OT: scuttled by the sceptics.

Page 4 of 7  
Robatoy wrote:

Oh relax Robie baby, you're making it too much fun to set the hook and reel you in. Take a break, make some sawdust, and breathe deeply. You will experience great clarity and calm ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

TimBit... nice fall-back position to take. You then admit your position was for effect rather than based on your true beliefs?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Agreed, pollution is a problem. Not all that is labeled as "pollution" is a problem. The latest craze is the carbon pollution by very far lengths taken out of context amd made to sound bad. IIRC we contribute between 1-2% of all of this carbon pollution. The earth naturally emits the other 98%. The large volcano that recently erupted emitted more pollution in a single day than all of the automobiles combined. Before the carbon pollution there was the ozone pollution. Some scientists now speculate that because of the restriction of some pollution the sun's rays now penetrate more of the atmosphere and causing the oceans to heat up more in turn that is responsible for the more frequent and stronger hurricanes. I personally think that the weather bureau has spent a fortune on the latest radar and needs to catch every passing cloud to consider it for tropical storm naming nomination. The biggest problems with the storms are that our politicians are squandering money that should go toward hurricane preparedness. I think we should control the obvious pollution but lets not make up pollution problems for political gain. The first step to controlling carbon pollution would be to tape every politicians mouth shut, that would do as much if not more good as buying carbon credits or capturing the carbon and burying it at the bottom of the ocean.

While it is easy to play Monday morning quarter back and I'll admit that I am not real happy with the current politicians that are in charge, I pray that our next president does not have to face the obstacles that Bush had to address during the first year of his presidency. I imagine that any president would probably have to make a change in his agenda had he had the same circumstances.
I do agree with the wish of the next president being better than the present one and for that matter I wish that every succeeding president is better than the one before.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My #1 wish for environmental improvement is the relaxation of the EPA rules that require a facility upgrade everything if they upgrade anything.
Installing $2million smokestack scrubbers that can eliminate 97% of the output particulate pollution shouldn't require a $100million overhaul of the entire power plant. I understand the intent, but really, "All or nothing" is kind of stupid in this application.

No president is powerful enough to do everything that has gone on in the past 8 years. It was a team effort! :-)

Amen to that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the anthropogenic contribution is closer to 3 to 5%. Some sources include biomass burning while others do not. Regardless, the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide makes it clear that nature is not quite sequestering all of the carbon dioxide that is emitted from all sources combined, and the rate of rise indicates that the excess over and above what is being sequestered is about half of what humanity produces from fossil fuels and cement production. E.g. if anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide magically ceased, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would begin to decline about as steeply as it has risen in the past several years.

Two big difference between the particulates emitted by volcanos and those emitted by cars are:
!) The particulates emitted by cars are emitted close to the ground where they have very little effect on global temperature, and they rapidly settle out of the atmosphere whereas volcanos blast theirs up high into the atmosphere where they can have a significant effect on albedo and it can take years for them to settle out.
and
2) The particulates emitted by cars are generally concentrated in the same places where lots of people breathe (e.g. cities) whereas (hopefully) volcanos emit theirs in more remote areas.
Volcanic emissions can significantly contribute to global dimming, and therefor global cooling. Particulate emissions from cars are a local health issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora#Global_effects
Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide average to more than one hundred times more than volcanic:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

I'm not sure which came first.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Come on, Leon! That's reminiscent of the AGGIE joke whose punch line says that when you remove all the legs from a flea and then command it, "JUMP!" that the flea can no longer hear.
Dave in Houston
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Renata wrote: <SNIP>

And the lunacy dance begins. In the absence of facts to support your earth worship, you'll redefine terms. Now it won't be "warming", it will be something else you use to terrify the illiterate masses.
You pantheists have a problem, several actually. First of all, the data does not all point in one direction. Secondly, it is barely correlative, let alone causal. Thirdly, the actual recent local temp averages have been among the lowest in recent decades. Fourthly, and most damning of all, you (and no one else) can establish that we live in the best of all possible climates, and thus ought to seek to keep it from changing. It is the height of presumptive arrogance to declare that we're about to go into a climate abyss when NO ONE can actually predict what the consequences would be, how bad, how fast, and so forth. (Never mind that you can't even establish that humans could actually do anything useful to thwart climate that has undergone continuous change for 4B+ years.)
That doesn't stop people in your religion (because GW orthodoxy is a religion requiring more faith than a literal 6-day Creationist exhibits) from worshiping your idols as officiated by your high priests like Peace Prize Boy.
'Think I'll fire up the SUV and go 12mpg for a while just to clear my mind. This trip's for you...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Renata wrote:

Hmm, Don't believe Rev Hagee is running for office, but then I could be wrong.

I've read enough to be able to be able to know BS when I see it. OTOH, if you are willing to believe that people can measure the global average temperature to 1/10's of a degree precision from centuries before the invention of the thermometer by using tree ring data or ice core samples, by all means jump on board. Algore will be happy to have you freezing during the winter, sweating during the summer, and straining to see by the light of CFL's while he continues to jet around in his G5.
As an engineer who has spent a significant amount of my career in modeling and simulation of real-world test events, I am intimately familiar with the difficulty of building models that predict accurately the results of those test events. ... and that is when *I* have control of a large number of the test parameters. Yet somehow I am to believe that people using models with inputs from centuries-old tree ring data and other inputs from a system many orders of magnitude more complex than any system ever built by humans are going to be able to predict a degree or less temperature rise over the next 50 years accurately when they can't even get the weather for next week right? (Yeah, Fred, I know the difference between weather and climate, they can't even predict the trends for a season very accurately).

Well, given that the planet hasn't warmed since 1998, and they are now predicting a cooling trend over the next 12 years as a result of "natural variations in climate", yeah, I'd say warming is a bit of a misnomer. Nice thing about their theory though, no matter what happens, it's all a result of global climate change. Temps go up: man-made global warming. Temps go down: wild swings due to man-made climate change. I love the concept, no matter what happens, you are right, you get paid for it, and you get to work to dismantle the free-market society from which we all benefit.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As you may recall, I don't think that studies of the geological record are useful for predicting the future because present circumstances are dissimilar to those in the geological past.
Maybe they could if they were doing a massive least squares to estimate the parameters of their models, but I am doubtful that the data permit separate resolution of all, or even most, of the forcing functions. I've never read an explanation of how any climatologist constructs any models. My impression is that they all know how they do it and it never occurs to them to tell anybody else.
There are several reasons why I don't have a lot of confidence in the temperature data.

Hmm, so you make a point of telling me that you know the difference between weather and climate, and then go ahead and write as if poor weather forecasting were an indicator of the accuracy of long term climate predictions...

According to whom? Somebody else was making that claim in another ng, but when I asked him to point me to the data he pointed me to a website with at least scores of pages, without specifying what he was looking at. I didn't see anything that looked to me to support what he was saying, but then again he hasn't been able to explain how changes in solar irradiance cause a change in the Earth's temperature either.

Who are they?
We are near a sunspot minimum now, so whoever they are, they must think that something else will more than offset the expected rise in solar irradiance over the next five years or so.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Garage_Woodworks wrote:

You really think that a bunch of people who think nothing of blowing themselves to Hell for the glory of Allah will hesitate to nuke major cities for the same purpose?
The trouble with nukes is that it's a lot easier to keep someone from getting them than to take them away afterwards if it turns out that the people having them are using them irresponsibly.
Or are you cool with some loon killing tens of millions of people for the glory of Allah?

So you're saying that it's cheaper to bomb half the middle east every day for all eternity than it is to occupy and Americanize the place?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There was a time I had some respect for your rhetoric. Turns out you are nothing but yet another arrogant cowboy.
You don't think that loose cowboys with nukes, threatening the planet's destruction is none of MY business??? Think again. Given the opportunity, I'd have to take you out. You and your ilk are a danger to human life. Period...seminary boy!

And down you will go. Snug at the end of your own rope.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

And you will again ... when the nice man comes into the room with your evening Thorazine.
Turns out you

Naw. I don't like horses. Their tail ends remind me too much of certain people.

Who would that be exactly? The last I looked, the most dangerous nukes were the ones the Ukrainians were trying to sell. I didn't hear you yammering on about that.

Wow, a threat upon myself. I am now officially very scared. Will that be with a peashooter, a spitwad, or will you just continue to foam until the attendant sedates you for the night?

I am properly mollified.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You remind me of this clown: http://rattube.com/blog1/2008/05/12/bill-oreilly-meltdowns /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm glad you enjoyed that life's experience. It worked for you, did it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Oh yes. After heavy sedation, even liberal Democrats make sense ... and some Canadians.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great! In that case I will know where to go for an explanation of what it is those two groups are trying to say.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Only if you send me Thorazine first.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

bro'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 13 May 2008 16:49:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Before you dismiss Jeremiah Wright's remarks as "evil racist screeds", consider that his comments about "God damn America" are not much different from the prophet Isaiah when he decried the sins of ancient Israel. Isaiah was not received well by the people of his time either. Jeremiah Wright's remarks are to be seen in contrast to the common political invocation, "God bless America". What seems like a prayer ("Please, God, send your blessings upon our nation.") is actually used as an arrogant statement ("God does bless our nation. God approves of our nation and its actions. God is on my side."). Which is worse - a prophetic warning about how God is displeased with us and our sins, or a presumptuous statement that God is on my side?
As for the remarks being racist, they are no more racist than those who produced the TV mini-series "Roots". Both point out grievous injustices commited by one group of people against another. Yet the produces of Roots received awards for their efforts.
What Obama does have to be proud of is his years of community organizing in Chicago where he fought for the disempowered. The rich and powerful don't really need anyone to fight for them.
Mithrandir
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.