Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
Discuss Very interesting - OT in the alt.autos.toyota forum at Car Dealer Forums; http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml › See More: Very interesting - OT...
  1. #1
    witfal
    Guest

  2. #2
    =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?=
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:00:37 -0700, witfal wrote:

    > http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml



    "More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate
    1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings
    similar to ours since the last Ice Age"

    Seems to me I heard someone in this group say something very similar to
    this, eh?


  3. #3
    dh
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    "witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
    news:fcag5l$mdn$1@news.albasani.net...
    > http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml


    Equally interesting:

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

    Avery's a shill and Singer's a crank. It's a marriage made in heaven.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. #4
    witfal
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    On 2007-09-13 04:33:15 -0700, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> said:

    > "witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
    > news:fcag5l$mdn$1@news.albasani.net...
    >> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

    >
    > Equally interesting:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
    >
    > Avery's a shill and Singer's a crank. It's a marriage made in heaven.


    Oh, well....wikipedia.

    Earthtimes has nothing on wiki.


  5. #5
    EdV
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    whether or not man has anything to do with global warming, man should
    not bombard the atmosphere with CO2.

    Here's a new fuel source. Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water,
    something to read about.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...ZlvLnfsxP7ToKw





  6. #6
    DH
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    "witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
    news:fcbcll$8a5$1@news.albasani.net...
    > On 2007-09-13 04:33:15 -0700, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> said:
    >> "witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
    >> news:fcag5l$mdn$1@news.albasani.net...
    >>> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

    >>
    >> Equally interesting:
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
    >>
    >> Avery's a shill and Singer's a crank. It's a marriage made in heaven.

    >
    > Oh, well....wikipedia.
    >
    > Earthtimes has nothing on wiki.


    There's 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than prior to 1850. Singer's
    work is a simple projection based on the historical record.

    When the inputs change, the outputs change. It's pretty simple.

    Singer doesn't accept that. That makes him a crank.

    As for the seas not having risen significantly, I'd call .2m/century AND
    ACCELERATING (during the '90's, it became .3m/century) to be significant.
    They start the handwaving right away in that PR blurb (PRNewswire, by the
    way, isn't a news service, it's a press release distribution service).

    As for Wiki, it's sourced. Singer really did say that glaciers were
    advancing based on 15-year old documents that no one can find and he was
    entirely and thoroughly wrong (most are, in fact, retreating and many are
    doing it dramatically). Avery accepts this unflinchingly because his diet
    of petro-dollars has ruined his eyesight.

    Singer also fingers the sunspot record, which is, in fact, NOT consistent
    with temperature variation since the '80's.

    We know:

    1. CO2 traps IR radiation. This physics goes back to the 1800s.
    2. There's 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before we
    industrialized. We have good evidence from ice cores going back thousands
    of years and we have direct measurements since 1958 (Mauna Loa records).
    3. That 25% comes from burning fossil fuels (simple isotopic analysis).

    None of those three facts are in the least arguable. Even Singer will not
    try to tell you that the extra 25% CO2 in the atmosphere is from any source
    other than Man. Nobody bothers to discuss these three items any more
    because the evidence for them is bulletproof.

    Now, while it's reasonable to say that we can't be certain what effect the
    increased CO2 will have, it's absurd to say that there's no effect. The
    expected primary result of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is warming. Lo
    and behold, we're warming.


    Now, of those 500 scientists who reported evidence contray to AGW theories,
    how many of them will tell you that Singer misunderstands, misinterprets or
    misrepresents their work?

    Why don't you go buy his book, let us know what's in it, and we'll start
    working on his "evidence?"



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. #7
    witfal
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    On 2007-09-13 07:20:02 -0700, "DH" <dh@stargate.com> said:
    >>> Avery's a shill and Singer's a crank. It's a marriage made in heaven.

    >>
    >> Oh, well....wikipedia.
    >>
    >> Earthtimes has nothing on wiki.

    >
    > There's 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than prior to 1850. Singer's
    > work is a simple projection based on the historical record.
    >
    > When the inputs change, the outputs change. It's pretty simple.
    >
    > Singer doesn't accept that. That makes him a crank.Why don't you go
    > buy his book, let us know what's in it, and we'll start
    > working on his "evidence?"


