DSH
Plebeian , one of my favorite misused words
Self made men are the Plebeian nobility.
Gaius Marius was plebeian nobility and a "new man". So was Cicero

A patrician simply inherits the rank.
nothing necessarily to be proud of in terms of accomplishment

Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
--------------------------------------
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ ? CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA ? acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Does that include 12 year old Macallan by any chance?
I'd be willing to do my bit.
Eugene Griessel
2007-09-25 14:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A Plebeian Scotch.
DSH
Plebeian , one of my favorite misused words
Self made men are the Plebeian nobility.
Gaius Marius was plebeian nobility and a "new man". So was Cicero
A patrician simply inherits the rank.
nothing necessarily to be proud of in terms of accomplishment
I suspect there has been a shift in commonly accepted definition since
that time:

(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

plebeian // n. & adj.
n.
1 a commoner, esp. in ancient Rome.
2 a working-class person, esp. an uncultured one.
adj.
1 of low birth; of the common people.
2 uncultured.
3 coarse, ignoble.
plebeianism n.
[Latin plebeius from plebs plebis ‘the common people’]

Eugene L Griessel

Unassailable evidence that TRUTH is something other than what I believe
has thus far escaped me .....

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Vince
2007-09-25 14:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A Plebeian Scotch.
DSH
Plebeian , one of my favorite misused words
Self made men are the Plebeian nobility.
Gaius Marius was plebeian nobility and a "new man". So was Cicero
A patrician simply inherits the rank.
nothing necessarily to be proud of in terms of accomplishment
I suspect there has been a shift in commonly accepted definition since
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
plebeian // n. & adj.
n.
1 a commoner, esp. in ancient Rome.
2 a working-class person, esp. an uncultured one.
adj.
1 of low birth; of the common people.
2 uncultured.
3 coarse, ignoble.
plebeianism n.
[Latin plebeius from plebs plebis ‘the common people’]
Eugene L Griessel
Unassailable evidence that TRUTH is something other than what I believe
has thus far escaped me .....
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Like "Sanction" I can't help what idiots do with good words

Vince
Eugene Griessel
2007-09-25 15:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A Plebeian Scotch.
DSH
Plebeian , one of my favorite misused words
Self made men are the Plebeian nobility.
Gaius Marius was plebeian nobility and a "new man". So was Cicero
A patrician simply inherits the rank.
nothing necessarily to be proud of in terms of accomplishment
I suspect there has been a shift in commonly accepted definition since
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
plebeian // n. & adj.
n.
1 a commoner, esp. in ancient Rome.
2 a working-class person, esp. an uncultured one.
adj.
1 of low birth; of the common people.
2 uncultured.
3 coarse, ignoble.
plebeianism n.
[Latin plebeius from plebs plebis ‘the common people’]
Eugene L Griessel
Unassailable evidence that TRUTH is something other than what I believe
has thus far escaped me .....
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Like "Sanction" I can't help what idiots do with good words
One of my pet hates too. Anyone acquainted with me knows that one of
my favourite phrases is "they have never read the story of the tower
of babel!"

Eugene L Griessel

Behind every great man is a great woman.
Behind every great woman is a great behind.
-- anonymous male chauvinist

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
John Briggs
2007-09-25 23:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A Plebeian Scotch.
Plebeian , one of my favorite misused words
And it rather looks as if you are misusing it now.
Post by Vince
Self made men are the Plebeian nobility.
Well, no - the Plebeian nobility were the descendents of self-made men.
Post by Vince
Gaius Marius was plebeian nobility and a "new man". So was Cicero
They were both of Equestrian rank. Now, we can argue whether that means
they are Plebeians or not - but it doesn't mean they are "self-made". They
are "new men" only in the sense of not coming from senatorial families.
--
John Briggs
Vince
2007-09-26 00:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A Plebeian Scotch.
Plebeian , one of my favorite misused words
And it rather looks as if you are misusing it now.
Post by Vince
Self made men are the Plebeian nobility.
Well, no - the Plebeian nobility were the descendents of self-made men.
Post by Vince
Gaius Marius was plebeian nobility and a "new man". So was Cicero
They were both of Equestrian rank. Now, we can argue whether that means
they are Plebeians or not - but it doesn't mean they are "self-made". They
are "new men" only in the sense of not coming from senatorial families.
They are clearly "new men"
you can be a plebeian senator

Marius came from the provinces. He was the first of his family to even
live in Rome Cicero was born in Arpinum
neither came from roman city Equestrian families

Becoming a senator or consul did not make a man a patrician
that was inherited

Vince
Vince
2007-09-25 12:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Vince
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
And no, I don't vote Republican...as a matter of fact, a short bit of
research by your lazy arse would show you that I work in Environ-
mental Research and my primary thrust is bioremediation.
Im a very strong believer in bioremediation of the fire hazards inherent
in 50/50 ethanol water mixtures stored in glass bottlers. This horrible
hazard can be reduced to a harmless substance by bioprocessing with
alcohol dehydrogenase,
CH3CH2OH + NAD+ ? CH3CHO + NADH + H+
followed by the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase
reaction
CH3CHO + NAD+ + CoA ? acetyl-CoA + NADH + H+
There are vast quantities of flammable bottled ethanol out there waiting
for bioremediation
Does that include 12 year old Macallan by any chance?
I'd be willing to do my bit.
work for all hands

It takes a village

Vince
Doug McDonald
2007-09-24 18:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will cost money"
well the health problems and destroyed envioment cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global warming", assuming you
mean to do it by reducing CO2 production, means you have to STOP USING ALL
FOSSIL FUELS. Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the ground.
That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people do) that there is only a small
sink for it. Stopping using fossil fuels in any short time frame means
the end of modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up
a goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what timeframe? And note that
NO and I mean NO left wing anti-global-warming type is remotely
proposing nuclear.

Doug McDonald
Ray O'Hara
2007-09-24 19:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will cost money"
well the health problems and destroyed envioment cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global warming", assuming you
mean to do it by reducing CO2 production, means you have to STOP USING ALL
FOSSIL FUELS. Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the ground.
That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people do) that there is only a small
sink for it. Stopping using fossil fuels in any short time frame means
the end of modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up
a goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what timeframe? And note that
NO and I mean NO left wing anti-global-warming type is remotely
proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
once again a straw man. invent extreme positions and claim that will happen,


as to nuclear. it doesn't pollute until it really pollutes.
i knew a several people who were from the chernobyl area,{jewish groups
brought them over to newton mass} they died of extremely nasty cancer.
screw up at a nuke ,{ seascale anyone, fermi in monroe michigan} and you
have a very nasty set of problems.

zero pollution is not going to happen. but major cutbacks in it can be
made.
Vince
2007-09-24 19:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will cost money"
well the health problems and destroyed envioment cost money and lives
too.
Post by Doug McDonald
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global warming",
assuming you
Post by Doug McDonald
mean to do it by reducing CO2 production, means you have to STOP USING ALL
FOSSIL FUELS. Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the
ground.
Post by Doug McDonald
That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people do) that there is only
a small
Post by Doug McDonald
sink for it. Stopping using fossil fuels in any short time frame means
the end of modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up
a goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what timeframe? And
note that
Post by Doug McDonald
NO and I mean NO left wing anti-global-warming type is remotely
proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?

wow how did they do that ?


Vince
John Briggs
2007-09-24 19:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will cost
money" well the health problems and destroyed envioment cost money
and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2 production,
means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS. Not DELAY using them
... STOP ... and leave them in the ground. That's assuming (which
the "gloom and doom" people do) that there is only a small sink for
it. Stopping using fossil fuels in any short time frame means the
end of modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up a goodly
dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what timeframe?
And note that NO and I mean NO left wing anti-global-warming type
is remotely proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
--
John Briggs
Vince
2007-09-24 20:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will
cost money" well the health problems and destroyed envioment
cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS. Not
DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the ground.
That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people do) that
there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using fossil fuels
in any short time frame means the end of modern civilization.
Sure, nuclear energy could take up a goodly dose of slack ...
but at what cost? And in what timeframe? And note that NO and I
mean NO left wing anti-global-warming type is remotely
proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time

Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon Monoxide
Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.

Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO poisoning

Vince
John Briggs
2007-09-24 20:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will
cost money" well the health problems and destroyed envioment
cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS. Not
DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the ground.
That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people do) that
there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using fossil fuels
in any short time frame means the end of modern civilization.
Sure, nuclear energy could take up a goodly dose of slack ...
but at what cost? And in what timeframe? And note that NO and I
mean NO left wing anti-global-warming type is remotely
proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon Monoxide
Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
--
John Briggs
Vince
2007-09-24 22:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it
will cost money" well the health problems and destroyed
envioment cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS.
Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the
ground. That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people
do) that there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using
fossil fuels in any short time frame means the end of
modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up a
goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what
timeframe? And note that NO and I mean NO left wing
anti-global-warming type is remotely proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon
Monoxide Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO
poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
OFCS

How can I avoid CO poisoning from my vehicle?

* Have a mechanic check the exhaust system of my car every year. A
small leak in your car's exhaust system can lead to a build up of CO
inside the car.

* Never run a car or truck in the garage with the garage door shut.
CO can build up quickly while your car or truck is running in a closed
garage. Never run your car or truck inside a garage that is attached to
a house and always open the door to any garage to let in fresh air when
running a car or truck inside the garage.

* If you drive a vehicle with a tailgate, when you open the
tailgate, you also need to open vents or windows to make sure air is
moving through your car. If only the tailgate is open CO from the
exhaust will be pulled into the car.

http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm



Colorado

On November 3, 1996, five men aged 17 22 years were found dead inside
two automobiles with the engine of one car running inside a garage with
closed doors and windows. Friends and relatives of the decedents
reported that on the night of November 2, the men had been out consuming
alcohol and continued socializing in the garage after they had returned
home. In an apparent attempt to keep warm, they had entered the cars,
started the engine of one car, and turned on the heat.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044617.htm

etc


Vince
John Briggs
2007-09-24 23:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it
will cost money" well the health problems and destroyed
envioment cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS.
Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the
ground. That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people
do) that there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using
fossil fuels in any short time frame means the end of
modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up a
goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what
timeframe? And note that NO and I mean NO left wing
anti-global-warming type is remotely proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon
Monoxide Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO
poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
OFCS
How can I avoid CO poisoning from my vehicle?
* Have a mechanic check the exhaust system of my car every year.
A small leak in your car's exhaust system can lead to a build up of CO
inside the car.
* Never run a car or truck in the garage with the garage door
shut. CO can build up quickly while your car or truck is running in a
closed garage. Never run your car or truck inside a garage that is
attached to a house and always open the door to any garage to let in
fresh air when running a car or truck inside the garage.
* If you drive a vehicle with a tailgate, when you open the
tailgate, you also need to open vents or windows to make sure air is
moving through your car. If only the tailgate is open CO from the
exhaust will be pulled into the car.
http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm
Colorado
On November 3, 1996, five men aged 17 22 years were found dead inside
two automobiles with the engine of one car running inside a garage
with closed doors and windows. Friends and relatives of the decedents
reported that on the night of November 2, the men had been out
consuming alcohol and continued socializing in the garage after they
had returned home. In an apparent attempt to keep warm, they had
entered the cars, started the engine of one car, and turned on the
heat.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044617.htm
It is not clear from the reports whether the vehicle had a functioning
catalytic converter.

"Decedent" does not appear to be a word in the English language.

The introduction of catalytic concerters in the UK has had unintended
consequences - paracetomol can now only be sold in smaller quantities.
--
John Briggs
Vince
2007-09-24 23:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it
will cost money" well the health problems and destroyed
envioment cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS.
Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the
ground. That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people
do) that there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using
fossil fuels in any short time frame means the end of
modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up a
goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what
timeframe? And note that NO and I mean NO left wing
anti-global-warming type is remotely proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon
Monoxide Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO
poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
OFCS
How can I avoid CO poisoning from my vehicle?
* Have a mechanic check the exhaust system of my car every year.
A small leak in your car's exhaust system can lead to a build up of CO
inside the car.
* Never run a car or truck in the garage with the garage door
shut. CO can build up quickly while your car or truck is running in a
closed garage. Never run your car or truck inside a garage that is
attached to a house and always open the door to any garage to let in
fresh air when running a car or truck inside the garage.
* If you drive a vehicle with a tailgate, when you open the
tailgate, you also need to open vents or windows to make sure air is
moving through your car. If only the tailgate is open CO from the
exhaust will be pulled into the car.
http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm
Colorado
On November 3, 1996, five men aged 17 22 years were found dead inside
two automobiles with the engine of one car running inside a garage
with closed doors and windows. Friends and relatives of the decedents
reported that on the night of November 2, the men had been out
consuming alcohol and continued socializing in the garage after they
had returned home. In an apparent attempt to keep warm, they had
entered the cars, started the engine of one car, and turned on the
heat.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044617.htm
It is not clear from the reports whether the vehicle had a functioning
catalytic converter.
"Decedent" does not appear to be a word in the English language.
de·ce·dent (d-sdnt)
n. Law
A dead person.
Post by John Briggs
The introduction of catalytic concerters in the UK has had unintended
consequences - paracetomol can now only be sold in smaller quantities.
Converters are neither 100 % effective or 100% reliable


People die

Vince
John Briggs
2007-09-24 23:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it
will cost money" well the health problems and destroyed
envioment cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS.
Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the
ground. That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people
do) that there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using
fossil fuels in any short time frame means the end of
modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up a
goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what
timeframe? And note that NO and I mean NO left wing
anti-global-warming type is remotely proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon
Monoxide Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO
poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
OFCS
How can I avoid CO poisoning from my vehicle?
* Have a mechanic check the exhaust system of my car every
year. A small leak in your car's exhaust system can lead to a build
up of CO inside the car.
* Never run a car or truck in the garage with the garage door
shut. CO can build up quickly while your car or truck is running in
a closed garage. Never run your car or truck inside a garage that is
attached to a house and always open the door to any garage to let in
fresh air when running a car or truck inside the garage.
* If you drive a vehicle with a tailgate, when you open the
tailgate, you also need to open vents or windows to make sure air is
moving through your car. If only the tailgate is open CO from the
exhaust will be pulled into the car.
http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm
Colorado
On November 3, 1996, five men aged 17 22 years were found dead
inside two automobiles with the engine of one car running inside a
garage with closed doors and windows. Friends and relatives of the
decedents reported that on the night of November 2, the men had
been out consuming alcohol and continued socializing in the garage
after they had returned home. In an apparent attempt to keep warm,
they had entered the cars, started the engine of one car, and
turned on the heat.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044617.htm
It is not clear from the reports whether the vehicle had a
functioning catalytic converter.
"Decedent" does not appear to be a word in the English language.
de·ce·dent (d-sdnt)
n. Law
A dead person.
Post by John Briggs
The introduction of catalytic concerters in the UK has had unintended
consequences - paracetomol can now only be sold in smaller
quantities.
Converters are neither 100 % effective or 100% reliable
People die
Well, perhaps they are more effective and more reliable in the UK - because
paracetomol is now sold in smaller quantities.
--
John Briggs
Vince
2007-09-25 00:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it
will cost money" well the health problems and destroyed
envioment cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS.
Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the
ground. That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people
do) that there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using
fossil fuels in any short time frame means the end of
modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up a
goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what
timeframe? And note that NO and I mean NO left wing
anti-global-warming type is remotely proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon
Monoxide Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
OFCS
How can I avoid CO poisoning from my vehicle?
* Have a mechanic check the exhaust system of my car every
year. A small leak in your car's exhaust system can lead to a build
up of CO inside the car.
* Never run a car or truck in the garage with the garage door
shut. CO can build up quickly while your car or truck is running in
a closed garage. Never run your car or truck inside a garage that is
attached to a house and always open the door to any garage to let in
fresh air when running a car or truck inside the garage.
* If you drive a vehicle with a tailgate, when you open the
tailgate, you also need to open vents or windows to make sure air is
moving through your car. If only the tailgate is open CO from the
exhaust will be pulled into the car.
http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm
Colorado
On November 3, 1996, five men aged 17 22 years were found dead
inside two automobiles with the engine of one car running inside a
garage with closed doors and windows. Friends and relatives of the
decedents reported that on the night of November 2, the men had
been out consuming alcohol and continued socializing in the garage
after they had returned home. In an apparent attempt to keep warm,
they had entered the cars, started the engine of one car, and
turned on the heat.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044617.htm
It is not clear from the reports whether the vehicle had a
functioning catalytic converter.
"Decedent" does not appear to be a word in the English language.
de·ce·dent (d-sdnt)
n. Law
A dead person.
Post by John Briggs
The introduction of catalytic concerters in the UK has had unintended
consequences - paracetomol can now only be sold in smaller
quantities.
Converters are neither 100 % effective or 100% reliable
People die
Well, perhaps they are more effective and more reliable in the UK - because
paracetomol is now sold in smaller quantities.
OFCS

Paracetomol is simply an alternative spelling for Paracetamol

known in the US as Acetaminophen or Tylenol

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

http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/pharmwebpicdosage.html

Vince
redc1c4
2007-09-25 01:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it
will cost money" well the health problems and destroyed
envioment cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS.
Not DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the
ground. That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people
do) that there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using
fossil fuels in any short time frame means the end of
modern civilization. Sure, nuclear energy could take up a
goodly dose of slack ... but at what cost? And in what
timeframe? And note that NO and I mean NO left wing
anti-global-warming type is remotely proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon
Monoxide Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
OFCS
How can I avoid CO poisoning from my vehicle?
* Have a mechanic check the exhaust system of my car every
year. A small leak in your car's exhaust system can lead to a build
up of CO inside the car.
* Never run a car or truck in the garage with the garage door
shut. CO can build up quickly while your car or truck is running in
a closed garage. Never run your car or truck inside a garage that is
attached to a house and always open the door to any garage to let in
fresh air when running a car or truck inside the garage.
* If you drive a vehicle with a tailgate, when you open the
tailgate, you also need to open vents or windows to make sure air is
moving through your car. If only the tailgate is open CO from the
exhaust will be pulled into the car.
http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm
Colorado
On November 3, 1996, five men aged 17 22 years were found dead
inside two automobiles with the engine of one car running inside a
garage with closed doors and windows. Friends and relatives of the
decedents reported that on the night of November 2, the men had
been out consuming alcohol and continued socializing in the garage
after they had returned home. In an apparent attempt to keep warm,
they had entered the cars, started the engine of one car, and
turned on the heat.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044617.htm
It is not clear from the reports whether the vehicle had a
functioning catalytic converter.
"Decedent" does not appear to be a word in the English language.
de·ce·dent (d-sdnt)
n. Law
A dead person.
Post by John Briggs
The introduction of catalytic concerters in the UK has had unintended
consequences - paracetomol can now only be sold in smaller
quantities.
Converters are neither 100 % effective or 100% reliable
People die
Well, perhaps they are more effective and more reliable in the UK - because
paracetomol is now sold in smaller quantities.
OFCS
Paracetomol is simply an alternative spelling for Paracetamol
known in the US as Acetaminophen or Tylenol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol
http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/pharmwebpicdosage.html
Vince
so what dos APAP have to do with CO?

redc1c4,
(other than APAP likely causes more deaths every year. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-24 23:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Indeed.

DSH
Post by Vince
Converters are neither 100 % effective or 100% reliable
People die
Vince
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-24 23:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Nonsense & Codswallop.

DSH
Post by John Briggs
"Decedent" does not appear to be a word in the English language.
redc1c4
2007-09-24 22:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will
cost money" well the health problems and destroyed envioment
cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS. Not
DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the ground.
That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people do) that
there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using fossil fuels
in any short time frame means the end of modern civilization.
Sure, nuclear energy could take up a goodly dose of slack ...
but at what cost? And in what timeframe? And note that NO and I
mean NO left wing anti-global-warming type is remotely
proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon Monoxide
Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
--
John Briggs
now, now..... Ponce is *never* wrong. just ask him.

redc1c4,
(and some of his best friends are joooos or colored people too! %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Vince
2007-09-24 23:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by John Briggs
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Ray O'Hara
fools like you always fight progress on the premise "it will
cost money" well the health problems and destroyed envioment
cost money and lives too.
You forget that to stop or even substantially slow "global
warming", assuming you mean to do it by reducing CO2
production, means you have to STOP USING ALL FOSSIL FUELS. Not
DELAY using them ... STOP ... and leave them in the ground.
That's assuming (which the "gloom and doom" people do) that
there is only a small sink for it. Stopping using fossil fuels
in any short time frame means the end of modern civilization.
Sure, nuclear energy could take up a goodly dose of slack ...
but at what cost? And in what timeframe? And note that NO and I
mean NO left wing anti-global-warming type is remotely
proposing nuclear.
Doug McDonald
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
wow how did they do that ?
CO emission was removed by catalytic converters. Did you mean CO2?
no I deal in CO poisoning all the time
Mowrer, Frederick W. and Brannigan, Vincent B., “Carbon Monoxide
Production, Transport and Hazard in Building Fires,” Carbon Monoxide
Toxicity (D.G. Penney, MD, editor), CRC Press, 2000.
Auto exhasut is a leading albeit not the only source of CO poisoning
Not since the introduction of catalytic converters.
--
John Briggs
now, now..... Ponce is *never* wrong. just ask him.
redc1c4,
(and some of his best friends are joooos or colored people too! %-)
Still writing on bathroom walls?


people die because of stupidity about carbon monoxide

Cases of open air CO poisonings have been reported. DiMaio and Dana[3]
identified 5 suicide cases involving intentional open air CO poisonings
from car exhaust. In each instance, the suicide was committed in an
outdoor setting, but the decedents placed their face in close proximity
to the exhaust pipe of a running automobile engine.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410537_3


"The epidemiology of CO poisonings in the United States is characterized
by seasonal increases during winter months (1) -- particularly because
of the risks for exposure to the exhaust from vehicles and combustion
appliances during periods when heating appliances are in use and
ventilation is more likely to be inadequate (6). The findings in this
report also underscore that heavy snowfalls are associated with
particularly hazardous conditions in areas where vehicles are parked
outdoors. Following heavy snowfalls, the public should be reminded to
inspect vehicles to ensure that exhaust pipes are cleared of snow before
engines are started. Other precautions to prevent CO poisoning include
avoiding running automobile engines in enclosed spaces (e.g., garages),
inspecting furnaces each year, using space heaters only in
well-ventilated rooms, and inspecting exhaust systems of all combustion
appliances that vent to the outside to ensure that vents have not been
damaged or blocked with snow. "

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039929.htm

Vince
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2007-09-24 20:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Ray O'Hara
they've cut automobile pollution to almost nil.
no CO emission at all ?
Sure there is, just not as much, thanks to laws requiring
catalytic converters, however the converters themselves,
when a car is junked, can be problematic and contribute
to the solid waste problem.

Automobile pollution is _not_ limited to what comes out
the tailpipe...there's the chemicals used during the manu-
facture...PVCs and a host of other polymers. The solid
waste problem of waste tyres which contain natural and
artificial rubber, nylon, polyester, zinc, titanium, silica,
sulphur, phenolic resin and carbon black. There are the
chemicals used during the life of the vehicle...motor oil,
transmission fluid, antifreeze, brake fluid and AC coolant.
Car batteries contain both lead and acid.
Post by Vince
wow how did they do that ?
They didn't completely, they just made it better. But
cars still have hydrocarbons vapouising under the bonnet,
and nitrogen oxides/carbon dioxides venting out the ex-
haust.

Ray obviously has a simple mind...he only grasps simple
solutions and never looks below the surface.

Deirdre
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-24 17:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Bingo!

Kane is an ignorant, misinformed naïf.

DSH
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it is[1].
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or are you one of those who
only think "we have to do something" as long as you're not expected
to do it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Or will you be one of those screaming blue murder when the govern-
ment comes along to pick your pocket to fund that which costs
"essentially nothing"?
Post by John Kane
1. I think I have only heard of 2-3 reputable scientists who do
research in the area who think global warming is a myth and as Kuhn
pointed out there are always a few people who don't get the new
paradigm.
Really? I can point you to a website with the electronic signatures
of over 17,000 scientists...all urging caution about jumping on the
GW bandwagon. I can also point you to the 2000 who signed the
Heidelberg Appeal. Maybe you're simply not looking hard enough...
or perhaps, not looking at all?
Deirdre
Doug McDonald
2007-09-24 18:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Don't be silly. It costs little to stop global warming. There is
only one way to actually do that (stop it, as opposed to) assuming that
it is, of course, essentially 100% human caused. And that is to
end civilization as we know it, and return to the status quo ante
1800. This costs essentially nothing. Of course, billions
of people will starve and die of disease.

Nobody is proposing to stop global warming. NOBODY. Nobody is
proposing to make significant reductions in it. NOBODY. All they
are doing is proposing reducing standard of living to make the
Left feel good.

Doug McDonald
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-24 20:30:34 UTC
Permalink
<G>

Spot On...

Feel-Good Politics...

Standard Fare On The Left.

DSH
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Don't be silly. It costs little to stop global warming. There is
only one way to actually do that (stop it, as opposed to) assuming that
it is, of course, essentially 100% human caused. And that is to
end civilization as we know it, and return to the status quo ante
1800. This costs essentially nothing. Of course, billions
of people will starve and die of disease.
Nobody is proposing to stop global warming. NOBODY. Nobody is
proposing to make significant reductions in it. NOBODY. All they
are doing is proposing reducing standard of living to make the
Left feel good.
Doug McDonald
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-09-25 04:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Costs _nothing_?! Are you mad? Requiring the industrialised
nations to address the environmental aspects of GW, a potential
scientific chimera, could easily cost between three and five trillion
dollars...and that comes out of the _citizen's_ pockets since the
government, while it may print money, has exactly one source for
acquiring it.
Don't be silly. It costs little to stop global warming. There is
only one way to actually do that (stop it, as opposed to) assuming that
it is, of course, essentially 100% human caused. And that is to
end civilization as we know it, and return to the status quo ante
1800. This costs essentially nothing. Of course, billions
of people will starve and die of disease.
That's probably going to happen anyway.
: )
Post by Doug McDonald
Nobody is proposing to stop global warming. NOBODY. Nobody is
proposing to make significant reductions in it. NOBODY. All they
are doing is proposing reducing standard of living to make the
Left feel good.
It's mainly the Right that are trying to make it a political issue. If AGW
is a fact then the right will die just as quickly as the left. That makes it
a cross-party issue at worst and a non-political issue at best. When I
started in the business it was to 'save the planet' and I don't even vote as
a matter of principle. It's a little more important than 'local' politics
IMO.
By the way - developing new industries has always been an economic driver in
the past. How come developing new energy-efficient industries and generating
cheap sustainable energy is somehow going to be a loss maker this time
around? Seems it's only those who currently make money from the dinosaur
industries that are trying to stall action in this area. Why is that?
Despite resistance from the vested interest dinosaurs there are plenty of
enterprising new companies out there who are already creating jobs and
wealth via alternative generation techniques and energy-efficient appliances
for example.
One of the fastest expanding little companies in my area make big
rain-collection tanks - they can't keep up with demand and are employing
more people all the time. 10 years ago these tanks were strictly for
tree-huggers and pansies. 10 years of near drought changed that.
Those countries that are the last to realise where the new wealth generation
is going to come from will be the ones who get left with "the status quo
ante 1800".
It's already happening to some extent. For example, Australia were world
leaders in solar generation in the 80's but due to a lack of support and the
government opting for dirty coal, the companies involved moved to Japan and
China. Now we (Oz) are buying the products back from them at a vastly
increased expense.
Robert Grumbine
2007-09-25 16:14:13 UTC
Permalink
[trim]
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by John Kane
1. I think I have only heard of 2-3 reputable scientists who do
research in the area who think global warming is a myth and as Kuhn
pointed out there are always a few people who don't get the new
paradigm.
Really? I can point you to a website with the electronic signatures
of over 17,000 scientists...
If you mean the OISM's skanky petition, you can't. Most are not
scientists. Most who are scientists of some description, aren't
climate scientists. Then again, it was also a petition against
Kyoto, not against there being anthropogenic climate change.
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
all urging caution about jumping on the
GW bandwagon. I can also point you to the 2000 who signed the
Heidelberg Appeal. Maybe you're simply not looking hard enough...
or perhaps, not looking at all?
OISM 1997. Heidelberg 1992. Neither of them assessments
of the science regarding climate change, neither of them being
signed particularly by people knowledgeable about climate (in
fact, it's difficult to find in their signatory lists anybody who
is). How about something less than 10 years old, that is about
the state of scientific knowledge, with the petition limited
to only people who know the science?
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2007-09-25 16:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Grumbine
How about something less than 10 years old, that is about
the state of scientific knowledge, with the petition limited
to only people who know the science?
Because _honest_ scientists, climate or otherwise, don't
claim to "know" if a theory is correct. Furthermore, just
because someone doesn't call themself a "climate scientist"
doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding the science.
I'm not a biochemist, but as a microbiologist you'd better
believe I understand biochemisty (radio-chemistry, limnology
and a host of others).

Deirdre
Robert Grumbine
2007-10-01 13:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
How about something less than 10 years old, that is about
the state of scientific knowledge, with the petition limited
to only people who know the science?
Because _honest_ scientists, climate or otherwise, don't
claim to "know" if a theory is correct. Furthermore, just
because someone doesn't call themself a "climate scientist"
doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding the science.
I'm not a biochemist, but as a microbiologist you'd better
believe I understand biochemisty (radio-chemistry, limnology
and a host of others).
It was you who considered petitions to be meaningful.
If you want to introduce petitions, and care about the
science, then one signed only by people who know the
science would seem a simple enough request.

Of course neither petition you cited was about the science.
Both were about policy.

Someone's capability to understand the science isn't
a question. Whether people have actually put in the
effort to understand the science is. The people who
have done so are publishing in the peer reviewed scientific
literature. The signatories to your petitions show
virtually zero overlap with those who have done the work.

Few of us would have our car repairs done by a podiatrist.
Not that a podiatrist _couldn't_ learn to do so. But on
the whole, we're going to look for someone who specifically
worked to learn how to do car repair, rather than who
devoted most of his efforts to learning some other field.
It's interesting that this standard practice it thrown out
with such speed when it is questions like whether carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse which are at hand. For that,
you prefer the podiatrist. (One of the professions
which does show up on the OISM, A section, unlike many
of the climate-related fields.)
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2007-10-01 14:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
How about something less than 10 years old, that is about
the state of scientific knowledge, with the petition limited
to only people who know the science?
Because _honest_ scientists, climate or otherwise, don't
claim to "know" if a theory is correct. Furthermore, just
because someone doesn't call themself a "climate scientist"
doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding the science.
I'm not a biochemist, but as a microbiologist you'd better
believe I understand biochemisty (radio-chemistry, limnology
and a host of others).
It was you who considered petitions to be meaningful.
If you want to introduce petitions, and care about the
science, then one signed only by people who know the
science would seem a simple enough request.
Because it is you who seems to think the only people who can
understand a journal article are those who a) wrote it or b)
support it.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Of course neither petition you cited was about the science.
Both were about policy.
So, is the entire GW issue. Very little science and an awful
lot of politics.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Someone's capability to understand the science isn't
a question. Whether people have actually put in the
effort to understand the science is. The people who
have done so are publishing in the peer reviewed scientific
literature. The signatories to your petitions show
virtually zero overlap with those who have done the work.
_That_ is a fallacy. If only the people who have done
the work are allowed to determine the course of action,
then all the lawmakers and other policy wonks need to
back out of the discussion..._now_. If, otoh, you believe
these policy wonks belong in the discussion, even though
they have _less_ scientific background than a first year
student, you need to state why you believe they are
capable of understanding a discipline which you believe
other scientists are not.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Few of us would have our car repairs done by a podiatrist.
Why not? My car repairs are done by an artist...he
also happens to be my husband, but the fact that he
normally wields a paintbrush doesn't render him in-
capable of also wielding a spanner.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Not that a podiatrist _couldn't_ learn to do so. But on
the whole, we're going to look for someone who specifically
worked to learn how to do car repair, rather than who
devoted most of his efforts to learning some other field.
Don't be silly. People are not nearly as narrow in
their abilities as you seem to be believe.
Post by Robert Grumbine
It's interesting that this standard practice it thrown out
with such speed when it is questions like whether carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse which are at hand. For that,
you prefer the podiatrist.
I prefer anyone capable of objective thinking, whether
they are a podiatrist, climatologist, auto mechanic or
pre-school teacher makes no difference whatsoever
to me. I believe that anyone capable of asking ques-
tions is capable of learning and that the human brain
is not limited to only knowing that which was taught
in a classroom or practiced as a profession.

I also believe that we should look very carefully and
question very rigorously any statements made by
those whose _funding_ is at risk if they fail to parrot
a party line...be they political hacks, scientists or
bankers. Scientists are as human as the next per-
son and are not above self-serving behaviour.

Deirdre
D. Spencer Hines
2007-10-01 14:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Bingo!

We've certainly seen that sort of behavior by some of those who call
themselves scientists, right here in these newsgroups.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
I also believe that we should look very carefully and
question very rigorously any statements made by
those whose _funding_ is at risk if they fail to parrot
a party line...be they political hacks, scientists or
bankers. Scientists are as human as the next per-
son and are not above self-serving behaviour.
Deirdre
Robert Grumbine
2007-10-01 15:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
How about something less than 10 years old, that is about
the state of scientific knowledge, with the petition limited
to only people who know the science?
Because _honest_ scientists, climate or otherwise, don't
claim to "know" if a theory is correct. Furthermore, just
because someone doesn't call themself a "climate scientist"
doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding the science.
I'm not a biochemist, but as a microbiologist you'd better
believe I understand biochemisty (radio-chemistry, limnology
and a host of others).
It was you who considered petitions to be meaningful.
If you want to introduce petitions, and care about the
science, then one signed only by people who know the
science would seem a simple enough request.
Because it is you who seems to think the only people who can
understand a journal article are those who a) wrote it or b)
support it.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Of course neither petition you cited was about the science.
Both were about policy.
So, is the entire GW issue. Very little science and an awful
lot of politics.
Since you're not reading the science, preferring petitions
that aren't about science, you really don't know what's in
the science.

I think that the science is more likely to be understood
by people who read it -- rather than petitions. You disagree.
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
Someone's capability to understand the science isn't
a question. Whether people have actually put in the
effort to understand the science is. The people who
have done so are publishing in the peer reviewed scientific
literature. The signatories to your petitions show
virtually zero overlap with those who have done the work.
_That_ is a fallacy.
No, it's an observation. There's almost no overlap.
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
If only the people who have done
the work are allowed to determine the course of action,
I'm talking about the science. Course of action, I think,
should be based on the science. But that's hard to do when
you don't read the science or listen to the people doing the
science.

[trim]
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
Not that a podiatrist _couldn't_ learn to do so. But on
the whole, we're going to look for someone who specifically
worked to learn how to do car repair, rather than who
devoted most of his efforts to learning some other field.
Don't be silly. People are not nearly as narrow in
their abilities as you seem to be believe.
Again you equate ability with actuality. This is absurd.
That you are _capable_ of _learning_ something does not
mean that you already know it. You are capable of speaking
every language ever spoken. I doubt that you actually can
do so.

Life is short. People have to choose what it is they
want to spend their time on. The more time spent in one
area, the less available in other, unrelated, areas.
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
It's interesting that this standard practice it thrown out
with such speed when it is questions like whether carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse which are at hand. For that,
you prefer the podiatrist.
I prefer anyone capable of objective thinking, whether
they are a podiatrist, climatologist, auto mechanic or
pre-school teacher makes no difference whatsoever
to me. I believe that anyone capable of asking ques-
tions is capable of learning and that the human brain
is not limited to only knowing that which was taught
in a classroom or practiced as a profession.
I also believe that we should look very carefully and
question very rigorously any statements made by
those whose _funding_ is at risk if they fail to parrot
a party line...be they political hacks, scientists or
bankers.
So you are highly skeptical of all those who get their
money from fossil fuel companies? And, say, petitions
funded by fossil fuel companies? Doesn't look like it.

The party line in the US in the 1980s (1981-1992)
was that there was no climate change, humans had nothing
to do with it, and besides it would be good for us.
Reagan-Bush I. The science didn't support that, and the
scientists (aside from where the administration rewrote
the testimony) didn't say so. Bush II from election to
some time later was consistent with that party line.
Yet the science didn't support him, and the National
Academy of Sciences, in a much-delayed (by the administration)
report told him so. The science is so obvious that even
Bush's science advisor has recently allowed its truth (he'd
denied it even after the NAS report).
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Scientists are as human as the next per-
son and are not above self-serving behaviour.
Indeed. Which makes it interesting that with 5 of the
last 7 presidential terms holding party lines that climate
isn't changing and humans have (and can have) nothing to do
with it, the scientists have been _not_ doing the self-preserving
thing of mirroring the president's wishes.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas regardless of your
nationality or political affiliation.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Paul J Gans
2007-10-01 16:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
How about something less than 10 years old, that is about
the state of scientific knowledge, with the petition limited
to only people who know the science?
Because _honest_ scientists, climate or otherwise, don't
claim to "know" if a theory is correct. Furthermore, just
because someone doesn't call themself a "climate scientist"
doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding the science.
I'm not a biochemist, but as a microbiologist you'd better
believe I understand biochemisty (radio-chemistry, limnology
and a host of others).
It was you who considered petitions to be meaningful.
If you want to introduce petitions, and care about the
science, then one signed only by people who know the
science would seem a simple enough request.
Because it is you who seems to think the only people who can
understand a journal article are those who a) wrote it or b)
support it.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Of course neither petition you cited was about the science.
Both were about policy.
So, is the entire GW issue. Very little science and an awful
lot of politics.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Someone's capability to understand the science isn't
a question. Whether people have actually put in the
effort to understand the science is. The people who
have done so are publishing in the peer reviewed scientific
literature. The signatories to your petitions show
virtually zero overlap with those who have done the work.
_That_ is a fallacy. If only the people who have done
the work are allowed to determine the course of action,
then all the lawmakers and other policy wonks need to
back out of the discussion..._now_. If, otoh, you believe
these policy wonks belong in the discussion, even though
they have _less_ scientific background than a first year
student, you need to state why you believe they are
capable of understanding a discipline which you believe
other scientists are not.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Few of us would have our car repairs done by a podiatrist.
Why not? My car repairs are done by an artist...he
also happens to be my husband, but the fact that he
normally wields a paintbrush doesn't render him in-
capable of also wielding a spanner.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Not that a podiatrist _couldn't_ learn to do so. But on
the whole, we're going to look for someone who specifically
worked to learn how to do car repair, rather than who
devoted most of his efforts to learning some other field.
Don't be silly. People are not nearly as narrow in
their abilities as you seem to be believe.
Post by Robert Grumbine
It's interesting that this standard practice it thrown out
with such speed when it is questions like whether carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse which are at hand. For that,
you prefer the podiatrist.
I prefer anyone capable of objective thinking, whether
they are a podiatrist, climatologist, auto mechanic or
pre-school teacher makes no difference whatsoever
to me. I believe that anyone capable of asking ques-
tions is capable of learning and that the human brain
is not limited to only knowing that which was taught
in a classroom or practiced as a profession.
I also believe that we should look very carefully and
question very rigorously any statements made by
those whose _funding_ is at risk if they fail to parrot
a party line...be they political hacks, scientists or
bankers. Scientists are as human as the next per-
son and are not above self-serving behaviour.
It's all a giant conspiracy of the funded then, eh?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Robert Peffers
2007-10-01 16:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Robert Grumbine
How about something less than 10 years old, that is about
the state of scientific knowledge, with the petition limited
to only people who know the science?
Because _honest_ scientists, climate or otherwise, don't
claim to "know" if a theory is correct. Furthermore, just
because someone doesn't call themself a "climate scientist"
doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding the science.
I'm not a biochemist, but as a microbiologist you'd better
believe I understand biochemisty (radio-chemistry, limnology
and a host of others).
It was you who considered petitions to be meaningful.
If you want to introduce petitions, and care about the
science, then one signed only by people who know the
science would seem a simple enough request.
Because it is you who seems to think the only people who can
understand a journal article are those who a) wrote it or b)
support it.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Of course neither petition you cited was about the science.
Both were about policy.
So, is the entire GW issue. Very little science and an awful
lot of politics.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Someone's capability to understand the science isn't
a question. Whether people have actually put in the
effort to understand the science is. The people who
have done so are publishing in the peer reviewed scientific
literature. The signatories to your petitions show
virtually zero overlap with those who have done the work.
_That_ is a fallacy. If only the people who have done
the work are allowed to determine the course of action,
then all the lawmakers and other policy wonks need to
back out of the discussion..._now_. If, otoh, you believe
these policy wonks belong in the discussion, even though
they have _less_ scientific background than a first year
student, you need to state why you believe they are
capable of understanding a discipline which you believe
other scientists are not.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Few of us would have our car repairs done by a podiatrist.
Why not? My car repairs are done by an artist...he
also happens to be my husband, but the fact that he
normally wields a paintbrush doesn't render him in-
capable of also wielding a spanner.
Post by Robert Grumbine
Not that a podiatrist _couldn't_ learn to do so. But on
the whole, we're going to look for someone who specifically
worked to learn how to do car repair, rather than who
devoted most of his efforts to learning some other field.
Don't be silly. People are not nearly as narrow in
their abilities as you seem to be believe.
Post by Robert Grumbine
It's interesting that this standard practice it thrown out
with such speed when it is questions like whether carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse which are at hand. For that,
you prefer the podiatrist.
I prefer anyone capable of objective thinking, whether
they are a podiatrist, climatologist, auto mechanic or
pre-school teacher makes no difference whatsoever
to me. I believe that anyone capable of asking ques-
tions is capable of learning and that the human brain
is not limited to only knowing that which was taught
in a classroom or practiced as a profession.
I also believe that we should look very carefully and
question very rigorously any statements made by
those whose _funding_ is at risk if they fail to parrot
a party line...be they political hacks, scientists or
bankers. Scientists are as human as the next per-
son and are not above self-serving behaviour.
Deirdre
Amen!
You do realise that just today our new Prime Minister's contribution to
saving the World, (when he was the Chancellor), came into force?

The UK now pays the highest tax on road fuels in the entire World. This is
without taking into account that we also pay large road tax, road tolls,
parking fees and congestion charges.
Trouble is that these charges have not made a whit of difference to the
number of vehicles on the road. Then there is that little matter of the
introduction of a 20MPH speed limit, originally supposed to be just near
school gates, now extended to the vast majority of built up areas. So now
the passing traffic through those built up areas is 1/3 longer than it used
to be and the profusion of, "Traffic Calming", measures means the vehicles
must constantly change gears making their engines run at a less efficient
point. Just what that does for GW is rather a mystery. God save us from
wooly thinking politicos.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
D. Spencer Hines
2007-10-01 16:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Hear, Hear!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
I prefer anyone capable of objective thinking, whether
they are a podiatrist, climatologist, auto mechanic or
pre-school teacher makes no difference whatsoever
to me. I believe that anyone capable of asking ques-
tions is capable of learning and that the human brain
is not limited to only knowing that which was taught
in a classroom or practiced as a profession.
I also believe that we should look very carefully and
question very rigorously any statements made by
those whose _funding_ is at risk if they fail to parrot
a party line...be they political hacks, scientists or
bankers. Scientists are as human as the next per-
son and are not above self-serving behaviour.
Deirdre
Amen!
You do realise that just today our new Prime Minister's contribution to
saving the World, (when he was the Chancellor), came into force?
The UK now pays the highest tax on road fuels in the entire World. This is
without taking into account that we also pay large road tax, road tolls,
parking fees and congestion charges.
Trouble is that these charges have not made a whit of difference to the
number of vehicles on the road. Then there is that little matter of the
introduction of a 20MPH speed limit, originally supposed to be just near
school gates, now extended to the vast majority of built up areas. So now
the passing traffic through those built up areas is 1/3 longer than it
used to be and the profusion of, "Traffic Calming", measures means the
vehicles must constantly change gears making their engines run at a less
efficient point. Just what that does for GW is rather a mystery. God save
us from wooly thinking politicos.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-24 17:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Nonsense.

It costs us Economic Growth and adds many Hidden Costs to doing Business and
to our Consumer Goods.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by John Kane
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
"nightjar" .uk.com>
2007-09-24 17:12:27 UTC
Permalink
"John Kane" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
...
Post by John Kane
1. I think I have only heard of 2-3 reputable scientists who do
research in the area who think global warming is a myth and as Kuhn
pointed out there are always a few people who don't get the new
paradigm.
The IPCC report states that the world very likely (>90% probability) has got
warmer in the latter part of the 20th century and that it is likely (>66%
probability) that human activity played some part in that, although it also
states, in a footnote, that the degree of involvement cannot be quantified
from formal studies. Other climate change effects are rated as likely to
have occurred and it is more likely than not (>50% probability) that human
activity contributed to those, also in some unquantified way. It also notes
that human activity has probably been a factor in climate change for at
least the past 500 years.

So, the important question is not whether global warming has occurred, but
whether human activity has been important in causing that and whether there
is anything that we can do to prevent it getting worse. There is a strong
body of opinion that CO2 is a result of climate change, not a driver, which
would mean that reducing CO2 is not going to have any effect. The latest and
most accurate model, produced by the Met Office in the UK also predicts that
no changes in human activity are likely to have any effect on climate change
in the predictable future. Even if they are wrong and reducing CO2 will have
an effect, the best we can hope to do is to delay the onset of change by a
fairly small number of years. It is time to stop trying to stop the
inevitable and to spend money on preparing the world for it instead.

Colin Bignell
Mark Test
2007-09-25 00:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kane
Post by Mark Test
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
Science was wrong then...perhaps it is wrong now?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And yet, as more sattelite data is looked at today, scientists are baffled.
Case in point, the growing ice pack around Antartica.

BTW, which model gives a cause to the warming? The ones' I've
heard about only factor in increased temps, not the cause.
Post by John Kane
As far as I can see almost nobody in the study area thinks it is[1].
Doing something about global warming costs essentially nothing and
brings us lots of other benefits.
How do you change nature? And who are we to make that call? We
share this planet with other life forms that will benefit from a warming
trend....like the rainforests.
Post by John Kane
Not doing something while global warming is true leaves us with
droughts, floods, famines, epidemics etc. All we would be missing are
those 4 guys on horseback.
Well, Mars is warmer and so is Neptune....do you suggest we are causing
those planets to heat up? The sun is going through a period of increased
activity....yet scientists ignore this in their "models" (well they ignore
any cause
in their models).

By 2012, when the sun begins to reduce it's emissions we'll see a change.
Post by John Kane
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
1. I think I have only heard of 2-3 reputable scientists who do
research in the area who think global warming is a myth and as Kuhn
pointed out there are always a few people who don't get the new
paradigm.
Concur.....but many more say it's natural....they cite the fossil record
for supportive evidence of their claim.

Mark
--
"Another prophet of disaster who says the ship is lost, Another prophet of
disaster leaving you to count the cost, Taunting us with visions, afflicting
us with fear..."

--Iron Maiden (Die With Your Boots On)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Robert Grumbine
2007-09-25 16:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
There's a dearth of actual science saying so. William Connolley has
made a hobby of looking for, and examining claims about this:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

What the media had to say, different matter. But, then, they were
also talking a lot about Chariots of the Gods, Pyramid Power, and the
like.
Post by Mark Test
And yet, as more sattelite data is looked at today, scientists are baffled.
Actually, we're rather peeved that it shows pretty much what we expect.
Post by Mark Test
Case in point, the growing ice pack around Antartica.
It is indeed. But this was expected. Our surprise this year
was the stunning decline in Arctic ice cover. See reports from
the National Snow and Ice Data Center -- http://nsidc.org/

The slight increase in Antarctic ice was predicted in 1992 by
climate modelling:
S. Manabe, M. J. Spelman, R. J. Stouffer, "Transient responses of a
coupled ocean-atmosphere model to gradual changes of atmospheric CO_2.
Part II: Seasonal response", J. Climate, 5, 105-126, 1992.

It was observed in/about 1997:
D. Cavalieri, P. Gloersen, C. L. Parkinson, J. C. Comiso, H. J. Zwally,
"Observed Hemispheric Asymmetry in Global Sea ice Changes", Science,
278, pp 1104-1106, 1997.

The mechanism the 1992 paper saw, was documented in nature in 2006:
Markus, T., and Cavalieri, D. J., "Interannual and regional variability
of Southern Ocean snow on sea ice", Annals of Glaciology, 44, pp 53-57, 2006.
Post by Mark Test
BTW, which model gives a cause to the warming? The ones' I've
heard about only factor in increased temps, not the cause.
All of them since Arrhenius. See "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid
in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine
41: 237-76. 1896.

That CO2 et al. were greenhouse gases was observed over 30 years
previously, by Tyndall:
Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases
and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-09-25 16:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.

A W-S
Cory Bhreckan
2007-09-25 17:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
That's because you're an iconoclast.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
redc1c4
2007-09-25 18:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)

redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Eugene Griessel
2007-09-25 19:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
And if they are not what will be your excuse? It will be too late to
apologise.

Eugene L Griessel

History could be divided into events which do not matter and events
which probably never occurred.
- W.R. Inge

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
redc1c4
2007-09-25 19:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
And if they are not what will be your excuse? It will be too late to
apologise.
why would i apologize for what may turn out to be a routine variance in
the ongoing life cycle of the planet? i'd say mankind is smart enough to
survive, but then again, i read Usenet, so my faith is somewhat shaken. %-)

sooner or later things will start to cool significantly, and then the whine
will be "Global Cooling!"......

redc1c4,
i'll ignore that too, and for the same reasons.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
TMOliver
2007-09-25 20:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
And if they are not what will be your excuse? It will be too late to
apologise.
Interestingly, I interpret some of what Sleigh wrote in _The Islands_ as
supporting the theory that many of those who settled at the Cape, Mauritius
or Batavia and other Eastern ports came because of miserable conditions in
Northern Europe caused by the "Big Chill" and contemporary events which owed
much to a climate change. Who knows. Whether it's oil drilling in the
Arctic or growing bananas in my backyard, there may be some upside to
warming. High tide will be a bit higher, but unlikely to wash corruption
and sin from the streets of port cities.....



TMO
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-09-25 23:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
A the time of the great 'The Earth is Getting Colder' non-story (in
'Newsweek' initially IIRC) there were roughly an equal (tiny) number of
climatologists who were claiming that 'The Earth is Getting Warmer.
What's your excuse for ignoring that fact right now?
Can you point to an equal number of climatologists who are claiming that the
'Earth is Getting Colder' today?
No - you cannot. Therefore your analogy doesn't even make it to the first
fence.
This doesn't prove that the Earth *is* getting warmer of course, but it does
prove that you don't understand how to interpret past information.

A W-S
Post by TMOliver
Post by Eugene Griessel
And if they are not what will be your excuse? It will be too late to
apologise.
Interestingly, I interpret some of what Sleigh wrote in _The Islands_ as
supporting the theory that many of those who settled at the Cape,
Mauritius or Batavia and other Eastern ports came because of miserable
conditions in Northern Europe caused by the "Big Chill" and contemporary
events which owed much to a climate change. Who knows. Whether it's oil
drilling in the Arctic or growing bananas in my backyard, there may be
some upside to warming. High tide will be a bit higher, but unlikely to
wash corruption and sin from the streets of port cities.....
TMO
Billzz
2007-09-26 00:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by TMOliver
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
A the time of the great 'The Earth is Getting Colder' non-story (in
'Newsweek' initially IIRC) there were roughly an equal (tiny) number of
climatologists who were claiming that 'The Earth is Getting Warmer.
What's your excuse for ignoring that fact right now?
Can you point to an equal number of climatologists who are claiming that
the 'Earth is Getting Colder' today?
No - you cannot. Therefore your analogy doesn't even make it to the first
fence.
This doesn't prove that the Earth *is* getting warmer of course, but it
does prove that you don't understand how to interpret past information.
A W-S
We were building a simulation to assess war plans. It was a
computer-graphics based three sided interactive wargame where the "players"
would be the actual war planners. The underlying simulation was based on
engineering models of weapons capabilities, coupled with attrition and
consumption models. A reviewer asked if we had built any past historical
data into it. The answer was no and the reason was that with a model like
that we would only have the ability to predict the past. I've often
wondered why weather is modeled on past phenomona, but, being retired, It's
someone else's problem.
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by TMOliver
Post by Eugene Griessel
And if they are not what will be your excuse? It will be too late to
apologise.
Interestingly, I interpret some of what Sleigh wrote in _The Islands_ as
supporting the theory that many of those who settled at the Cape,
Mauritius or Batavia and other Eastern ports came because of miserable
conditions in Northern Europe caused by the "Big Chill" and contemporary
events which owed much to a climate change. Who knows. Whether it's oil
drilling in the Arctic or growing bananas in my backyard, there may be
some upside to warming. High tide will be a bit higher, but unlikely to
wash corruption and sin from the streets of port cities.....
TMO
Robert Grumbine
2007-09-26 13:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billzz
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
A the time of the great 'The Earth is Getting Colder' non-story (in
'Newsweek' initially IIRC) there were roughly an equal (tiny) number of
climatologists who were claiming that 'The Earth is Getting Warmer.
Actually, at the time, the majority were expecting warming. The
then-current weather was colder.
Post by Billzz
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
What's your excuse for ignoring that fact right now?
Can you point to an equal number of climatologists who are claiming that
the 'Earth is Getting Colder' today?
No - you cannot. Therefore your analogy doesn't even make it to the first
fence.
This doesn't prove that the Earth *is* getting warmer of course, but it
does prove that you don't understand how to interpret past information.
We were building a simulation to assess war plans. It was a
computer-graphics based three sided interactive wargame where the "players"
would be the actual war planners. The underlying simulation was based on
engineering models of weapons capabilities, coupled with attrition and
consumption models. A reviewer asked if we had built any past historical
data into it. The answer was no and the reason was that with a model like
that we would only have the ability to predict the past. I've often
wondered why weather is modeled on past phenomona, but, being retired, It's
someone else's problem.
You seem to think that weather and climate are modelled in some
statistical regression way -- such that the past regression may
not be valid in the future. This is not fundamentally the case.

A weather or climate model is built on laws of physics --
conservation of mass, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum.
These laws, once verified (which they were in 19th, 19th, and 17th
centuries, respectively) are good for all time.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Vince
2007-09-26 13:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by Billzz
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
A the time of the great 'The Earth is Getting Colder' non-story (in
'Newsweek' initially IIRC) there were roughly an equal (tiny) number of
climatologists who were claiming that 'The Earth is Getting Warmer.
Actually, at the time, the majority were expecting warming. The
then-current weather was colder.
Post by Billzz
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
What's your excuse for ignoring that fact right now?
Can you point to an equal number of climatologists who are claiming that
the 'Earth is Getting Colder' today?
No - you cannot. Therefore your analogy doesn't even make it to the first
fence.
This doesn't prove that the Earth *is* getting warmer of course, but it
does prove that you don't understand how to interpret past information.
We were building a simulation to assess war plans. It was a
computer-graphics based three sided interactive wargame where the "players"
would be the actual war planners. The underlying simulation was based on
engineering models of weapons capabilities, coupled with attrition and
consumption models. A reviewer asked if we had built any past historical
data into it. The answer was no and the reason was that with a model like
that we would only have the ability to predict the past. I've often
wondered why weather is modeled on past phenomona, but, being retired, It's
someone else's problem.
You seem to think that weather and climate are modelled in some
statistical regression way -- such that the past regression may
not be valid in the future. This is not fundamentally the case.
A weather or climate model is built on laws of physics --
conservation of mass, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum.
These laws, once verified (which they were in 19th, 19th, and 17th
centuries, respectively) are good for all time.
you cannot mix weather and climate models. While the laws of physics are
constants, what is a parameter in a weather model is a variable in a
Climate model.

The math of weather models is very complex

See for example

http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/mwr2007danforth.pdf


Vince
Robert Grumbine
2007-10-01 13:58:50 UTC
Permalink
[trim]
Post by Vince
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by Billzz
We were building a simulation to assess war plans. It was a
computer-graphics based three sided interactive wargame where the "players"
would be the actual war planners. The underlying simulation was based on
engineering models of weapons capabilities, coupled with attrition and
consumption models. A reviewer asked if we had built any past historical
data into it. The answer was no and the reason was that with a model like
that we would only have the ability to predict the past. I've often
wondered why weather is modeled on past phenomona, but, being retired, It's
someone else's problem.
You seem to think that weather and climate are modelled in some
statistical regression way -- such that the past regression may
not be valid in the future. This is not fundamentally the case.
A weather or climate model is built on laws of physics --
conservation of mass, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum.
These laws, once verified (which they were in 19th, 19th, and 17th
centuries, respectively) are good for all time.
you cannot mix weather and climate models. While the laws of physics are
constants, what is a parameter in a weather model is a variable in a
Climate model.
The physics are the same. They're sufficiently the same that the UK
Meteorological Office uses the same model (the 'Unified model') for both
weather prediction and, at the Hadley Center, climate modelling. Weather
models 30 years ago treated sea ice (for instance) as a fixed field (a
boundary condition, not a parameter as you describe) while climate models
had to start including it physically. Today, even weather models let
sea ice grow and decay.

The links keep changing, but the UKMO has a section describing the
physics of the unified model and how it's used for both weather and
climate. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
Post by Vince
The math of weather models is very complex
See for example
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/mwr2007danforth.pdf
Why did you cite a paper that includes almost none of the math of
weather models? Almost everything there is about some statistical
reprocessing of model output. The weather 'model' that's described
is an extremely stripped down sort of model, last used seriously for
weather prediction in maybe the late 1950s.

Whether the math is complex or not, however, is irrelevant. At
hand was whether the models were simply regression equations or the
like, rather than implementing fundamental physical principles.
Weather and climate do the latter. How well, of course, is a
question. But they aren't subject to the history problem that
Billz was describing for his wargaming.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
z***@netscape.net
2007-10-01 15:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by Billzz
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were
based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the
scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
A the time of the great 'The Earth is Getting Colder' non-story (in
'Newsweek' initially IIRC) there were roughly an equal (tiny) number of
climatologists who were claiming that 'The Earth is Getting Warmer.
Actually, at the time, the majority were expecting warming. The
then-current weather was colder.
Post by Billzz
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
What's your excuse for ignoring that fact right now?
Can you point to an equal number of climatologists who are claiming that
the 'Earth is Getting Colder' today?
No - you cannot. Therefore your analogy doesn't even make it to the first
fence.
This doesn't prove that the Earth *is* getting warmer of course, but it
does prove that you don't understand how to interpret past information.
We were building a simulation to assess war plans. It was a
computer-graphics based three sided interactive wargame where the "players"
would be the actual war planners. The underlying simulation was based on
engineering models of weapons capabilities, coupled with attrition and
consumption models. A reviewer asked if we had built any past historical
data into it. The answer was no and the reason was that with a model like
that we would only have the ability to predict the past. I've often
wondered why weather is modeled on past phenomona, but, being retired, It's
someone else's problem.
You seem to think that weather and climate are modelled in some
statistical regression way -- such that the past regression may
not be valid in the future. This is not fundamentally the case.
A weather or climate model is built on laws of physics --
conservation of mass, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum.
These laws, once verified (which they were in 19th, 19th, and 17th
centuries, respectively) are good for all time.
Nobody said the moron laws of physics weren't.
It's obviously computers, the physics morons
don't understand, not the weather,
But, since that's been known since Archimedes and Pythagoas
invented the laws of computers, it's still the
same thing with the idiots,
You ask a simple question, and the Physics morons
start citing quotes from Hubble.
Post by Robert Grumbine
--
Robert Grumbinehttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
redc1c4
2007-09-27 06:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
And if they are not what will be your excuse? It will be too late to
apologise.
Eugene L Griessel
another reason to ask questions:

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm

redc1c4,
who's more against the mad rush than anything else.... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Eugene Griessel
2007-09-27 06:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
And if they are not what will be your excuse? It will be too late to
apologise.
Eugene L Griessel
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm
As the article clearly demonstrates - one can politicize scientists
but one cannot politicize science. So there's a bad apple or two in
the barrel. Probably always has been - but science stands on its
applicability to observed phenomena. If it doesn't work that will
become apparent fairly rapidly.

The main problem in my opinion is not scientists but non-scientists
who take tentative research data and promote it to a "truth". The
press loves doing this. When they turn out to be wrong they blame the
scientist - and worse they blame science. It's like blaming the
hammer for striking your thumb. Science is a tool. You can blame the
manipulators but cannot blame the tool because it was ineptly used.

Eugene L Griessel

Who discovered one could get milk from a cow?
And what did he think he was doing at the time?

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
redc1c4
2007-09-27 08:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Grumbine
Post by John Kane
Of course it can be wrong but remember the 1971 warnings were based on
much less data and poorer models .
And are fictional. There's a great mythology about how 'all the
scientists
were talking about global cooling and imminent ice ages' in the 1970s.
I've been pointing this out repeatedly for years, but of course popular
myths are difficult to dispel - especially among those who refuse to read
the debunking.
A W-S
in a few years, "global warming" articles will be viewed the same way. %-)
redc1c4,
what will be your excuse then?
And if they are not what will be your excuse? It will be too late to
apologise.
Eugene L Griessel
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm
As the article clearly demonstrates - one can politicize scientists
but one cannot politicize science. So there's a bad apple or two in
the barrel. Probably always has been - but science stands on its
applicability to observed phenomena. If it doesn't work that will
become apparent fairly rapidly.
The main problem in my opinion is not scientists but non-scientists
who take tentative research data and promote it to a "truth". The
press loves doing this. When they turn out to be wrong they blame the
scientist - and worse they blame science. It's like blaming the
hammer for striking your thumb. Science is a tool. You can blame the
manipulators but cannot blame the tool because it was ineptly used.
true dat..... i'd like to call your attention to just two things:

"After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make
public
the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual
readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source
code,
containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing
out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for
others,
sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature
trends
are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend."

my understanding is that previously he had refused all requests for his method,
which made it impossible for anyone to check his w*rk, or test his findings....
that's hardly "good" science where i come from.

that and the $250K grant he received from the Kerry's, just before endorsing
them.

since he's one of the prime planks for AGW, it makes the whole structure look
a bit less sturdy than some might like. %-)

redc1c4,
the paid gig with Gore is another obvious ethical issue. call it fuel to the
fire.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Eugene Griessel
2007-09-27 11:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
"After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make
public
the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual
readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source
code,
containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing
out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for
others,
sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature
trends
are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend."
A scientist who does not reveal his methodology and data I would
humbly suggest is not doing science. One of the key controls of
science is peer review (as flawed as that is) and repeatability of
testing by others - both of which are impossible if neither the data
nor the methodology are available.
Post by redc1c4
my understanding is that previously he had refused all requests for his method,
which made it impossible for anyone to check his w*rk, or test his findings....
that's hardly "good" science where i come from.
It's not science as it is commonly understood, yes.

Eugene L Griessel

A job is nice but it interferes with my life.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Jack Linthicum
2007-09-27 13:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
"After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make
public
the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual
readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source
code,
containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing
out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for
others,
sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature
trends
are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend."
A scientist who does not reveal his methodology and data I would
humbly suggest is not doing science. One of the key controls of
science is peer review (as flawed as that is) and repeatability of
testing by others - both of which are impossible if neither the data
nor the methodology are available.
Post by redc1c4
my understanding is that previously he had refused all requests for his method,
which made it impossible for anyone to check his w*rk, or test his findings....
that's hardly "good" science where i come from.
It's not science as it is commonly understood, yes.
Eugene L Griessel
A job is nice but it interferes with my life.
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Re Father Goose Japanese craft. Just looked at some stop action from
an AMC airing (actually cableing) of the flick. It would appear to be
a roughly 170 feet hull (size of a Coast Guard Cutter class) with a
"Hollywood" superstructure. The hull looks almost wood in construction
the superstructure nice gleaming aluminum.
Robert Grumbine
2007-10-01 14:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by redc1c4
"After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make
public
the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual
readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source
code,
containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing
out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for
others,
sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature
trends
are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend."
A scientist who does not reveal his methodology and data I would
humbly suggest is not doing science. One of the key controls of
science is peer review (as flawed as that is) and repeatability of
testing by others - both of which are impossible if neither the data
nor the methodology are available.
Fortunately, then, Hansen had described his methodology in 2001, in the
peer-reviewed scientific literature. It was, at that point, only a small
change over his previously published methods, again in the peer-reviewed
literature.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Ken Chaddock
2007-09-26 01:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray O'Hara
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Amusing...
DSH
science progresses , why can't you?
i'm surprised you aren't claiming the sun orbits the earth as that was once
the learned opinion.
your idiocy is infinite hinesquartes, do you have stock in polluters r us?
if we stop polluting and it turns outclimate warming is not our fault , well
then "no harm no foul"
But that's just it Ray, there is a huge harm and foul...we run the risk
of so damaging, perhaps even destroying our economy that we will not
have the finical resource to be able to respond to the issues and
problems that would come about if there actually *IS* global warming of
a disastrous nature going on.
For instance, last summer (2006) was one of the hottest in Europe in
100 years. Thousands of French senior citizens dies of heat related
medical issues. Many of these seniors wouldn't have died if the French
grid had been able to provide sufficient electricity to support large
scale use of air conditioning, which is fairly rare in France because
the government owned electrical monopoly has discourages AC use and only
the well to do can afford it. If we, here in North America, where AC use
is fairly wide spread, are hit with a heat problem but we've had to bad
or restrict AC usage because we've cut back on fossil fuel or coal
burning power plants...and don't have the financial resources to build
replacement nuclear plants, how many at risk people would die ?
Post by Ray O'Hara
why is that concept so hard for you to fathom..
Why is the very real possibility of doing serious damage to our ability
to respond to environmental issues so hard for you to fathom ?

...Ken
PS I don't think that there IS a serious problem, and if there is it's
certainly not being hugely impacted by human activity but just in case
there is a "global warming" problem, let's not eliminate our ability to
respond by trying to fix something that is outside of our control...
D. Spencer Hines
2007-09-27 06:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Blog: Science NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science

Michael Asher (Blog) - September 26, 2007

Daily Tech

New issues swirl around controversial NASA branch

NASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space
Studies. Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is
run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS
... which means they must get by Hansen. Many other scientists and
agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare
factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.

Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" -- attempting to predict future
events based on computer simulations. In 1971, Hansen wrote his first
climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global
cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was
needed to prevent catastrophe.

Most research papers are rather dry reading, written to be as unemotional as
possible. Not so with Hansen's reports, whose works scream alarmism even in
their titles: "Climate Catastrophe," "Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time
Bomb," and "The Threat to the Planet." Hansen was most recently in the news
when an amateur blogger discovered an error in his climate data, a mistake
Hansen later discounted as unimportant to the "big picture" of compelling
public action on climate change.

But who is James Hansen? Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific
truth? Or a political activist with an axe to grind?

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him.
The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs
intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press
policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen
claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in
recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he
admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a
"constitutional right" to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of
public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the
politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.

BINGO! -- DSH

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded
Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media
campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape
public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of
Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign.

Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central
focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org
and other political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have
a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to
secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated
claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than
suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.

But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant
from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he
followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid
consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An
Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC
event.

After the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make
public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from
the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines
of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to
individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or
lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many
areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after
adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is
currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to
do.

George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout,
said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People
said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of
crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"

Hansen's office did not return a request from DailyTech for an interview for
this article.

<http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Jack Linthicum
2007-09-29 14:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central
focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org
and other political action groups.
By the way, Hines, no one knows what Moveon.org is.

There was an interesting tidbit buried in the latest poll (.pdf) from
Fox News. Respondents were asked whether they have a "generally
favorable or unfavorable opinion" about a variety of groups and
institutions. The poll included MoveOn.org in the mix and found these
results:

Favorable: 11%
Unfavorable: 22%
No opinion: 11%
Never heard of: 56%

In fact, the numbers were relatively steady among self-described
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, with a majority of each
saying they had no idea what MoveOn is.

The poll was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week,
following more than two solid weeks of intense media scrutiny of the
group, and condemnations from the House, Senate, White House, and
Republican presidential candidates.

It looks like the aggressive conservative push-back hasn't amounted to
much. Even now, most folks just don't know, or don't care, who the
group is.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/092707_2008_Bush_release_web.pdf
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...