When London is submerged and New York is awash...

Don Lancaster · Jan 19, 2005

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

This isn't all bad. New York (city) could use awash (and rinse).

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms.
-- George Wald

The problem is the sponges.
Without sponges to hold all the excess water, worldwide sea levels would
raise by 146 feet.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Jan 12, 2005

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:47:54 +0100, Bill Sloman wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> schreef in bericht
On 11 Jan 2005 03:59:04 -0800, Winfield Hill

Hot times coming up this week in the Antarctic: A collision is
imminent
between a 1,200-square-mile iceberg (the size of Long Island) and
the
Drygalski Ice Tongue, at one end of the Ross Ice Shelf. As a
result,
the huge ice tongue itself may soon break off and float into the
ocean.

ETC (estimated time to collision), four days and counting. Film
at 11,
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/104952main_B15A_dates.mpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18424796.100
"When London is submerged and New York awash, we may look back on
2004
as the year when the water started rising. Observations
collected from
both North and South Poles show that the world's ice sheets and
glaciers
are disintegrating faster than anyone thought possible."

Well, Win (Chicken Little) Hill, I await the big event ;-)

Since Jim seems to have the same self-indulgent attitude to his
diet as he
does to global warming, he's unlikely to be around when it screws
up life in
Arizona.

It's a bit different for people who live closer to sea-level, or
worry about
the sort of world their kids are going to become senile in.

OK, Bill Sloman. What's your plan, assuming all the chicken littles
are
right, and assuming there's a fucking thing anyone can do about it?

I don't waste time making plans that won't be put into action, and the
next occasion I'll be able to make any choices that will affect - and
may be affected by - the environment is about five years away, when my
wife and I will probably move to Sydney, Australia. At that point we
will be buying a new house, which means that we will stop buying the
several thousand dollars worth of natural gas every year that we now
burn to heat our present house, and go over to using a heat pump for
heating and cooling. We'll also get rid of our current petrol-engined
right-hand drive cars, and buy a left-hand drive vehicle, probably a
hybrid - we thought about it when we last changed cars, but we don't do
many miles per year, and the extra cost of a Prius was then way higher
than that of the fuel it would save (even after figuring in Dutch
petrol tax).

---------
Bill Sloman, Nimegen

Winfield Hill · Jan 19, 2005

Don Lancaster wrote...

The problem is the sponges. Without sponges to hold all the excess
water, worldwide sea levels would raise by 146 feet.

:&gt

--
Thanks,
- Win

Jim Thompson · Jan 13, 2005

On 13 Jan 2005 14:54:25 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

Heavens! Heavens! Please cancel this post at once! We can't
have any opinions expressed that are opposite to those of the
great leftist leaders ;-)

You love the seven-year-old stuff that supports your position.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

keith · Jan 19, 2005

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:21:28 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

thegreatone@example.com says...

Aha! It finally comes down to fact, Global Warming is a religion ;-)

Sure, a branch of the Totalitarian sect.

Sno-o-o-o-ort! Good one!

It is no coincidence that the proposed solution to global warming
is to destroy capitalism and free markets and to replace them with
a soviet-style planned economy.

....and I was not kidding either.

Think about it; why would the folks who wrote Kyoto accord write
it so that western nations must reduce CO2 emissions but third-
world coutries can put out as much CO2 as they wish, forever?
That's not a good strategy for reducing CO2, but it's a great
srategy for destroying western capitalism.

The anti-capitalists have been behind every green-movement from the start.
Tree-hugers, PETA, GreenParty, and hundreds of other similar groups.
Anyone giving a *dime* to any of these groups is giving them the knife
with which to kill them.

--
Keith

keith · Jan 19, 2005

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:18:50 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:19:10 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

It's interesting to compare former French colonies to former British
ones.

John

Lousiana is still a mess, or so I've heard.

Yup, but the food is great.

Rather like France?

--
Keith

keith · Jan 19, 2005

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:53:27 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Why not blame climate change, the ozone hole and all those
penguins with leaky refrigerators?

Certainly! I'm SURE that's the cause ;-)

I just saw my first newspaper editorial blaming the Tsunami
on global warming. Adaptable stuff, that CO2. Not only does
it cause the sun to change output but it also causes earthquakes...

It makes as much sense as blaiming the US/Israeli underground atomic tests
in the area.

--
Keith

keith · Jan 19, 2005

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:09:12 -0700, Don Lancaster wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

This isn't all bad. New York (city) could use awash (and rinse).

