Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

[Rick Lyons]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:48:59 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Dec 12, 5:00 am, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

 I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes

I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
composition of the air and how much oil/coal
people are burning.

The rest is basic arithmetic.

Show us the math, you phoney.

No no no! Claudius, if you don't like Eric's ideas,
then challenge his ideas. But don't make yourself
look bad by attacking Eric personally. Personal
attacks are for young girls, not grown men.

[-Rick-]

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:32:10 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 10:34 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:02:38 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 12:42 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

You too should keep your attributions straight.

What attribution might that be?

It was not I who mentioned the Duesberg site, and by extension, AIDS.
I did comment in the probable reason for its having been mentioned.

Why do you think I attributed that to you?

Because you addressed your post to me. Here it is:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:23:56 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
[5) you responded to me]

On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
[4) I responded to fungus re the link]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
[3) fungus posted the link]

On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com
wrote:
[2) My response to the OP]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
[1) The original post]

[fungus 1]

How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?

[BW 2]

Expensive and unnecessary.

[fungus 3]

Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:

http://www.duesberg.com/

[BW 4]

It's interesting that you try to change the subject. I assume it's
because you have no response that's relevant to my answer. If you
have any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface
temperatures, please show it and explain the mechanism involved.

[Jerry 5]

No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just
as some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who
claim that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or ....
There are also people, some of them with credentials as scientists,
who claim that the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the
universe came into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein
was wrong.

[BW in response to Jerry 5 (no header in repost)]

And you believe that's somehow relevant to some mechanism allowing CO2
to measurably heat the surface of the Earth? Do you have any evidence
you can show and explain? Or are you also just trying to change the
subject to something you can relate to?

At this late stage in the climate scam, your behavior seems almost
quaint. Who do you think you're fooling?


Jerry

Looks OK to me. My post appears to be in response to fungus, as I
intended. What problem do you see?

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2011-12-21, Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:46:14 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Ditto.

Anyway, what all these granolas jumping up and down over "climate change" are
overlooking is that at no point in the Earth's history has there not been
climate change. There was climate change long before humans appeared.

There were extinctions long before humans appeared too, but most of us
would still object to being part of one. "It's happened before, so it
must be OK/can't be our responsibility" is the Argument From
Retardation.

I give up!

Fine, climate change is not OK. So, let's stop it! Your best try first, then I
will take a swing at it.

 

[Richard Dobson]

On 21/12/2011 22:11, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
..

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than
in the past.

But nobody is claiming the mechanisms are different. They still exist,
insofar as they can be quantified. The claim is that a new mechanism has
been ~added~, in the period of a few generations. That's the dsp bit -
it is a signal inside a fair amount of noise.

It should also make the bar very high for placing large

economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.

Well it has always the case that not doing something is generally
cheaper than doing something! Prediction as a fundamental scientific
yardstick is clearly overrated and just plain inconvenient; best just to
wait and see, regardless of the magnitude of the possible consequence.
So, what level of evidence, what degree of thoroughness of the science,
would be required to lower that bar?


Richard Dobson

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:43:36 -0500, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article <63r2f7ducv7edcioqmqus1r4ln81g06ve6@4ax.com>,
AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:40:41 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because CO2 has no influence on
global warming.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2
levels to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." --
catoni52@sympatico.ca

All that the wbsits says is:

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Arthur P. Smith
(Submitted on 29 Feb 2008)
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect
is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is
mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or
equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for
Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the
average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than
what is observed.
Comments:
9 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph) Cite as:
arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
Submission history
From: Arthur Smith [view email]
[v1] Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:11:02 GMT (39kb) Which authors of this paper
are endorsers?"


Where's the beef?

Every bit of it is bull. It's a thin layer model radiating LWIR back to
the surface. Apparently it involves buying 2nd law exemptions.

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:41:27 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 22:11, Eric Jacobsen wrote: .

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than in
the past.

But nobody is claiming the mechanisms are different. They still exist,
insofar as they can be quantified. The claim is that a new mechanism has
been ~added~, in the period of a few generations. That's the dsp bit -
it is a signal inside a fair amount of noise.

It should also make the bar very high for placing large
economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.

Well it has always the case that not doing something is generally
cheaper than doing something! Prediction as a fundamental scientific
yardstick is clearly overrated and just plain inconvenient; best just to
wait and see, regardless of the magnitude of the possible consequence.
So, what level of evidence, what degree of thoroughness of the science,
would be required to lower that bar?

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:58:31 -0600, Bill Ward
<bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:41:27 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 22:11, Eric Jacobsen wrote: .

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than in
the past.

But nobody is claiming the mechanisms are different. They still exist,
insofar as they can be quantified. The claim is that a new mechanism has
been ~added~, in the period of a few generations. That's the dsp bit -
it is a signal inside a fair amount of noise.

It should also make the bar very high for placing large
economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.

Well it has always the case that not doing something is generally
cheaper than doing something! Prediction as a fundamental scientific
yardstick is clearly overrated and just plain inconvenient; best just to
wait and see, regardless of the magnitude of the possible consequence.
So, what level of evidence, what degree of thoroughness of the science,
would be required to lower that bar?

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

The fact that you don't want to believe X doesn't actually imply
that X violates anything. If that doesn't make sense to you, just
ignore it; it was mostly posted to appeal to the sane people
anyway.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[Richard Dobson]

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:
...

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

Richard Dobson

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson
<richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:
..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

My, you're optimistic. What do you want to bet that Tyndall won't
turn out to have been an agent of the Illuminati by the time he
gets done? I suspect Teh Konspiracy necessarily dates back at
least as far as anyone's been accumulating evidence that he
doesn't like.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/21/2011 5:11 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:49:51 -0600, Bill Snyder<bsnyder@airmail.net
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:46:14 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward<bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Ditto.

Anyway, what all these granolas jumping up and down over "climate change" are
overlooking is that at no point in the Earth's history has there not been
climate change. There was climate change long before humans appeared.

There were extinctions long before humans appeared too, but most of us
would still object to being part of one. "It's happened before, so it
must be OK/can't be our responsibility" is the Argument From
Retardation.

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than
in the past. It should also make the bar very high for placing large
economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

It's happening before was due most often to increases in atmospheric
CO2. Atmospheric CO2 can be the result of geologic or human activity.
This time, it appears that human activity is the dominant cause.

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.

That is a matter of judgement and an assessment of acceptable risk, not
science.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <8re4f7lg55quqco9245n3jfg0msl2paifl@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:43:36 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <63r2f7ducv7edcioqmqus1r4ln81g06ve6@4ax.com>,
AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:40:41 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
CO2 has no influence on global warming.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2
levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

All that the wbsits says is:

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
(Submitted on 29 Feb 2008)
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect
is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is
mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or
equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for
Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the
average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than
what is observed.
Comments:
9 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
Submission history
From: Arthur Smith [view email]
[v1] Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:11:02 GMT (39kb)
Which authors of this paper are endorsers?"


Where's the beef?

It refutes the claim above that, " . . . CO2 has no influence on
global warming." Did Mommy forget to read you the quoted material?

Did Mommy forget to teach you basic study?

 

[Bill Ward]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote: ..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

OK, go for it. Quote the part you're referring to, and explain the
mechanism by which you think it allows CO2 to heat the surface. Then we
can discuss it. Can you do that or not?

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/21/2011 2:56 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article
2a4eb24d-98b2-4e61-95aa-abc327a0c5af@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigation@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

No -- it about the frequently-quoted "scientific consensus," which AGW
proponents like to throw about in an attempt to intimidate skeptics.

There is actually some merit to consensus. You must be aware of the
driver whose wife telephoned him to warn him that the news reported a
driver going against the traffic on the divided highway he used to go
home from work. He answered, "What do you mean, _a_ driver? They're
_all_ going the wrong way!"

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:20:37 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 5:11 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:49:51 -0600, Bill Snyder<bsnyder@airmail.net
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:46:14 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward<bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Ditto.

Anyway, what all these granolas jumping up and down over "climate
change" are overlooking is that at no point in the Earth's history
has there not been climate change. There was climate change long
before humans appeared.

There were extinctions long before humans appeared too, but most of us
would still object to being part of one. "It's happened before, so it
must be OK/can't be our responsibility" is the Argument From
Retardation.

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than in
the past. It should also make the bar very high for placing large
economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

It's happening before was due most often to increases in atmospheric
CO2.

You stated that as though it were a fact. How do you know that? What
actual evidence can you show?

Atmospheric CO2 can be the result of geologic or human activity.
This time, it appears that human activity is the dominant cause.

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.

That is a matter of judgement and an assessment of acceptable risk, not
science.

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/21/2011 6:19 PM, Rick Lyons wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:48:59 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Dec 12, 5:00 am, fungus<openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes

I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
composition of the air and how much oil/coal
people are burning.

The rest is basic arithmetic.

Show us the math, you phoney.

No no no! Claudius, if you don't like Eric's ideas,
then challenge his ideas. But don't make yourself
look bad by attacking Eric personally. Personal
attacks are for young girls, not grown men.

Amen to that, Rick, This thread has generated too much rancor (mostly
from who aren't comp.dsp regulars). I expect to bow out.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[MarkK]

REPOST

Regardless of if you believe that the AGW theory is valid or not, the more
important question is what should society do regarding energy.

1) I think we all agree there are many good reasons to seek alternative form
of energy besides fossil fuel even if AGW is not one of them (someone
already said that and I think everyone agrees).
We should invest in research to develop these Alternative fuel research
YES

2) I think we all agree it is not a good idea to waste energy in any form
so we should invest in conservation . YES

3) The problems start when the AGW folks want to levy a CARBON TAX. Who
should get that money and what should it be used for? If you want to use it
for 1 and 2 above, I might even agree to that. CARBON TAX DEPENDS

4) More problems start when the AGW folks want us all to pony up more money
to pay for carbon sequestration equipment for coal plants. This would be a
total waste of money time and effort. CARBON SEQUESTRATION NO!


My point is, the discussion about AGW is almost irrelevant.

The real discussion should be about what actions do you want society to take
regarding an energy policy.

Mark

 

[Angelo Campanella]

"MarkK" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jcu7p9$in1$1@dont-email.me...

3) The problems start when the AGW folks want to levy a CARBON TAX.

You have your semantics mixed up. It's not the AGW folks that want to
levy that tax, it's our aggressive CAT (cap and trade) politicians. (they're
the ones that 'never met a tax they didn't like') Said CAT politicians are
masquerading in AGW clothing.

Who should get that money and what should it be used for?

We all know that it goes into the General Fund to fuel government
growth... the Cookie Monster.

4) More problems start when the AGW folks want us all to pony up more
money
to pay for carbon sequestration equipment for coal plants. This would be
a
total waste of money time and effort. CARBON SEQUESTRATION NO!

You got that one right. You can gauge the stupidity of sequestration
proponents by the amount of time it takes for them to realize that said
sequestration is a bad hoax. Listen to and read the words of your
Representative and your Senators.

My point is, the discussion about AGW is almost irrelevant.

Correct, but the public and most politicians are very slow learners when
it comes to scientific facts. Tax politicians could already taste and smell
the CAT money. It's been snatched from their mouth at the last moment. They
will be nasty and mean spirited for some time to come. Lord only knows what
they will come up with to replace that "lost" revenue.

The real discussion should be about what actions do you want society to
take
regarding an energy policy.

Produce and conserve... about like food.

Ange.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 2011-12-21, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/12/2011 22:11, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
.

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than
in the past.

But nobody is claiming the mechanisms are different. They still exist,
insofar as they can be quantified. The claim is that a new mechanism has
been ~added~, in the period of a few generations. That's the dsp bit -
it is a signal inside a fair amount of noise.

It should also make the bar very high for placing large
economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.

Well it has always the case that not doing something is generally
cheaper than doing something!

Now you appear to be contradicting your thesis. If there is a catastrophe
brewing as a result of human action, the main solution would in fact be
inaction: everyone stop what you're doing.

 

[Richard Dobson]

On 22/12/2011 02:26, Bill Ward wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote: ..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

OK, go for it. Quote the part you're referring to, and explain the
mechanism by which you think it allows CO2 to heat the surface. Then we
can discuss it. Can you do that or not?

Now you are just being lazy, or something. Have ~you~ read it? Oh well,
read the sections about moecular resonance, radiant heat, reflection,
absorption and emission, such as "....molecules that are weak absorbers
are weak emitters and strong absorbers are strong emitters". Or is it
that you deny the reality of the whole principle of a greenhouse gas,
including atmospheric H2O? If you don't want to take on board the whole
detailed picture of molecular behaviour, you can just "think of" CO2 as
reflecting radiant heat from the surface back to the surface; just as
clouds do. A greenhouse gas will of course radiate in all directions,
including upwards, but a useful proportion of it gets all the way back
to us.

You may observe that (all other things being equal...) after a sunny
day, a cloud-covered night will be warmer than a cloudless one. With the
latter, in winter, even into early spring, we get a hard frost. With the
former, we don't get a frost at all, the night can almost be balmy. The
greenhouse effect is not specific to or limited to CO2; it is just that
CO2 is a pretty good one, there is rather a lot of it around at the
moment, more than we would like, and unlike H2O it is something we have
some control over, since we are making most of it ourselves.

So, perhaps it may be worth reading after all?


Richard Dobson

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 6:19 PM, Rick Lyons wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:48:59 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Dec 12, 5:00 am, fungus<openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes

I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
composition of the air and how much oil/coal
people are burning.

The rest is basic arithmetic.

Show us the math, you phoney.

No no no! Claudius, if you don't like Eric's ideas,
then challenge his ideas. But don't make yourself
look bad by attacking Eric personally. Personal
attacks are for young girls, not grown men.

Amen to that, Rick, This thread has generated too much rancor (mostly
from who aren't comp.dsp regulars). I expect to bow out.

A lot of people are tired of Cahill's trolling unrelated newsgroups:
:alt.global-warming, sci.physics, comp.dsp, sci.electronics.basics,
sci.math and are also tired of the trolls that pile on when he does.




--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.