    I think I struck a nerve.

    As I said weeks ago, DH, I'm confident that articles like this and many
    more to come will be proven correct.

    With or without knee-jerk economy-devastating reactions.


  8. #8
    DH
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    "witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
    news:fcc5s7$5du$1@news.albasani.net...
    > On 2007-09-13 07:20:02 -0700, "DH" <dh@stargate.com> said:
    >>>> Avery's a shill and Singer's a crank. It's a marriage made in heaven.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, well....wikipedia.
    >>>
    >>> Earthtimes has nothing on wiki.

    >>
    >> There's 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than prior to 1850.
    >> Singer's
    >> work is a simple projection based on the historical record.
    >>
    >> When the inputs change, the outputs change. It's pretty simple.
    >>
    >> Singer doesn't accept that. That makes him a crank.Why don't you go buy
    >> his book, let us know what's in it, and we'll start
    >> working on his "evidence?"

    >
    > I think I struck a nerve.
    >
    > As I said weeks ago, DH, I'm confident that articles like this and many
    > more to come will be proven correct.
    >
    > With or without knee-jerk economy-devastating reactions.


    And I'm quite confident Singer is wrong. Go buy his book; that's all he's
    really after. Read it. Post what you find. I'll read it. It will all be
    crap. Avery's just interested in making sure his corporate masters have a
    good 4th quarter this year.

    We're going to have economy-devastating changes but not from attempting to
    forestall CO2 increase and global warming; these changes will come from an
    overstressed world changing to meet our demands.

    If anybody's around to write the history of the West in 100 years, they'll
    have some choice remarks to make about our choices in the late 20th and
    early 21st Centuries.

    If there's 500 scientists who have written papers - good papers - producing
    evidence that AGW is crap, why are the AGW proponents firmly in control of
    the IPCC? Membership is open to anyone who shows up with a pulse. Answer:
    because Singer misunderstands, misinterprets or misrepresents their work.
    That's the norm for the deniers. There are a few skeptics with real
    credibility (everybody respects that guy at MIT - what's his name - Lindzer,
    I think) but most of the people doing the research, on top of the current
    state of the art and in a position to really understand what's going on
    agree that something bad is coming our way and it's our own fault.

    Look at what we were discussing a week or two ago... Marc Morano's post on a
    Senate web site showcasing experts coming out of the woodwork telling us
    that AGW is crap science. But... wait... one of his sources, a "scientist
    with the University of Alberta" is not an advance-degreed researcher in
    climate science but guy who teaches energy efficient homebuilding nights for
    $55 for an 8-week class at the UA extension school and probably works for an
    oil company in the daytime. That would be like calling me a leading
    computer scientice researcher because I teach 4th graders to use PCs. I'm
    not saying this guy's a dummy but he's hardly a class-leading scientist with
    the credibility to debunk AGW. Yet, Morano's got his name listed in lights.
    Why? Because there isn't anyone else. That Israeli astronomer? He's a kid
    who's annoyed that we aren't paying more attention to his pet theory. He's
    probably a good astronomer but he's hardly an atmospheric physics authority.

    So, finding no science to back up the denial, people like Avery will often
    talk darkly about the AGW "industry" ... Scientists are all on the AGW
    payola... It's a giant conspiracy to tear down Western Civilization... For
    what? To whose benefit? If that's the case and scientists succeed in
    tearing down Western Civ then, when we lose our economies and have nothing
    to eat as we sit in the dark, do the conspiring climate scientists get
    whisked away to Beijing to live in coal-fired, air-conditioned comfort and
    boink cute Chinese girls for the rest of their lives? What a lot of crap.

    Scientists like to 1) figure stuff out, discover something new and be famous
    for it, 2) be right, 3) tear down each others' work. If there was a
    credible way to attack this AGW, other scientists would be all over it and
    you wouldn't have a few cranks like Singer trying to make a fast buck
    catering to the denial crowd.

    The fact of the matter is, there's a lot of talk about consensus not because
    this is some sort of vote but because the proponents of AGW are able to make
    persuasive cases for their science all across the board and, as far as the
    pieces are known, the pieces all fit.

    And there are a shitload of pieces. There are a lot of scientific
    disciplines involved, which is more fields available to put the brakes on
    the AGW theory. I was looking into an aspect of this a couple weeks ago and
    found an obscure article by marine biologists that was relevant (using what
    turned out to be AGW compensations to explain discrepancies in populations
    of marine something-or-others). If AGW was hooey, this paper would have
    been yet another opportunity for an alert researcher to say "Hey! Wait!
    Something doesn't add up!" There would be many such opportunities.. the
    entire AGW theory would be like a house of cards.... But the marine
    biologists didn't say that, their research 1) explained puzzling changes
    they'd seen in the something-or-other populations and 2) provided more
    confirmation of what the AGW proponents have proposed because it's real and
    it makes sense...

    .... or the Chinese got to them and the marine biologists are all on the
    take, too. There's always that.

    And, of course, it's just too damned bad that we don't mobilize to clean up
    our act, develop new, clean technologies and build entire new industries
    around them and make a shitload of money (remember the dot-com boom?
    m-o-n-e-y from new technology. have a GPS? m-o-n-e-y from new technology.
    lasers? m-o-n-e-y from new technology). We'll wait and dither and then the
    Chinese will develop all the new tech first, industrialize it and then that
    will just be one more thing they export to the US. If we have any money left
    to buy it with.

    By the way, Honda's developed a bug that eats cellulose and pees ethanol.
    Amazing. They'll make some money on that. GM could have done that but
    they'd rather take the sure route to next-quarter profits by lobbying
    politicians to leave their gas-hogs alone.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. #9
    F.H.
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    DH wrote:

    snip for space only / / / /
    > And there are a shitload of pieces. There are a lot of scientific
    > disciplines involved, which is more fields available to put the brakes on
    > the AGW theory. I was looking into an aspect of this a couple weeks ago and
    > found an obscure article by marine biologists that was relevant (using what
    > turned out to be AGW compensations to explain discrepancies in populations
    > of marine something-or-others). If AGW was hooey, this paper would have
    > been yet another opportunity for an alert researcher to say "Hey! Wait!
    > Something doesn't add up!" There would be many such opportunities.. the
    > entire AGW theory would be like a house of cards.... But the marine
    > biologists didn't say that, their research 1) explained puzzling changes
    > they'd seen in the something-or-other populations and 2) provided more
    > confirmation of what the AGW proponents have proposed because it's real and
    > it makes sense...
    >
    > ... or the Chinese got to them and the marine biologists are all on the
    > take, too. There's always that.
    >
    > And, of course, it's just too damned bad that we don't mobilize to clean up
    > our act, develop new, clean technologies and build entire new industries
    > around them and make a shitload of money (remember the dot-com boom?
    > m-o-n-e-y from new technology. have a GPS? m-o-n-e-y from new technology.
    > lasers? m-o-n-e-y from new technology). We'll wait and dither and then the
    > Chinese will develop all the new tech first, industrialize it and then that
    > will just be one more thing they export to the US. If we have any money left
    > to buy it with.


    Here's an angle that hasn't been mentioned much (global dimming) but is
    quite intriguing: (nice slide show)

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

  10. #10
    witfal
    Guest

    Default Re: Very interesting - OT

    On 2007-09-13 14:18:59 -0700, "DH" <dh@stargate.com> said:

    > And I'm quite confident Singer is wrong.


    Do you really want to convince me you're confident?

    Stop driving, using public transportation, and heating/cooling your
    home, or machine washing your clothes. Hell, stop using the
    electricity to run your computer.

    Until then, you're part of your problem.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Interesting
    By LauraKBurt in forum Chrysler
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 12:55 AM
  2. Interesting MPG experiment
    By Rick Courtright in forum alt.autos.subaru
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-26-2008, 12:38 AM
  3. INTERESTING ; The Chrysler CCV
    By in forum alt.autos.gm
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 11:32 PM
  4. Does GM have anything interesting or new coming out?
    By Mr Rocker Fella in forum alt.autos.gm
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 04:06 PM
  5. Does GM have anything interesting or new coming out?
    By Dick O. Steele in forum alt.autos.pontiac
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2007, 03:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •