Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg>

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age. If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.

"Few" bucks? I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse>

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
<http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html>
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Trevor Wilson]

keithr wrote:

On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start: www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye? What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?
Have you looked at the cites I provided?
Have you read IPCC AR4?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:37:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html

Argh. Not so wonderful:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/EcoSmart%209%20Watt%20LED.jpg>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeffrey Angus wrote:

On 9/30/2011 7:08 AM, kreed wrote:
Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it. If it was, he would believe anything they told him

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.

**Scientolgy was set up as a tax dodge by a 2nd rate science fiction writer.
It relies on the same ignorance damanded by the Catholics, the Muslims, the
Jews and all the other religions. Scientology actively seeks to isolate it's
adherents from normal society. This is a stanadrd ploy by religious and
quasi-religious sects. Like every other religion, Scientology needs to be:

* Taxed.
* Subjected to the normal consumer regulations that surround any other
product or service.

That should sort them out.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 9/30/2011 5:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Scientolgy was set up as a tax dodge by a 2nd rate science fiction writer.
It relies on the same ignorance damanded by the Catholics, the Muslims, the
Jews and all the other religions. Scientology actively seeks to isolate it's
adherents from normal society.

How ironic.
They also propagate an unending stream of unsupported information
claiming them to be facts.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

 

[Arfa Daily]

www.rageaudio.com.au



You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... ?

**I am not well regarded by Jehovah's Witness', nor by Mormans. When
religious nutters turn up on my doorstep to push their peculiar religion
down my throat,

Hmmmm ...



I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a

cup of tea and then proceding to lecture them on science and the
nonsensical nature of supernatural beliefs. Most hurridly excuse
themselves and make their escape.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[keithr]

On 1/10/2011 7:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

keithr wrote:
On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start: www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I care
in the least about the religious views of the members of the IPCC.

What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil
company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

Have you looked at the cites I provided?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he is
wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that. That is not the
scientific method.

Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or dispute
their modelling, but I am by nature suspicious of the results of
computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing. The
problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate have been
gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows weather
rarely agree with each other.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a minority
of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very much
open to question.

 

[keithr]

On 1/10/2011 2:37 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age. If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.

"Few" bucks? I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

Lets face it guys, there is nobody around here, myself included, who has

the mental horsepower to make a serious and realistic contribution to
the body of knowledge about global warming. Mostly it is reiteration of
set views using what ever data that has been provided by others and
which coincides with those set views of the writer. In the end nothing
changes, we still have the same people with the same views.

The debate though will have been useful if it leads to a lesser use of
fossil fuel to convert to energy. It is an inefficient process and there
ain't an infinite supply of the stuff.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

keithr wrote:

On 1/10/2011 7:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would
get a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a
reasonable theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he
is right or wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to
decide, but at least he is approaching the subject from a
reasoned scientific perspective not the screaming political one
that most seem to favour. Global warming is a fact, the only
argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it
is important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A
religious viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor
light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not
only that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion
of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad. Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are
hardly surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue.
I trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start: www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the
surface, much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious
holes in them, however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that
cause you to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I
care in the least about the religious views of the members of the
IPCC.

**A person that holds 'Intelligent Design' as some kind of rational view is
seriously suspect. In fact, I would be concerned about any person, that
claims to be a scientist, who hold any kind of supernatural beliefs.

Spencer is part of this organisation:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/

Here is part of their platform:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

An excerpt:

1.. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are
robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited
for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is
no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming
and cooling in geologic history.
2.. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human
flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject
poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.
With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if
energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3.. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels,
will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4.. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because
the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately
need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
Disturbing stuff. Spencer is listed as a prominent signer:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

It seems clear that Spencer STARTS from a theological POV and moulds his
science to fit that view. Are you certain you want to get on this idiot's
train of thought?

What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that
cause you to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil
company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

**Certainly, but it gets very messy. Probably easier to refer you to the
organisation that has unravelled the paper trail:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/06/19/206237/the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/

And here:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/16/206882/glenn-beck-cornwall-alliance-exxonmobil-climate-change/

And:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2010/06/15/174718/cornwall-alliance-frontgroup/

And, of course, here is where he has worked for the Heartland Institute:

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

The Heartland Institute is a 'front' for big tobacco and big oil (along with
big guns):

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

In short, Spencer is a religious nutter, who is (partly) paid by big oil.

Have you looked at the cites I provided?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he
is wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that.

**No, I do not. Spencer is a religious fruit-cake. ANYTHING he says must be
viewed with deep suspicion.

That is

not the scientific method.

**Indeed. Which is why I supplied a number of cites that criticise Spencer's
claims. Did you look at them?

Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or
dispute their modelling,

**This present discussion is not specifically about the modelling. It's
about the fact that AGW is occuring. IOW: We only need look at the
historical data.

but I am by nature suspicious of the results

of computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing.

**Indeed. And the modelling of climate is improving all the time.

The problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate
have been gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows
weather rarely agree with each other.

**Bullshit. The BoM has a very impressive success rate with determining
weather over a 24 hour period. It is less successful over 48 hours and even
less so over 72 hours and so on. However, we are not discussing weather.
We're discussing climate. BIG difference.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a
minority of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very
much open to question.

**Well, no, it is not "Very much open to question". There is a small amont
of doubt about why it is occuring. Around 5% at present.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:19:29 +1000, keithr <keith@nowhere.com.au>
wrote:

Lets face it guys, there is nobody around here, myself included, who has
the mental horsepower to make a serious and realistic contribution to
the body of knowledge about global warming. Mostly it is reiteration of
set views using what ever data that has been provided by others and
which coincides with those set views of the writer. In the end nothing
changes, we still have the same people with the same views.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

There's more to global warming than just contributing to the body of
knowledge. There's the feedback, review, and criticism necessary to
validate the original research. There's also a substantial amount of
interpretation necessary to make full use of the body of knowledge.
Just knowing the "facts" is insufficient. One also had to know what
the fact really mean, and to do next.

As for lacking the mental horsepower necessary to contribute, please
note that during this discussion, I added one trivial item to the body
of knowledge by demonstrating how easy it is to tweak trend lines. I
also demonstrated the global warming precedes CO2 rise, using a graph
that was apparently intended to demonstrate the reverse.

I doubt if we'll ever be able to generate a fact based determination
on AGW. There's far too much polarization, politics and emotion
involved. At best, we will have a consensus, based on whichever side
hires the best PR agency, and possibly which future natural disaster
is successfully blamed on AGW. It makes me ill to think about it, but
that's probably the way it will work.

If you find it frustrating, I can sympathize. There is enough
distorted data and odd conclusions being tossed around that it's
difficult to form a supportable opinion. You're welcome to give up
now, and let the rest of us run your future. Various PAC's will
gladly supply you with a prepared sample ballot to save you the effort
of forming an opinion. A horde of elected representatives will gladly
tell you what to do, rather than attempt to represent your position
(especially if you have none). However, methinks the AGW issue is
sufficiently important and potentially expensive, that giving up now
might be a little premature.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a
faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However,
this graph may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years and
have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes
it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how temperature changes
have occured in the past. Not all have been caused by CO2 rise. The most
important factor to note, however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels
track each other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be
able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we didn't.
The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of CO2 has prevented
the ice age from occuring.

If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll

create our own disaster.

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by some
means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age. However, reducing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely unlikely possibility.
The VERY BEST we can hope for is to reduce emissions to zero. If we do that,
then CO2 levels would stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna
happen. The most likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at
a faster rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).

* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a
point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.

* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then
it's cost us some money.

"Few" bucks?

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the
costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.

Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider that a
temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible under some of the
more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern than a (say) doubling of
electricity costs today.

* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our
civilisation will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of man-hours
of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is not wild
speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many
will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past and
that is the figure I'll stick with.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are amongst the
most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-3500k-800lm-warm-white-led-emitter-metal-strip-12-14v-80310

Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Arfa Daily]

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4e86915a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

On 1/10/2011 7:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start: www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the
surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause
you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I care in
the least about the religious views of the members of the IPCC.

What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause
you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company
to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

Have you looked at the cites I provided?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he is
wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that. That is not the
scientific method.

Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or dispute
their modelling, but I am by nature suspicious of the results of computer
modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing. The problem is
extremely complex and all attempts to model climate have been gross
simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows weather rarely agree
with each other.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a minority
of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very much open
to question.

Well, a majority of several on here, it would seem. You could at least add
me to that sentiment, so that's two of us ...

Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9eb71sFhhhU1@mid.individual.net...

"kreed"

Well, I always thought it was "strait" jacket.


The Macquarie Dictionary, 1981 edition, gives both spellings as equal
alternatives.

So do others, both US and UK ones - PLUS the MS Spell Checker !!!


The really wonderful thing about the English language is that it Lives,
Breathes and CHANGES.

So we can all have * FUN * with it.

And bets of all, it pisses fuckwit pedants off to hell !!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, misspelling words is not part of that fun.

 

[T.T.]

Well, I always thought it was "strait" jacket.


The Macquarie Dictionary, 1981 edition, gives both spellings as equal
alternatives.

So do others, both US and UK ones - PLUS the MS Spell Checker !!!

Dictionaries reflect usage. They are not rule-books.

 

[F Murtz]

T.T. wrote:

Well, I always thought it was "strait" jacket.


The Macquarie Dictionary, 1981 edition, gives both spellings as equal
alternatives.

So do others, both US and UK ones - PLUS the MS Spell Checker !!!

Dictionaries reflect usage. They are not rule-books.

Good dictionaries do, Macquarie lists words before they become common
enough therefore hastening change.

 

[josephkk]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a
faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However,
this graph may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years and
have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes
it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how temperature changes
have occured in the past. Not all have been caused by CO2 rise. The most
important factor to note, however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels
track each other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

Except for two very important things: 1) correlation is NOT causation. 2)
effect cannot precede cause. The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.

(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be
able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we didn't.
The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of CO2 has prevented
the ice age from occuring.

If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by some
means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age. However, reducing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely unlikely possibility.
The VERY BEST we can hope for is to reduce emissions to zero. If we do that,
then CO2 levels would stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna
happen. The most likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at
a faster rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).


* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a
point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.

No, you are not. Effect does not precede cause. You are an indoctrinated
political follower.

* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then
it's cost us some money.

"Few" bucks?

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the
costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider that a
temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible under some of the
more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern than a (say) doubling of
electricity costs today.

And i see it quite the reverse. Nor do i believe that the Greenland ice
sheet will all melt away and cause a calamitous ocean level rise (as
depicted is some apocalyptic projections).

* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our
civilisation will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of man-hours
of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is not wild
speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.

Effect does not precede cause.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many
will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past and
that is the figure I'll stick with.

I don't actually find that number unreasonable. Though i am looking a lot
more factors.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are amongst the
most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-3500k-800lm-warm-white-led-emitter-metal-strip-12-14v-80310

Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Fuckwit Murtz"

Good dictionaries do, Macquarie lists words before they become common
enough therefore hastening change.

** What absolute bollocks.



..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

josephkk wrote:

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a
faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However,
this graph may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that
there are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine
whether a CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way
around. So, dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid
lines. I also reversed the graph so that time goes from left to
right. Today is on the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do
about the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw
data and expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise
precedes CO2 again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

Except for two very important things: 1) correlation is NOT
causation.

**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in future.

2)

effect cannot precede cause.

**Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times of high
CO2 levels.

The graph is very clear on temperature

change preceding CO2 levels generally.

**Incorrect. The graphs span several hundred thousand years. The graph
clearly shows that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise several times. When
CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. When temperatures rise, CO2 is
outgassed from the oceans, causing rising CO2 levels. When CO2 levels rise,
temperature rise follows. And so on.

(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may
be able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we
didn't. The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of
CO2 has prevented the ice age from occuring.

If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
(by some means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age.
However, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an
extremely unlikely possibility. The VERY BEST we can hope for is to
reduce emissions to zero. If we do that, then CO2 levels would
stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna happen. The most
likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at a faster
rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).


* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable
(95% certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing
year, to a point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.

No, you are not.

**_I_ am.

Effect does not precede cause.

**Duh.

You are an

indoctrinated
political follower.

**If you mean to say:

I regard science as the arbiter of this present situation and have no regard
for those who reject science and embrace the supernatural, then you'd be
correct.

* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then
it's cost us some money.

"Few" bucks?

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of
the costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because
the cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as
eliminating coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider
that a temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible
under some of the more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern
than a (say) doubling of electricity costs today.

And i see it quite the reverse.

**Good for you. Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves the IPCC AR4
incorrect.

Nor do i believe that the Greenland

ice
sheet will all melt away and cause a calamitous ocean level rise (as
depicted is some apocalyptic projections).

**You may believe in all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo you wish. I'll stick
with the scientists on this one. You may care to note that the Greenland ice
melt has accelerated in the past few years. Why do you think that is? You
may also care to note that Greenland's arable land has increased in recent
years. Why do you think that is? Given these two effects, what do you think
will cause them to cease?

* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our
civilisation will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from
the ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the
probability of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a
Y2K disaster, the modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of
man-hours of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is
not wild speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.

Effect does not precede cause.

**Strawman. Spencer is a religious nutter.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many
will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a
back of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy
consumption and greenhouse gas production per person remains
constant at today's western world levels, what would the population
of the planet need to be in order to produce a greenhouse gas
stable environment? I think you might be amused by the result.

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past
and that is the figure I'll stick with.

I don't actually find that number unreasonable. Though i am looking
a lot
more factors.


Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K,
46 year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85
is not very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong
to survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are
amongst the most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-3500k-800lm-warm-white-led-emitter-metal-strip-12-14v-80310

Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Gary Sokolisch]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:22:57 -0400, FAR-VA~RSPW's Very Own Ubermenschen
wrote:

Re: was unifarva alive during the cuban missle crisis?

Group: rec.sport.pro-wrestling Date: Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 2:41pm (EDT-3)
From: rjs2085@yahoo.com (robert)
On Sep 14, 10:10 am, Vindr...@webtv.net (FAR-VA~RSPW's Very Own
Ubermenschen) wrote:
Re: was unifarva alive during the cuban missle crisis?  
Group: rec.sport.pro-wrestling Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 6:08am (EDT-3)
From: rjs2...@aol.com (rob)
On Sep 7, 7:44 pm, Vindr...@webtv.net (F~A~R~V~A~Mamey
SapoteEradication) wrote:
Re: was unifarva alive during the cuban missle crisis?   Group:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2011, 5:07am (EDT-3) From:
rjs2...@aol.com (rob) On Aug 30, 1:28 am, Vindr...@webtv.net
(F~A~R~V~A~MameySapoteEradication) wrote:
Re: was unifarva alive during the cuban missle crisis?   Group:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling Date: Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 1:08am (EDT-3) From:

W Gary Sokolich
801 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663-5715
(949) 650-5379

http://web.archive.org/web/20080821231423/http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/da/da022808.htm

TEXAS BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
February 28, 2008 Board Meeting Disciplinary Actions

W. Gary Sokolich , Newport Beach, California – File B-29812 - It was
alleged that Dr. Sokolich unlawfully offered or attempted to practice
engineering in Texas (...) Dr. Sokolich chose to end the proceedings by
signing a Consent Order that was accepted by the Board to cease and desist
from representing himself as an “Engineer” in Texas, from any and all
representations that he can offer or perform engineering services and from
the actual practice of engineering in Texas (...) Dr. Sokolich was also
assessed a $1,360.00 administrative penalty.

_______________

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-14/local/me-1922_1_ucla-researcher

A former UCLA physiologist has agreed to provide copies of his research to
the school to settle a lawsuit the university filed against him in 1985,
lawyers in the case said.

(...)

The University of California Board of Regents filed a $620,000 lawsuit
against Sokolich, accusing him of taking research on the hearing
capabilities of animals in June, 1982. Sokolich was dismissed by UCLA
(...).

(...)

rjs2...@yahoo.com (robert) On Aug 20, 7:07 pm,
Vindr...@webtv.net(F~A~R~V~A~MameySapoteEradication) wrote:
Re: was unifarva alive during the cuban missle crisis?   Group:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2011, 3:35pm (EDT-3) From:
rjs2...@aol.com (rob) On Aug 12,
9:52 pm,Vindr...@webtv.net(F~A~R~V~A~MameySapoteEradication) wrote:
Re: was unifarva alive during the cuban missle crisis?   Group:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 9:01am (EDT-3) From:
rjs2...@aol.com (rob) On Aug
2,10:50 pm,Vindr...@webtv.net(F~A~R~V~A~MameySapoteEradication) wrote:
Re: was unifarva alive during the cuban missle crisis?   Group:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling Date: Tue, Aug 2, 2011, 5:48am (EDT-3) From:
rjs2...@yahoo.com (robert) On Jul
31,12:03 pm,Vindr...@webtv.net(F~A~R~V~A~MameySapoteEradication)
wrote:
Re: was unifarva alive during the cuban missle crisis?   Group:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 1:42pm (EDT-3) From:
rjs2...@aol.com (rob) On
Jul26,2:10 am,Vindr...@webtv.net(F~A~R~V~A~MameySapoteEradication)
wrote:
no and no.
                               _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
                /'/    /    /    /" /_\
               ('(    ' Fuck     /'   ')  
              \      You'          /
                 '\'              _.7'
                   \             (
       
bullshit. you said earlier you were alive during the great depression.
 
well, so were you!
                               _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
                /'/    /    /    /" /_\
               ('(    ' Fuck     /'   ')  
              \      You'          /
                 '\'              _.7'
      
like hell!  
you are alive now, aintcha?
                               _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
                /'/    /    /    /" /_\
               ('(    ' Fuck     /'   ')  
              \      You'          /
                 '\'              _.7'
                   \             (
                     \            \
i'm alive, so alive.  
Well right NOW is the Great Depression of the 21st Century!! UNIFARVA-#1
ALL TIME POSTER in RSPW  HISTORY
                               _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
                /'/    /    /    /" /_\
               ('(    ' Fuck     /'   ')  
              \      You'          /
  
ha! there will never be another great depression. like hell! we are in
one right now!
UNIFARVA-#1 ALL TIME POSTER in RSPW  HISTORY
                               _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
                /'/    /    /    /" /_\
               ('(    ' Fuck     /'   ')  
              \      You'          /
                 '\'              _.7'
                   \             (
                     \            \
DON'T TAZE MY GRANNY!
oh please. our economy is thriving.
heh.
robby made a funny!
UNIFARVA-#1 ALL TIME POSTER in RSPW  HISTORY KATY PERRY IS DA DEVIL!
ROBBY IS A JENKEM JUNKIE.
DON'T TAZE MY GRANNY!
                               _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
i am deadly serious.  
no you aren't.
you better not think you are!
UNIFARVA-#1 ALL TIME POSTER in RSPW  HISTORY KATY PERRY IS DA DEVIL!
ROBBY IS A JENKEM JUNKIE.
DON'T TAZE MY GRANNY!
BEYOND BE VACHEL CARLING'S RUBILATOR.
COURVOISALIEN COFFEE IS UNDERGROUND
                              _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
                /'/    /    /    /" /_\
               ('(    ' Fuck     /'   ')  
              \      You'          /
                 '\'              _.7'
                   \             (
                     \            \
i am deadly serious!  
are economy is a shambles and you damn well know it!!
UNIFARVA-#1 ALL TIME POSTER in RSPW  HISTORY
                               _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
                /'/    /    /    /" /_\
               ('(    ' Fuck     /'   ')  
              \      You'          /
                 '\'              _.7'
                   \             (
                     \            \
KATY PERRY IS DA DEVIL!
BEWARE JACKOFF JENKEMROBBY.
DON'T TAZE MY GRANNY!
BEYOND BE VACHEL CARLING'S RUBILATOR.
COURVOISALIEN COFFEE IS UNDERGROUND
no we arent, we are as prosperous as we have ever been.

you think?

UNIFARVA-#1 ALL TIME POSTER in RSPW HISTORY
                               _
                            /'_/)
                          ,/_  /
                         /    /
                   /'_'/'   '/'__'7,
                /'/    /    /    /" /_\
               ('(    ' Fuck     /'   ')  
              \      You'          /
                 '\'              _.7'
                   \             (
                     \            \
KATY PERRY IS DA DEVIL!

BEWARE JACKOFF JENKEMROBBY.

DON'T TAZE MY GRANNY!

BEYOND BE VACHEL CARLING'S RUBILATOR.

COURVOISALIEN COFFEE IS UNDERGROUND

hhhhhhhhhhh

 

[josephkk]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:23:10 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

Except for two very important things: 1) correlation is NOT
causation.

**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in future.

2)
effect cannot precede cause.

**Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times of high
CO2 levels.

The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.

Only in seeming on the IPCC time reversed graphs. Which when read
correctly shows CO2 follows temperature!!

**Incorrect. The graphs span several hundred thousand years. The graph
clearly shows that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise several times. When
CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. When temperatures rise, CO2 is
outgassed from the oceans, causing rising CO2 levels. When CO2 levels rise,
temperature rise follows. And so on.

You need to study both the IPCC graph and the time orientation corrected
graphs (thanks Jeff) a lot more then. The raw data in the IPCC graph is
increasing depth in the ice core, and thus farther back in time. Do read
the labels carefully. Temperture generally precedes CO2 rather
consistently (both increases and decreases).

)