On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com...



On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now
than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which
was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to
keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it
wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology
improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot
even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.

Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.


respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few
who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the
field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing
else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and
transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we
are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today
is better than letting the debt get bigger.

How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of
observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified
observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how
much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand
kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a
chance.

On Mar 27, 2:45 pm, "Two meter troll" wrote:
On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:



"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now
than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which
was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to
keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it
wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology
improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot
even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.

Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few
who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the
field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing
else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and
transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we
are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today
is better than letting the debt get bigger.

How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of
observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified
observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how
much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand
kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a
chance.

so in addendome here are a few searches; i figure if its gonna stay
factual i will provide the whole data set and not single out any
spacific sites. enjoy.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...lobal+CO2+emis...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...l+ocean+temper...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...istoric+global...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...istoric+global...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...oric+global+wa...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch...

I love research

On Mar 27, 3:33 pm, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:33:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
roups.com...
you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.

And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than
we did then.

Sounds like Troll's patron saint is Malthus.

Dunno who Malthus is.
What I do know is I sailed a ship in open water to the north pole. All
the proof I needed was right there; my arctic is melting.
I dont give a blind **** about most of the world but the 4 places in
the world i care about are being screwed up, the South Pacific,
Arctic, Antarctic and Pacific Northwest.

The rest of the world happens to fall in between. frankly i couldnt
care less if most of the cities sank along with the populations. but
because they happen to be attached to the places i value i will try to
save them as well.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 27 Mar 2007 14:45:38 -0700, "Two meter troll"
said:

respectfully the Some are a majority

Ah, the old bandwagon technique. Haven't seen such a good example in
years.

Yup. If a billion people believe something that isn't so, their belief
doesn't make it so.

On Mar 27, 4:44 pm, Dave wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 16:11:25 -0700, "Two meter troll" said:

Sounds like Troll's patron saint is Malthus.

Dunno who Malthus is.

Why am I not surprised?

because I might not have studied Darwin and instead concentrated on
Linnias and learning how to do things like construction, seamanship,
how to build steam catapults, how to catch fish, and the habits of
liverwarts and club mosses. spent some time in the military defending
your right to a cheese burger. Oh ...and you are an ass.

you asked.

On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, "Two meter troll" wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:44 pm, Dave wrote:

On 27 Mar 2007 16:11:25 -0700, "Two meter troll" said:

Sounds like Troll's patron saint is Malthus.

Dunno who Malthus is.

Why am I not surprised?

because I might not have studied Darwin and instead concentrated on
Linnias and learning how to do things like construction, seamanship,
how to build steam catapults, how to catch fish, and the habits of
liverwarts and club mosses. spent some time in the military defending
your right to a cheese burger. Oh ...and you are an ass.

you asked.

insert being before ass please

and here are your folks who like GW :
http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2001...UAQTS6OG8JBHTJ

Subject

It would appear you both have your respective heads where the moon
doesn't shine.

Why not take it off list?

You have become a bore.

Lew

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
:

Is
there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his
projected rates?


None. Download the movie from ITN in UK called "The Great Global Warming
Swindle" and see the overwhelming truth, from the scientists not the
people living off global warming terror.

The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 0.52% to 0.54% since the
industrial revolution.

The most interesting graphics on the movie is when one of the professors,
I forget which one, overlays the CO2 in the air with the temperature over
the last X thousand years. When the temperature rises, CO2 in the air
rises AFTERWARDS, not before. When the temperature falls, CO2 in the air
falls AFTERWARDS, not before. This is caused by the oceans. As the top
levels of the oceans warm with the air, the ocean animals rapidly
multiply, filling the ocean with CO2, which the oceans' massive surfaces
transfer into the air. When the oceans cool, as the planet cools, the
opposite happens. This has been going on for millions of years.....not
since man invented the 427 Chevy with dual exhausts and 6 carbs.

Global warming, as you'll see from the Earth's many records in the
movie...is caused by the SUN, that big thermonuclear bomb that's quite
close, by astronomical standards, to the Earth. CO2 FOLLOWS its warming
and cooling...not causes it!

Of course, without "global warming" there is no "global warming
government spending/grants" and all the trappings of $$$$ that goes with
it. Once The Beast is convinced of something, The Beast throws billions
at it, creating its own vacuum to consume everything The Beast throws at
it.

Oh, and HIV doesn't cause AIDS, either. HIV is an ancient virus humans
have been passing on to each other for thousands of years. ALL AIDS
patients don't have HIV, just some of them. ALL HIV carriers don't get
AIDS, either, only a small percentage of them. So, HIV can't cause AIDS.
But, just like Global Warming, we have this HIV/AIDS industry that
DEPENDS on The Beast pouring money into it, so it doesn't matter whether
HIV causes AIDS or not...as long as The Beast thinks it does...the money
will flow, ad nauseum, for decades.

Can we afford to find a cure for Cancer? Heart Diseases? Common Cold?
or any of the other massive moneymakers that buy fancy cars, yachts,
jets, beachfront mansions for doctors? What? Are you CRAZY?!! Anyone
who finds a cure is DEAD MEAT!


Larry
--
Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV
then it dumps you until you click to
get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS!

"Two meter troll" wrote in
oups.com:

think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.


There won't BE a "bad winter"! Boston will be 84F, according to the global
warmers! This is not a downside....unless you're, like our President and
his friends, in the ENERGY business.



Larry
--
Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV
then it dumps you until you click to
get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS!

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.


We have long term data back several million years. But, alas, that data
shows we are in one of the coldest eras of the planet's history, so that
data MUST be ignored or someone is gonna cut off our government grand
checks. That would be the REAL catastrophy, not global warming, which is a
lie.

Global Warming is an INDUSTRY, not a fact.

Download "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from
alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries newsgroup. It was broadcast, I
think, on ITN in the UK.


Larry
--
Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV
then it dumps you until you click to
get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS!