 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too huge to read on Google! What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political agenda where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window. We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and using clever wording and lies to further their agenda. The Global warming thing is a great example. They say global warming is real (it is!) Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to deny global warming. (He has in the past) Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming. Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.) Bottom line we all must accept global warming as due to our SUVs and power plants or these guys will call us nasty names! Brrrrr! I'm shaking in my boots! This is all identical to the "gun control" debate where firearm ownership is tied by the propagandists to higher crime rates. Too bad all scientific studies including the ones mandated by Congress and done by the CDC found NO such connections. So what am I getting at here? These issues are NOT what I'm talking about. I"m not trying to forward a political agenda here, save ONE: To take the POLITICS out of Science! Science, it seems has developed a certain amount of well-deserved credibility in the public perception. So it isn't surprising that those with a political agenda would try to USE that public credibility to further their political agendas. What I'm saying here is that we scientists, need to stand up and speak out. No, not take sides in the debate lies. And certainly not to join all the noise of name-calling and "proofs by assertion" that characterize political "debates". No! We need to squawk loud and often about this SUBVERSION of the integrity of Science by political agendas. When lies are all over the media being held up as "science" someone needs to point it out and when prizes are given for bogus research they need to be taken back and the schools embarrassed! In short all this MISUSE of OUR science for political purpose needs to stop and it's only going to stop if WE start speaking out instead of going along with those pretending there is a "scientific" debate where there actually is none! > Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too > huge to read on Google! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global > ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.) Um, the rest of the world disagrees. In sci.physics Server 13 <its@casual.com> wrote: > > Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too > > huge to read on Google! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global > > ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.) > Um, the rest of the world disagrees. If that were actually true, the above post would have never been made.  SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Server 13 <its@casual.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > If that were actually true, the above post would have never been made. OK, the rest of the world -5% Denialists. > <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Science isn't a democracy. >> <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Science isn't a democracy. lol Quoting the same ten or so denialists over and over isn't science. In sci.physics Server 13 <its@casual.com> wrote: > >> <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > Science isn't a democracy. > lol Quoting the same ten or so denialists over and over isn't science. Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Hop >> Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". > >How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is H2O. SignatureThere may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their cook fires. -- Captain Compassion. Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net In sci.physics Hop David <hopd@cunews.info> wrote: > > Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". > How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start. And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means. I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned and could care less about the arguements either way. Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Hop David <hopd@cunews.info> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments wether that is the case or not. How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing? Einar In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Hop David <hopd@cunews.info> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in > sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its > absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to > accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present > in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments > wether that is the case or not. What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means are you too blazingly stupid to understand? > How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing? Clue number 1: How many people book vacations to Alaska compared to Barmuda? Clue number 2: How many crops, i.e. food, are grown between 45 degrees and 90 degrees compared to +/- 45 degrees? Clue number 3: The population as you go through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and finally get to North Dakota. Clue number 4: People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine, Minnesota or Washington. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means > are you too blazingly stupid to understand? You appear to be setting a pleasant standard for the argument here :) > > How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today. When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the months of total darkness. Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm. No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a number of societies may not survive through that time of transition, i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has stabilized again. Cheers, Einar In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means > > are you too blazingly stupid to understand? > You appear to be setting a pleasant standard for the argument here :) It's your arguement, not mine. I refuse to particpate. > > > How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing? > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are > entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the > months of total darkness. > Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm. > No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two > different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a > number of societies may not survive through that time of transition, > i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has > stabilized again. Such a change isn't going to happen over night, or even within a person's lifetime, not matter what you see in the movies. So what? Met any Romans, Phoenicians, Mayans, Carthaginians, Shangs, Summerians, Aztecs, Goths, Minoans, Hittites, or Bablyonians lately? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. I said, the time of transition is the tricky part. Not the time when all is over and done with. The time of transition is already begun. That means things are on the move already. The only thing we can affect now is the share size of the change, and hence the extend of adaptation that will come necessary. What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two countries, and the world wouldn?t be able to rescue them preciselly due to the size of theyr respective populations. If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried? Cheers, Einar In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. > I said, the time of transition is the tricky part. Not the time when > all is over and done with. > The time of transition is already begun. That means things are on the > move already. The only thing we can affect now is the share size of > the change, and hence the extend of adaptation that will come > necessary. Any such change will come at a rate that you can walk away from. <snip doom and gloom> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. Interesting, so you think moving billions of people to be a minor problem. In case of Chinese rice farmers - it?s not simply a question of moving or re-educating a very large group of people with sparse education to begin with, it?s rebuilding the centuries old system of rice plots that are really one of the ancient engineering marvels - and are a really large job to successfully replicate. These people are the ones who produce the bulk of the food for China. Einar In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Interesting, so you think moving billions of people to be a minor > problem. In case of Chinese rice farmers - it?s not simply a question [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and are a really large job to successfully replicate. These people are > the ones who produce the bulk of the food for China. Why would billions move other than perhaps to go farm what is now cold waste land? I've been in Asia and have see rice paddies built; there is nothing marvelous about a rice paddy. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. You are right that individually the paddies don?t look like much. The actual marvel is twofold, A) they give 5 harvests each year in China and B) they as a whole produce more than 50% of Chinese food. I don?t remember how many the farmers are, but at least we are talking about around 200 million farmers and workers, though that is probably an underestimate. That is only China. Rice farming requires not just warm weather, but also a wet one. Maybe the farming belt can move, and the rain will move with it. But that is only a maybe, and the change is not certain to move gradually. Even though taken as a whole for the Globe, things are moving gradually as local changes average out, the point is that local changes in some areas are going to be greater than is the average for the globe, and we really don?t know for which areas that is going to prove the case. So if we are very lucky there will be no serious disturbance in Asiatic rice farming. But, if there is the fallout would be the greatest hunger the world has ever seen. Einar In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > > > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. > You are right that individually the paddies don?t look like much. The > actual marvel is twofold, A) they give 5 harvests each year in China > and B) they as a whole produce more than 50% of Chinese food. I don?t > remember how many the farmers are, but at least we are talking about > around 200 million farmers and workers, though that is probably an > underestimate. That is only China. > Rice farming requires not just warm weather, but also a wet one. Maybe > the farming belt can move, and the rain will move with it. But that is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > areas are going to be greater than is the average for the globe, and > we really don?t know for which areas that is going to prove the case. > So if we are very lucky there will be no serious disturbance in > Asiatic rice farming. But, if there is the fallout would be the > greatest hunger the world has ever seen. Most of northern China is currently too cold to grow 5 harvests of rice per year, or much of any rice for that matter. Growing rice doesn't depend much on rain. It depends mostly on diverting water from a local ground source. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >So if we are very lucky there will be no serious disturbance in >Asiatic rice farming. But, if there is the fallout would be the >greatest hunger the world has ever seen. >Einar Thanks for the appraisal of the situation, expert. :-) Do you mean the swamps (rice paddies) might actually dry up if it gets 2 degrees warmer? That might be good news, then they could plant potatoes and get 5 times the weight in nutritious starch. PS: Learn to clip. Who is the newbie crossposting to so many groups? :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, :even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production :could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two :countries, and the world wouldn´t be able to rescue them preciselly :due to the size of theyr respective populations. Then you'd think these two countries would be all in favour of radically restricting their own output of CO2. They're not. Why do you think that is? :If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries :have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over :large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as :nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried? The rest of the planet could vanish into a new stone age tomorrow and in a just a few years India and China would have things right back where they are now. Then what? Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly > :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > territory." > --G. Behn It´s not an unknown phenomena throughout history that leaders of countries behave stupidly. Einar :> :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly :> :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :It´s not an unknown phenomena throughout history that leaders of :countries behave stupidly. So why do you think we should exterminate ourselves in their interests? Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > : :Fred J. McCall wrote: :> Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote: :> :> : > :> :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So why do you think we should exterminate ourselves in their > interests? All the right-thinking blogs say liberals want to exterminate the human race for their deity Gaia! They even have a book about it. Here's their blueprint, sold right on Amazon for everyone to see! http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/0312347294 http://www.worldwithoutus.com/ Any REASONABLE person can plainly see it is the liberals' DIABOLICAL PLAN to kill humanity. OMG OMG OMG. No bizarre conclusions here, no siree: http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/07/world-without-people-liberal-fantasy.html C'mon. If you really want to kill the human race, do it the right way: http://www.subgenius.com C. SignatureIt Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net > :> :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly > :> :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > territory." > --G. Behn How would that happen? "So why do you think we should exterminate ourselves in their interests?" Einar :> :> :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly :> :> :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :How would that happen? "So why do you think we should exterminate :ourselves in their interests?" We reduce our CO2 footprint to try to 'fix' things while China and India increase theirs. Repeat until frozen. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > :> :> :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly > :> :> :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > territory." > --G. Behn Apparently the CO2 footprint of China already matches that of the USA. Actually this year Chinese leaders have sounded worried about the trends, for just about the first time. Maybe they´ll realize soon how much more vulnerable they actually are due to theyr large population. India is still a step behind China. The problem with China is that they are in many cases so far behind on environmental matters, i.e. they are yet to implement many of the things that USA and Europe did during the 80s and the 90s. That does though mean that they can claw a back a lot of ground simply by exchanging old inefficient technologies for the more efficient ones the west is already using. Mind you, in the next Kyoto round the intension is to push China and India to do more than simply free ride. They were allowed to do that through Kyoto 1, not the least because Kyoto 1 was more like a prove of concept. Lot of what was done, basigly tried out and tested, the EU countries in effect offering themselves as a tesbed, needs to be rethought in cases and modified, f.e. carbon trading. I think carbon trading is something which can be a good idea, however it is also clearly one of the concepts that have been tried out that need modification, if they are actually to work. So, Kyoto 1 was a prelude, and the Kyoto 2 hopefully will be the real thing. Cheers, Einar :> :> :> :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly :> :> :> :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] : :Apparently the CO2 footprint of China already matches that of the USA. No. Theirs is actually much bigger. There gross output past ours this year, but 'footprint' is CO2 output divided by production. We're much more efficient than they are. :Mind you, in the next Kyoto round the intension is to push China and :India to do more than simply free ride. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to agree to that. If they'd done that in the first place the US could have probably gotten the thing ratified. :So, Kyoto 1 was a prelude, and the Kyoto 2 hopefully will be the real :thing. Not holding my breath on that one. Signature"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer > Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm. > No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two > different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a > number of societies may not survive through that time of transition, > i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has > stabilized again. That's a fair summary. A warming climate is going to change weather patterns, causing droughts and desertification in previously fertile areas, and increased rainfall (leading to soil erosion and flooding in places) elsewhere. And, of course increased sea levels, putting most countries' most valuable real estate underwater. All fine and dandy from a 1000-km, 1000-year view, but quite a bit of a bummer if you happen to be living someplace where you've become accustomed to growing food, or having topsoil, or not having your house underwater. And oh yes, it also can result in some substantial local climate changes -- illogical as it seems to simple-minded deniers, a global warming of climate may well plunge turn most of western Europe's local climate into something more like Siberia, as the currents which currently cause its temperate climate shut down. Of course, I live on the front range of the Rocky Mountains; there won't be much flooding here (the ice caps melt every summer anyway), and it's already quite dry. Things could get a bit worse for me, but not a LOT worse. It's the people on the coasts that I really feel for. Unfortunately, more than half of all people in the U.S. live on or near the coast, and the situation is probably similar for other countries with significant coastline. Sure, they can all relocate inland, giving up New York, San Diego, LA, Boston, Washington DC, etc. etc., but you may see that this is a rather expensive and messy proposition, and best avoided if possible. I suspect that many of the deniers are simply hoping that it won't happen until after they're dead -- screwing our children and grandchildren for perceived short-term gains. But that's not a philosophy I would subscribe to, even if I didn't hope to be here for a long time myself. Fortunately, the tide has shifted, and the deniers are now a pathetic minority with no power. Even the Denier-in-Chief has publicly admitted reality, and started making the right sort of noises about it, albeit without much enthusiasm. The next President will no doubt do more. It's probably not too late, at least not to avoid the worst of it. But we do need some new carbon-neutral (or better) energy sources, and we need them soon. See the link in my sig for one I believe to be quite promising. Signature"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/> >> Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm. >> No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > we need them soon. See the link in my sig for one I believe to be quite > promising. I do not deny that the climate is warming, our instruments seem to indicate that it is (have we accounted for all of the sources of error?), but the idea that the warming is man-made, and that it will increase without bound to cataclysmic proportions is untestable speculation. There are plenty of stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the Sun) that historically track the data better than AGW and hopelessly inadequate computer models. What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will occur if governments worldwide increase their control over societies, forcing them to fall into line with dreamed-up regulations, economies be damned. That is historical, reproducible and testable, and I think that has a much higher likelihood to be a global disaster than any climate change. > > In article <1185845009.743223.252...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > idea that the warming is man-made, and that it will increase without bound > to cataclysmic proportions is untestable speculation. False. We know the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels, and analysis has ruled out other possible causes. >There are plenty of > stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the Sun) > that historically track the data better than AGW and hopelessly inadequate > computer models. Do you think science hasn't looked into these? Geez, man, do some reading! > What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will occur if > governments worldwide increase their control over societies, forcing them to > fall into line with dreamed-up regulations, economies be damned. That is > historical, reproducible and testable, and I think that has a much higher > likelihood to be a global disaster than any climate change. Yeah, you and Rush. Geez, talk it to a damn talk conference; you are scientifically illiterate. >> > In article <1185845009.743223.252...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > False. We know the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels, and analysis > has ruled out other possible causes. True. There, I said it. That makes it so. Ruled out how? By testing what? Computer models don't suffice - they amount to testing your own hypothesis with your own hypothetical model. Do you think you can confidently predict that warming *is* man-made, and *will* increase without bound to cataclysmic proportions? How did your preferred scientists test their hypothesis? >>There are plenty of >> stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you think science hasn't looked into these? Geez, man, do some > reading! There is an increasing number of scientists who are speaking up about this, but it isn't the bandwagon to be on if you want research grants these days. I just don't believe everything I read. >> What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will occur >> if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yeah, you and Rush. Geez, talk it to a damn talk conference; you are > scientifically illiterate. Well if Rush agrees with me, that's great! But no, I have studied basic economics, that's all. Sadly, economics isn't taught in school anymore. And rejecting popular junk science doesn't make me illiterate. > >> "Joe Strout" <j...@strout.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Computer models don't suffice - they amount to testing your own hypothesis > with your own hypothetical model. We know if by looking at the isotope ratios of the added carbon. No computer models needed for this. Geez, man, do a bit of reading! > Do you think you can confidently predict that warming *is* man-made, and > *will* increase without bound to cataclysmic proportions? How did your > preferred scientists test their hypothesis? That the warming is man-made is NOT a prediction, any more than "carbon has 6 protons" is a prediction. It is a fact, based on data and science. > >>There are plenty of > >> stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > but it isn't the bandwagon to be on if you want research grants these days. > I just don't believe everything I read. No, you believe what denialists have to say. You ignore the scientific journals, the National Academy of Sciences, the AGU, the AAAS, the Royal Society. That makes you a fool. > >> What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will occur > >> if [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well if Rush agrees with me, that's great! But no, I have studied basic > economics, that's all. Does that make you an expert on brain surgery too? You seem to think it makes you one on science. >Sadly, economics isn't taught in school anymore. Another example of you not knowing what you're talking about. >And > rejecting popular junk science doesn't make me illiterate. No, you ARE scientifically illiterate. That only demonstrates it. >> >> "Joe Strout" <j...@strout.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > We know if by looking at the isotope ratios of the added carbon. No > computer models needed for this. Geez, man, do a bit of reading! Of course you can say that we're adding carbon to the atmosphere (in what percentage compared to "natural" sources?). I'm not saying computer models are needed for that. But whether that is the primary cause of any current climate change is not settled, and predicting how big the effect will be, and what countervailing mechanisms will offset it requires modeling, because that is a prediction. I also think it is rather presumptuous to assert that we know all there is to know about the mechanisms, interactions and parameters of the planet's climate. The things that we don't know that we don't know could completely blindside the current thinking. Every time we stick a telescope or a probe somewhere, we find something that we had no idea was there. The reaction to the hinode data was incredulity. One scientist said "That's impossible!" - based on what we knew just prior to that study. So don't be so cock-sure we have all the answers. >> Do you think you can confidently predict that warming *is* man-made, and >> *will* increase without bound to cataclysmic proportions? How did your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "carbon has 6 protons" is a prediction. It is a fact, based on data > and science. There are respected climatologists with a different opinions about the cause (and the amount) of our current warming trend. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of science, that some so-called "outliers" have called it correctly. I still have not heard how anyone proposes to test the hypothesis that global warming will increase without bound to cataclysmic proportions. That is a prediction. >> >>There are plenty of >> >> stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > scientific journals, the National Academy of Sciences, the AGU, the > AAAS, the Royal Society. You have no idea what I read. I believe scientists with an alternate explanation. If you want to call them denialists, go ahead. Sticks and stones, etc. I weight my sources differently than you, evidently. > That makes you a fool. Invalid argument: Ad-hominem attack. >> >> What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will >> >> occur [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Does that make you an expert on brain surgery too? You seem to think > it makes you one on science. No, and no. Studying economics taught me something about economics. Majoring in mathematics and physics taught me something about science. I don't claim to be an expert on anything. I'm more humble than that. But based on that balanced background, I can prioritize risk appropriately. >>Sadly, economics isn't taught in school anymore. > > Another example of you not knowing what you're talking about. The percentage of public high school students exposed to basic economics is low enough that one could say that for all intents and purposes, it isn't taught. That's pretty unfortunate for a population of voters who will make decisions about the next person who wants to buy their vote, and spend their money. >>And >> rejecting popular junk science doesn't make me illiterate. > > No, you ARE scientifically illiterate. That only demonstrates it. Invalid argument: Ad-hominem attack. Plonk. > >> >> > In article <1185845009.743223.252...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > are needed for that. But whether that is the primary cause of any current > climate change is not settled, There is no climate change. Lloyd's an idiot. He will never directly address the issue. > and predicting how big the effect will be, > and what countervailing mechanisms will offset it requires modeling, because > that is a prediction. We simply don't have the ability to model something as complex as a planets atmosphere/climate, and we never will. There's just a bunch of dimwitted enviro-jackasses that want to pretend that we can. Message to Lloyd and the other envirojackasses: reality is complex. Get used to it. It's not going to change. > I also think it is rather presumptuous to assert that we know all there is > to know about the mechanisms, interactions and parameters of the planet's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > "carbon has 6 protons" is a prediction. It is a fact, based on data > > and science. It's nothing but a whacko delusion. > There are respected climatologists with a different opinions about the cause > (and the amount) of our current warming trend. It wouldn't be the first time > in the history of science, that some so-called "outliers" have called it > correctly. I still have not heard how anyone proposes to test the hypothesis > that global warming will increase without bound to cataclysmic proportions. > That is a prediction. 100% propaganda, 0% science. > >> >>There are plenty of > >> >> stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > scientific journals, the National Academy of Sciences, the AGU, the > > AAAS, the Royal Society. They don't say what you claim they say. Why don't you quote them directly you evasive twit. > You have no idea what I read. I believe scientists with an alternate > explanation. If you want to call them denialists, go ahead. Sticks and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > to be an expert on anything. I'm more humble than that. But based on that > balanced background, I can prioritize risk appropriately. You don't need a science degree to realize when somebody is being evasive. It ain't rocket science, Lloyd. We ask for explanations as to why you believe what you claim to believe you're inability to support your argument reveals you as a phoney. claudiusd wrote: "There is no climate change... Message to Lloyd and the other envirojackasses: reality is complex. Get used to it. It's not going to change." Do you think the planets climate doesn't change over time? Please explain why you think that the earth's climate doesn't change, and how you have arrived at this conclusion, with citations? Now maybe you want to claim that mans influence cannot make an impact on global climate, but that is not correct either as the atmosphere contains concentrations of man made aerosols greater than ever before in history, directly effecting "cloud thickness, occurrence, and rain amounts and the amount of the suns energy absorbed, scattered and reflected. Understanding that changes in the global climate reduce its predictability, which could create economic and social disruption, should motivate our nation's people, and corporations to change their behavior. Regardless our how many people point out what we do not know, or what short comings climate models have a moral, ethical, and national motivation should provoke us to reduce our emission of aerosols. Preventive defensive well thought out actions, such as market driven incentives to reduce emissions of man made aerosols are not an extreme, as some would like to argue. We shouldn't need an impending disaster to motivate our society to change, just a prudent conservative approach to understanding that our current emission levels of man made aerosols, may have adverse effects on future generations and economies. tom > claudiusd wrote: "There is no climate change... Message to Lloyd and > the other envirojackasses: reality is complex. Get used to it. It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > explain why you think that the earth's climate doesn't change, and how > you have arrived at this conclusion, with citations? Idiot. Examine the context before you respond. That climate does change is common knowledge. Now maybe you > want to claim that mans influence cannot make an impact on global > climate, but that is not correct either as the atmosphere contains > concentrations of man made aerosols greater than ever before in > history, directly effecting "cloud thickness, occurrence, and rain > amounts and the amount of the suns energy absorbed, scattered and > reflected. Speculative nonsense. We have no evidence of climate change happening currently. If you didn't have your head up your a.s it would have been obvious to you that this is what I meant. > Understanding that changes in the global climate reduce > its predictability, which could create economic and social disruption, > should motivate our nation's people, and corporations to change their > behavior. Bullshit. This is whacko logic. We have no evidence of climate change. Find a new hobby. Regardless our how many people point out what we do not > know, or what short comings climate models have a moral, ethical, and > national motivation should provoke us to reduce our emission of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > generations and economies. > tom On Aug 4, 9:00 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: claudiusd wrote: "There is no climate change" then claudiusd wrote, "Idiot. Examine the context before you respond. That climate does change is common knowledge" Dude maybe you should not contradict yourself, then you can move on, but dont try to twist your own words, then use them against me, thats just weak then claudiusd wrote "Speculative nonsense. We have no evidence of climate change happening currently. If you didn't have your head up your a.s it would have been obvious to you that this is what I meant. Bullshit. This is whacko logic. We have no evidence of climate change. Find a new hobby. Regardless our how many people point out what we do not" Why don't you try a reply without the junior high school language, those are your words not mine and are a reflection of how your lacking in the ability to communicate in a civil manner, as you have no right to call me anything derogatory, just because take exception to my post. Now if you take exceptions with the government study, are the scientists, private sector and governmental members of the panel the same names you called me or are you just attacking me because you don't like what you read, and if so why don't you try practicing a little cognitive dissidence, critical thinking, and logic before you reply next time.... tom > On Aug 4, 9:00 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > no right to call me anything derogatory, just because take exception > to my post. I take issue with your dimwitted ignorance of the context of my statements. > Now if you take exceptions with the government study, are > the scientists, private sector and governmental members of the panel > the same names you called me or are you just attacking me because you > don't like what you read, and if so why don't you try practicing a > little cognitive dissidence, critical thinking, and logic before you > reply next time.... You should make more of an effor to avoid the propaganda. On Aug 4, 10:36 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: "You should make more of an effor to avoid the propaganda." Actually, maybe you should make more of an effort to inform yourself with current studies, so please you read the following source if you want to expand your knowledge base with up to date information, rather than hiding from it and labeling it propaganda. You're a smart person so take the time to read the reports published by our government, and make an effort to be an informed citizen, and not spread non-cited gibberish, or angry rants, just because you don't like the information, or don't agree with it. tom http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CPDAC/CCSP_2_1B_4_23F.pdf U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1b July 2007 http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CPDAC/CCSP_2_1B_4_23F.pdf Global-Change Scenarios Their Development and Use U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1b April 2007 "Page 24 Section 2 - Scenarios in Global-Change Analysis and Decision Support Since the mid-1990s, climate modelers have increasingly sought to produce realistic pictures of how the climate may actually change, requiring a new approach to emissions scenarios. Scenarios must now present well-founded judgments or guesses of actual future emissions trends and their consequences for atmospheric concentrations. The required emissions scenarios have been constructed either by extrapolating recent emissions trends, or, particularly for energy- related CO2, representing emissions in terms of underlying drivers such as population, economic growth, and technological change and projecting these drivers using some combination of modeling and trend extrapolation. Driven by such scenarios, climate models for the first time can claim to be reasonable estimates of how the climate might actually change. In addition, comparisons using multiple models and emissions scenarios have allowed partitioning of uncertainty in future climate change into roughly equal shares attributed to uncertainty in climate science and models, and in emissions trends.36 These comparisons have also allowed estimation of the climate-change benefits from specified emissions reductions. As this shift occurred, advances in climate models - e.g., improved representations of atmospheric aerosols, tropospheric ozone, and atmosphere-surface interactions - produced mismatches between emissions scenarios and the input needs of climate models. For example, climate models now require emissions of several types of aerosols and reactive gases (principally the ozone precursors, hydrocarbons, CO and NOx), explicit estimates of black carbon and organic carbon, and some disaggregation of different types of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Moreover, because these emissions act locally and regionally rather than globally, they must be specified at the spatial scale of a model grid-cell, about 150 sq. km. Models of atmospheric chemistry and transport then use these emissions to generate the concentrations and radiative forcings used by the climate model" > On Aug 4, 10:36 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "You should > make more of an effor to avoid the propaganda." > climate models for the first > time can claim to be reasonable estimates of how the climate might > actually change. Propaganda. > In addition, comparisons using multiple models and > emissions scenarios have allowed partitioning of uncertainty in future > climate change into roughly equal shares attributed to uncertainty in > climate science and models, and in emissions trends. Nonsense. > 36 These > comparisons have also allowed estimation of the climate-change [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > emissions to generate the concentrations and radiative forcings used > by the climate model" Weighing moonbeams. Climate models are worthless. On Aug 4, 11:12 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > On Aug 4, 10:36 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > "You should [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ok, and so at this point your replies have been pure emotional denials, without any logic, or critical thought behind them, just emotional junk. It is important to take in opposing points of view, to better inform yourself, as you can don't need to take actions based on the results of the studies if you choose to disagree with those results. Your actions are a function of your free will, but that does not mean you do not need to better inform yourself, as it is your own ignorance cling to it if you choose to do so. The government (backed by the private sector and scientific community) produced the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Products, to better inform the public debate, so you might want to post any rebuttals you may with the citations giving your statement credibility or you my friend are just "weighing moonbeams" as you say. cannot even post a So why is it you think the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Products 2.1a, and 2.1b published just months ago are "weighing moonbeams" you say, and please answer with reasonable-cited, and logically stated, or you are just stating emotional denials that show your ignorance. tom U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1b April 2007 http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CPDAC/CCSP_2_1B_4_23F.pdf Global-Change Scenarios Their Development and Use U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1b April 2007 "Page iii or (5 on the pdf) We are pleased to transmit to you this report, Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and AtmosphericConcentrations and Review of Integrated Scenario Development and Application, the second of a series of Synthesis and Assessment Products produced by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). This series of 21 reports is aimed at providing current evaluations of climate change science to inform public debate, policy, and operational decisions." >http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CPDAC/CCSP_2_1B_4_23F.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >emissions to generate the concentrations and radiative forcings used >by the climate model" What a bunch of manure. > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:01:12 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ok lets see I now need to show you I know the definition of "scenarios, and synthesis" for what purpose, because you have placed an arbitrary non relevant point as a reply to my statement. So in your personal opinion you are not convinced by the information contained in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Products 2.1a, and 2.1b published just months ago which is backed by the scientific community, private sector, and government. Please explain why you believe so, and cite your sources, with out posting a demand for irrelevant arbitrary metrics, or using the devices of distractions and emotional denials, otherwise you are posting "a bunch of manure" (to use your own words). http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-1/finalreport/sap2-1a-final-all.pdf Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations The U.S. Climate Change Science Program U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1b April 2007 http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CPDAC/CCSP_2_1B_4_23F.pdf Global-Change Scenarios Their Development and Use U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1b April 2007 "odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> whined like a 'tard: > columbiaaccidentinvestigation replied to: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >I take issue with your dimwitted ignorance[..] Remove the beam from you own eye, dink.. --See subject header for details.. "odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> sniveled again: > "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation@yahoo.com> . . > > Do you think the planets climate doesn't change over time? Please > > explain why you think that the earth's climate doesn't change, and how [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Speculative nonsense. On your behalf.. >We have no evidence of climate change happening currently[..] You are incorrect.. --And acting like an idiot. Oh, it's not an act, is it? claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > We simply don't have the ability to model something as complex as a > planets atmosphere/climate, and we never will. A serious case of Luddism. Einar > claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote: >> We simply don't have the ability to model something as complex as a >> planets atmosphere/climate, and we never will. > > A serious case of Luddism. Computer modelers are concealing from the public the fact that the statistical certainty on their computer model runs is closer to 0 than it is to even 1%. These model are worthless. "odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> writhed in denials: > Einar replied: > > > >"odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> whimpered: ___> > >>We simply don't have the ability to model something as complex as a > >>planets atmosphere/climate, and we never will. > > > > A serious case of Luddism. > >Computer modelers are concealing from the public the fact[..] You have yet to 'prove' that 'fact' past your ignorant assertions.. --Something you've accused others of, no less.. >"odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> writhed in denials: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >--Something you've accused others of, no less.. Actually, I think that "odious stink" is right. To him, computer modelers really do conceal things. I think we've been able to ascertain now that he couldn't follow a simple derivation of theory to specifics if his life depended on it, so to him it is all a bunch of concealed, priestly gibberish. And it always will be, too. It's beyond his ken and, to him, that makes it just a bunch of priests speaking as part of a high cult or religion. He just cannot possibly know any better. Too bad, but there it is. Jon >>"odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> writhed in denials: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Actually, I think that "odious stink" is right. To him, computer > modelers really do conceal things. Its common knowledge, idiot. Computer modellers cannot deny this accusation. Like yourself, they are just very careful to avoid any discussion of it. >>>"odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> writhed in denials: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >accusation. Like yourself, they are just very careful to avoid any >discussion of it. You are in no position to say, one way or another. You've already demonstrated your complete incompetence on this score. Jon >>>>"odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> writhed in denials: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You are in no position to say, one way or another. You've already > demonstrated your complete incompetence on this score. 100% propaganda, 0% science. >>>>>"odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> writhed in denials: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >100% propaganda, 0% science. Actually, it pleases me to say that folks can go look for themselves. Jon >> You are in no position to say, one way or another. You've already >> demonstrated your complete incompetence on this score. > 100% propaganda, 0% science. Yup, that summs you up perfectly. Recent CO2 rises exceed worst-case scenarios -------------------------------------------- - Catherine Brahic - 22:00 21 May 2007 - NewScientist.com news service The world's recent carbon dioxide emissions are growing more rapidly than even the worst-case climate scenario used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say researchers. The team, led by Michael Raupach of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, looked at the growth of CO2 emissions and found that emissions growth suddenly accelerated in 2000. During the 1990s, emissions grew by 1.1% per year on average, but the number shot up to 3.3% between 2000 and 2004, when the study ended. When they compared the recent emissions trend to those the UN-backed IPCC drew up as its "worst case scenario", the team found the reality was at least as bad, if not worse. The team then examined the changes between 1980 and 2004 in factors such as population, economic growth, energy efficiency and carbon efficiency (the amount used per unit of GDP). From this, they were able to determine why CO2 emissions accelerated after 2000. They concluded that the rise in CO2 emissions is not due to a growth in global population, but a reduction in global efficiency. "We are not getting more efficient at using CO2 in the way we projected," explains co-author Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia in the UK. Reversed trend From the 1970s to the 1990s, the world as a whole was becoming better at producing more energy for the same CO2 emissions, and more GDP with less energy. But the trend reversed in 2000. "It's a problem because people are assuming we are heading towards a more energy efficient future and we are not," says Le Quéré. The researchers found that no part of the world reduced the amount of carbon used to produce energy between 2000 and 2004, despite widespread publicity in support of greener sources of energy. The analysis also showed that developing countries accounted for 73% of the growth in CO2 emissions in 2004, but only 41% of total emissions. "If you follow anything to do with global policy or global economy these results will not be surprising," says Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK. He says the results "turn the focus back to the process that is in place at the moment to create a new climate regime beyond 2012", when the Kyoto Protocol expires. He adds that drawing the conclusion that Kyoto has failed is "too crude an analysis". "There are Kyoto Protocol successes," Hulme says citing "the fact that there is an international climate regime, an emissions trading scheme that works and a market in carbon offsets [in developing countries]. Kyoto made that first progress, and we have learned what worked and what didn't work. A post-Kyoto treaty will not be just more of the same." Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0700609104) "odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> writhed in denials: > Jonathan Kirwan replied to: > > > Kurt Lochner.. . . > > Actually, I think that "odious stink" is right. To him, computer > > modelers really do conceal things. > >Its common knowledge,[..] Nope, I doubt that entirely.. >Computer modellers cannot deny this accusation. Of course not, it's a negative assertion.. --Have you stopped beating your meat yet? > Its common knowledge, idiot. Computer modellers cannot deny this > accusation. Like yourself, they are just very careful to avoid any > discussion of it. Hmmm what do real scientists say.... Recent CO2 rises exceed worst-case scenarios -------------------------------------------- - Catherine Brahic - 22:00 21 May 2007 - NewScientist.com news service The world's recent carbon dioxide emissions are growing more rapidly than even the worst-case climate scenario used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say researchers. The team, led by Michael Raupach of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, looked at the growth of CO2 emissions and found that emissions growth suddenly accelerated in 2000. During the 1990s, emissions grew by 1.1% per year on average, but the number shot up to 3.3% between 2000 and 2004, when the study ended. When they compared the recent emissions trend to those the UN-backed IPCC drew up as its "worst case scenario", the team found the reality was at least as bad, if not worse. The team then examined the changes between 1980 and 2004 in factors such as population, economic growth, energy efficiency and carbon efficiency (the amount used per unit of GDP). From this, they were able to determine why CO2 emissions accelerated after 2000. They concluded that the rise in CO2 emissions is not due to a growth in global population, but a reduction in global efficiency. "We are not getting more efficient at using CO2 in the way we projected," explains co-author Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia in the UK. Reversed trend From the 1970s to the 1990s, the world as a whole was becoming better at producing more energy for the same CO2 emissions, and more GDP with less energy. But the trend reversed in 2000. "It's a problem because people are assuming we are heading towards a more energy efficient future and we are not," says Le Quéré. The researchers found that no part of the world reduced the amount of carbon used to produce energy between 2000 and 2004, despite widespread publicity in support of greener sources of energy. The analysis also showed that developing countries accounted for 73% of the growth in CO2 emissions in 2004, but only 41% of total emissions. "If you follow anything to do with global policy or global economy these results will not be surprising," says Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK. He says the results "turn the focus back to the process that is in place at the moment to create a new climate regime beyond 2012", when the Kyoto Protocol expires. He adds that drawing the conclusion that Kyoto has failed is "too crude an analysis". "There are Kyoto Protocol successes," Hulme says citing "the fact that there is an international climate regime, an emissions trading scheme that works and a market in carbon offsets [in developing countries]. Kyoto made that first progress, and we have learned what worked and what didn't work. A post-Kyoto treaty will not be just more of the same." Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0700609104) > Kurt Lochner was enjoying the pathology exhibited by: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> > > >> >"odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> whimpered: ______> > >> >>We simply don't have the ability to model something as complex as a > >> >>planets atmosphere/climate, and we never will. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Actually, I think that "odious stink" is right. It seemed rather, well, odious.. *>chuckling<* > To him, computer modelers really do conceal things. Yeah, hidden in plain sight, as it were.. > I think we've been able to ascertain now that he couldn't > follow a simple derivation of theory to specifics if his > life depended on it, so to him it is all a bunch of concealed, > priestly gibberish. And it always will be, too. It's beyond > his ken and, to him, that makes it just a bunch of priests > speaking as part of a high cult or religion. Including second derivatives in spherical co-ordinate systems.. Thanks for posting that, by the way.. > He just cannot possibly know any better. Too bad, but there it is. Yup, there are those who cannot see.. --For them, those who can, cannot be.. >> Kurt Lochner was enjoying the pathology exhibited by: >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Yeah, hidden in plain sight, as it were.. Sad, to not be able to see. >> I think we've been able to ascertain now that he couldn't >> follow a simple derivation of theory to specifics if his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thanks for posting that, by the way.. No problem. I actually enjoy these kinds of things. And thanks for asking. It gave me an excuse. ;) >> He just cannot possibly know any better. Too bad, but there it is. > >Yup, there are those who cannot see.. > >--For them, those who can, cannot be.. Hehe. Jon > Kurt Lochner replied: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> >> > > >> >> >"odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> whimpered: _________> > >> >> >>We simply don't have the ability to model something as complex as a > >> >> >>planets atmosphere/climate, and we never will. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sad, to not be able to see. None so blind as.. > >> I think we've been able to ascertain now that he couldn't > >> follow a simple derivation of theory to specifics if his [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No problem. I actually enjoy these kinds of things. And thanks > for asking. It gave me an excuse. ;) I've only recently been going back over my math, after reading the new biography on Albert Einstein I became interested in the 'speed of gravity' issue. Amazing amount of stuff about field theory, and Einstein's original notes and unpublished works are now on-line. Good excuse to go back over my physics books.. > >> He just cannot possibly know any better. Too bad, but there it is. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hehe. --*>grin!<* >> Kurt Lochner replied: >> > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >theory, and Einstein's original notes and unpublished works are >now on-line. Good excuse to go back over my physics books.. If you get a chance, I'd enjoy discussing Einstein's special theory of relativity. It's development is trivial, involving only the most modest glancing of calculus concepts and no real calculus itself, if at all. In other words, it's just algebra. But it is the initial starting point which is so interesting to me, out of which the rest flows. Einstein has a very nice appendix in one of his books where he lays out the work, simply and easily. If you find it accessible and you are willing to listen to a couple of thoughts about the starting point, let me know. I'd like to discuss a couple of spots, there. Jon >> >> He just cannot possibly know any better. Too bad, but there it is. >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >--*>grin!<* > Kurt Lochner replied to: > > > >> Kurt Lochner replied: > >> > > >> >> Kurt Lochner was enjoying the conversation: ______> > >> >> I think we've been able to ascertain now that he couldn't > >> >> follow a simple derivation of theory to specifics if his [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > starting point which is so interesting to me, out of which the rest > flows. Ahh, so you can appreciate the 'bug' that has bitten me.. My first looks at it I was wondering how the hell he got any notice for it at all, then I started going back over my math, realizing just why he lamented his higher mathematics toolbox.. > Einstein has a very nice appendix in one of his books where he lays > out the work, simply and easily. If you find it accessible and you > are willing to listen to a couple of thoughts about the starting > point, let me know. I'd like to discuss a couple of spots, there. Hrmm, my "investigation" into his gravitational hypothesis' would likely be welcome, in contrast to the nonsense and nay-saying as to the effects and causation(s) of "global warming", no? I say go for it, as I've a few places where I could use some new sources to look at, besides the notebook he kept with Besso.. --Start a new thread, and which news'froups? >Hrmm, my "investigation" into his gravitational hypothesis' would >likely be welcome, in contrast to the nonsense and nay-saying as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >--Start a new thread, and which news'froups? Geeze, buy his "Complete Papers", must be 8 or 9 volumes by now, and discuss it in sci.physics.relativity ,,, not here. > Geeze, buy his "Complete Papers", must be 8 or 9 volumes >by now, and discuss it in sci.physics.relativity ,,, not here. I was wrong, it is 10 volumes now; http://press.princeton.edu/catalogs/series/cpe.html "lotta stool" whined and opined: > Kurt Lochner replied to: __> > > Hrmm, my "investigation" into his gravitational hypothesis' would > > likely be welcome, in contrast to the nonsense and nay-saying as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Geeze, buy his "Complete Papers", must be 8 or 9 volumes >by now,[..] http://www.alberteinstein.info/manuscripts/ --Blow it out your ear, your assholiness.. >> Kurt Lochner replied to: >> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> are willing to listen to a couple of thoughts about the starting >> point, let me know. I'd like to discuss a couple of spots, there. Maybe you could find a video that will fast foward you through the math and the complex aspects of this endeavor. Science can be very confusing. You don't want to get over your head too fast. > Hrmm, my "investigation" into his gravitational hypothesis' would > likely be welcome, in contrast to the nonsense and nay-saying as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > --Start a new thread, and which news'froups? "odious stink" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> whimpered like a troll: > Kurt Lochner replied to: __>> > >> Einstein has a very nice appendix in one of his books where he lays > >> out the work, simply and easily. If you find it accessible and you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Maybe you could find a video that will fast foward you >through the math and the complex aspects of this endeavor. *>LOL!<* You still don't know how to take a second derivative? >Science can be very confusing. You don't want to get >over your head too fast. Like you do all the time? --See subject header for details.. >>> Kurt Lochner replied: >>> > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > are willing to listen to a couple of thoughts about the starting > point, let me know. I'd like to discuss a couple of spots, there. You should consider taking some classes at the local junior college. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message