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms.
-- George Wald

The problem is the sponges.
Without sponges to hold all the excess water, worldwide sea levels would
raise by 146 feet.

I thought NYC had enough sponges to soak up anything. I'd think one could
walk across the big pond after.

--
Keith

Guy Macon · Jan 19, 2005

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Surely you are able to state what argument you found to be unsound.

I could. But I'd like to know what you feel is sound about it.

Asked and answered. "I have checked many of the references and
confirmed that they say what is claimed. I have done the math
and it appears to be correct. I have analysed the logic of
the arguments and they appear to be sound."

Jonathan Kirwan · Jan 19, 2005

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:50:45 +0000, Guy Macon
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

Asked and answered. "I have checked many of the references and
confirmed that they say what is claimed. I have done the math
and it appears to be correct. I have analysed the logic of
the arguments and they appear to be sound."

Are you prepared to personally deal with objections I raise and to do so in a
careful and thoughtful fashion based on peer-reviewed literature? In other
words, do you feel ready and prepared to take on any challenge I bring to any
point on that site?

I will proceed, Guy. But only if *you* feel fully and personally prepared to
defend anything I choose to address at that site. Otherwise, I'd advise that
select the parts you *are* fully prepared to defend.

As I said, I won't debate the site. But I'll happily address issues you are
prepared to defend as your own personal conclusions based on your own review of
peer-reviewed science and not simply on the authority of the web site and its
author.

Jon

Pig Bladder · Jan 15, 2005

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:26:27 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:

Face the facts. You read the wrong newspapers. Unable to read
the lines between between the falsehoods.

The newspapers and TV news-commentators are controlled, in
effect, by the multinational corporations, especially by the oil
and energy companies, who have more economic and militrary power,
mercenaries and bankers, etc., than many unfortunate individual
countries.

Their influence even on George and Tony is manifestly obvious.
That pair are merely exceptionally well-paid puppets. However
there are signs the skids are under them.

So much for so-called Democracy, invented in Ur and Babylon by
the ancient Iraqis, greatly expanded upon by the ancient Greeks,
who must be turning over in their graves at the anguish of
Weapons of Mass Destruction, mainly relatively recently invented
in the USA, but voted into full use by the innocent brainwashed
USA citizens.

Goodness, you are in a cranky mood today. I sure hope you're
not this gloomy all the time.

What amazes me is how this Vast Conspiracy of Multinational
Corporations, Mercenaries and Bankers are able to control
newspapers, TV stations, and governments, but are somehow
strangely powerless when it come to suppressing the newsgroup
posts and web pages that Reveal The Extent Of The Conspiracy.

All of the monitors are watching the porno groups, to see if they can
catch somebody looking at little girls. Of course, the monitors have to
watch the porn very closely, to protect us loyal subjects from sinning.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, Still Waiting for
Some Hot Babe to Ask What My Favorite Planet Is.

Jim Thompson · Jan 15, 2005

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:49:33 -0800, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:28:13 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote:

90 percent of French electricity is very sensibly produced by clean atomic
power.

Uhuum. That's certainly debatable.

=========================

Face the facts. You read the wrong newspapers. Unable to read the lines
between between the falsehoods.

The newspapers and TV news-commentators are controlled, in effect, by the
multinational corporations, especially by the oil and energy companies, who
have more economic and militrary power, mercenaries and bankers, etc., than
many unfortunate individual countries.

Their influence even on George and Tony is manifestly obvious. That pair are
merely exceptionally well-paid puppets. However there are signs the skids
are under them.

So much for so-called Democracy, invented in Ur and Babylon by the ancient
Iraqis, greatly expanded upon by the ancient Greeks, who must be turning
over in their graves at the anguish of Weapons of Mass Destruction, mainly
relatively recently invented in the USA, but voted into full use by the
innocent brainwashed USA citizens.

Reg.

Goodness, you are in a cranky mood today. I sure hope you're not this
gloomy all the time.

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jonathan Kirwan · Jan 13, 2005

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:35:30 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

The climate

a) is chaotic and thus not predictable

b) doesn't give a damn about peer reviews.

Wonderful explanation, John. Wrong, though.

Weather is chaotic, like a breaker-wave on the ocean. Climate is quite
predictable, like high, low, neap and ebb tides. You need to separate climate
and weather in your mind. Until then, you won't understand even the basics of
the science.

And, of course, none of nature cares the least about any theories about it. Yet
the theories exist to give meaning to the world around us and they work pretty
well, at times.

Jon

Jim Thompson · Jan 13, 2005

On 13 Jan 2005 14:37:20 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

Guy Macon wrote...

Jim Thompson wrote:

How about citing some scientists with high reputations and
exemplary standing in the scientific community... not those with
a political ax to grind?

I suggest Richard S. Lindzen and S. Fred Singer...

Partly as a result of this thread, and Jim's remarks, I've spent
some time examining the "MIT position" on global warming, and what
I found is that Richard S. Lindzen and S. Fred Singer are two with
the most political ax to grind of all we see. For example, Lindzen
has been on his "debunking" stint for what must be two decades now,
ignoring all the new studies and the massive evidence that's nearly
overwhelming. One notable thing about him, he knows little about the
ocean, which is where the earth's meteorological thermal energy is
stored, and he choses to pay little attention to those who do. As a
result he ignores the strong evidence put forth by the scientists at
WHOI. Note to Jim, WHOI is affiliated with MIT, and they are by far
the most knowledgeable part of the "MIT position." Read it and weep.

Win, I'd tell you to read this book....

Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
Politicians, and the Media
by Patrick J. Michaels

but he's a Libertarian and Fellow of the Cato Institute, so, in your
mind, that probably negates its validity.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Clarence_A · Jan 18, 2005

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:ajlpu0l469hev38i46b1f6493frt1lj3vj@4ax.com...

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:13:51 +0000, Guy Macon
_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

I don't really wish to address myself to the web site you
mentioned. It's
conclusions aren't current, suggesting that the human
contributions are
negligible. That fact is that they aren't negligible. But
since it also isn't
itself peer-reviewed, so I won't bother to address the page.

You dismiss what you cannot refute.

You know? My point was correct and well-directed and you bring
up an entirely
different bit of stuff as though that was what was being
discussed. I point
this out and *you* don't admit *you* were wrong! And then you
blame me?

Strange, you are.

Regarding the above, I will not debate something that cannot
deal with points.
The web page mentioned is NOT peer-reviewed, nor is it science.
It is someone's
opinion. I will debate them *if* you bring them here to debate.
I'll debate
you if you will support points you believe you can. But I've
learned a long
time ago that there is no point in debating an opinion on a web
page. It's
futile.

However, like I said, it is fair game to point out conclusions
made in peer
reviewed science papers and I'll deal with those, without the
author being here.
I will also accept arguments *you* make based on peer-reviewed
science and try
to deal with them fairly and the best I can.

As I also said, if you want to make its arguments your own and
are willing to
defend the points yourself, have at it and I will try to deal
with your points
honestly and squarely. But *you* have to be sufficiently
informed yourself to
make the points and to deal with objections I bring up. I will
not debate a web
page.

It doesn't get fairer than that, Guy.

All the data listed on
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
is properly referenced to peer-reviewed sources.

I checked on the resources, Guy. At least, I did in a couple of
cases and so
far I've no complaints in that regard. Those I looked at look
respectable, so
far. In fact, I cited from one of them to you in my last post.

My point isn't about what that web page references, Guy. It's
what the web page
concludes and what it pieces together. And *that* part isn't
peer-reviewed.

Any idiot can pull out a bunch of numbers, without
understanding, and put them
together in some fashion and then arrive at conclusions and top
it all off with
references to "peer reviewed" sources and none of that makes any
of the web
site's methods or conclusions any better.

If *you* want to make an argument from that page, fine. You
will base your
argument on those peer-reviewed papers that *you* will read and
understand, so
that you can deal with the points I'll make when you make your
position clear.

I'll debate you and you are free to accept the conclusions of
that page and
argue them, as your own. But I won't debate what cannot deal
with my responses.
You can, the web site cannot.

Given the huge
number of Global warming True Believers, if those numbers were
wrong there would be multiple websites pointing out the errors.

Since belief is the only criteria, and the numbers are irrelevant,
why bother?

There may be. I wouldn't know. This kind of guessing around
and trying to make
a point from absolutely no information at all except what is in
your imagination
doesn't reflect well on you, though.

If you have a point on the issues, make it. If all you are
doing is arguing
from the authority of that web page, I won't participate or
care.
Jon

There is no point in discussing anything with a "Believer" they
can not concede even that they MIGHT be wrong, or that what they
believe is not perhaps what they claim it to be to others!

Bye!

keith · Jan 15, 2005

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:01 -0300, YD wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:43:10 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:09:52 -0800, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:57:11 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" wrote

Sliding down the hills in CA.

You don't see Kofi Annan sending Aid to California, do you!

It's a little hard to work up a feeling of sympathy for idiots who build
three million dollar mansions on top of mudslides.

If you think this is bad, just wait for The Big Earthquake.

Everything east of the San Andreas fault will slide into the Atlantic
Ocean.

Yikes! That's going to ruin the day for the EuroPeons too! *SURF'S UP*!

OTOH, I'd like to visit Ireland.

Seeing that CA is faces the Pacific Europe is safe enough. Australia,
Hawaii, Asia and Africa will be the ones to suffer.

Read it again: If "Everything east of the San Andreas fault will slide
into the Atlantic Ocean", Europe would be in for major hurt. If A then B,
while being an absolutely true statement, doesn't mean A will ever happen.

--
Keith

Jim Thompson · Jan 17, 2005

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:28:13 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:

"richard mullens" <mullensdeletethis@ntlworld.com> wrote
richard mullens wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"Reg Edwards" wrote:
The Vietnamese and Cambodians, at immense cost and present suffering
were
the first to call your bluff.
Lovely people, those Cambodians. They have such nice fields.
Yes, and I wonder how the bombing and chaos unleashed by the USA in that
region helped ?
Or maybe we should blame the French

Why not blame climate change, the ozone hole and all those penguins
with leaky refrigerators?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

richard mullens · Jan 16, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

Win, How about citing some scientists with high reputations and
exemplary standing in the scientific community... not those with a
political ax to grind?

Well, How about Professor Sir David King - Former Master of Downing College Cambridge and a Professor of Chemistry at Cambridge
University. (A professorship in the UK is top of the academic tree).

Presently Chief Scientific advisor to the UK government.

Try this for starters:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm

Google and you'll find lots more.

richard mullens · Jan 16, 2005

Guy Macon wrote:

richard mullens wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Win, How about citing some scientists with high reputations and
exemplary standing in the scientific community... not those with a
political ax to grind?

Well, How about Professor Sir David King - Former Master of Downing College

Cambridge and a Professor of Chemistry at Cambridge

University. (A professorship in the UK is top of the academic tree).

But is he a climatologist? Has he done work in the field?
Richard S. Lindzen and S. Fred Singer certainly have.

Maybe not, but I would imagine that he is on pretty good terms with the Atmospheric Chemistry Modelling Support Unit (ACMSU)
http://www.acmsu.nerc.ac.uk/about_acmsu.html at the University of Cambridge - whose director is Prof. John Pyle, FRS at
NCAS-ACMSU,
Department of Chemistry,
University of Cambridge,
Lensfield Road,
CB2 1EW

(In other words in the same university department).

And not a stones throw from the British Antarctic Survey http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/ - also in Cambridge.

Presently Chief Scientific advisor to the UK government.

That hardly fits the "not those with a political ax to grind" requirement.

But if you see what he said, he embarrassed Blair who appointed him.

Here's the link again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm

He said "Climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism"

but perhaps he will be proved wrong after the USA has gone the full course in the middle east.

Guy Macon · Jan 18, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

Clarence_A wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message

Guy Macon wrote:

Given the huge
number of Global warming True Believers, if those numbers were
wrong there would be multiple websites pointing out the errors.

Since belief is the only criteria, and the numbers are irrelevant,
why bother?

There is no point in discussing anything with a "Believer" they
can not concede even that they MIGHT be wrong, or that what they
believe is not perhaps what they claim it to be to others!

Aha! It finally comes down to fact, Global Warming is a religion ;-)

We knew that already. Look at the behavior of our pet Global Warming
True Believer. If he was interested in truth he would have listed a
few flaws in the web page at
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
but instead he dismisses it without analysis of any kind. This is
the behavior of a religious zealot who is fighting heresy, not the
behavior of a scientist. Alas for him, this is sci.electronics.design,
where the participants are forced on a daily basis to deal with how
electronic circuits actually work as opposed to how we think they ought
to work. An EE simply looks at the page, checks the sources, does
the math, and analyses the soundness of the arguments, not caring
who wrote it. The Global Warming True Believer, on the other hand,
is willing to dismiss one argument and not another based solely on
whether the argument reaches him via HTTP or NNTP.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
-Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming
theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be
doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and
environmental policy."
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short
stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation.

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are
collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change
[provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and
equality in the world."
-Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald

When London is submerged and New York is awash...

Don Lancaster

Guest

Guest

Winfield Hill

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

keith

Guest

keith

Guest

keith

Guest

keith

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Jonathan Kirwan

Guest

Pig Bladder

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jonathan Kirwan

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Clarence_A

Guest

keith

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

richard mullens

Guest

richard mullens

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor