|
Help w/physics problem
Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to
melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon |
Help w/physics problem
"Gordon" wrote in message ... Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon Maybe that idiot Gore should have said "Antarctic" instead of Artic. True that the arctic ice sits atop the ocean. But, the Antarctic ice mostly sits atop a continent. What I find puzzling is this business with the ice cores. They drill deep in the Arctic and the Antarctic and go way way back close to a million years to find out the composition of the atmosphere way back when. If levels of CO2 were often much higher way back then how come the ice stayed around while all that was going on but is going to melt now? There is not one single human-caused global warming advocate who can explain this glaring fault in their logic. Wilbur Hubbard |
Help w/physics problem
Gordon wrote:
Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise |
Help w/physics problem
Gordon wrote:
Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon If the ice is floating (depends on what you're drinking ;-)) then the glass will not overflow when the ice melts. Especially if you taste the drink from time to time to relieve the boredom of the experiment. But if the ice is on land and it melts and drains into the sea (or the glass) then a rising water level might be seen. Maybe? Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Help w/physics problem
Jeannette wrote:
Gordon wrote: Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. ;-) Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Help w/physics problem
"Chuck" wrote in message ... Jeannette wrote: Gordon wrote: Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. ;-) Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- The Global Warming Crisis (tm) is not a matter of science, but of faith. |
Help w/physics problem
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Chuck" wrote in message ... Jeannette wrote: Gordon wrote: Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. ;-) Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- The Global Warming Crisis (tm) is not a matter of science, but of faith. Actually, the gradual rise in sea level exactly matches the rise in the number of boats on the sea! (If you don't believe that just ask me!) Therefore, all you sailors are direct contributors and should be ashamed! Gordon |
Help w/physics problem
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message ... Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon Maybe that idiot Gore should have said "Antarctic" instead of Artic. True that the arctic ice sits atop the ocean. But, the Antarctic ice mostly sits atop a continent. What I find puzzling is this business with the ice cores. They drill deep in the Arctic and the Antarctic and go way way back close to a million years to find out the composition of the atmosphere way back when. If levels of CO2 were often much higher way back then how come the ice stayed around while all that was going on but is going to melt now? There is not one single human-caused global warming advocate who can explain this glaring fault in their logic. Wilbur Hubbard How can they get the composition of the atmosphere for a million years when it is a known fact that the earth is only 6000 years old. Read that in the paper this morning, not off the internet. |
Help w/physics problem
Gordon wrote in news:135u5c719h357a6
@corp.supernews.com: Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon Global warming has turned into a new religion, as usual for religions no longer based on facts. If they can be made to BELIEVE that glass is overflowing, for a substantial donation of course, then the glass will overflow....in their minds. One little problem with rising oceans not bantered about is the warmer ocean has a HUGE increase in EVAPORATION over it's now larger surface. The hotter it gets, the bigger its surface, the more it evaporates...tons and tons! The ocean may rise 20 ft, in some places. For instance, in the Bay of Fundy, it rises 60 ft, every day....and global warmists never mention it. They probably don't BELIEVE it rises 60', even if it falls 60' six hours later. You can see how this religion, like the rest of them, is a religion of CONVENIENT beliefs....those that generate the largest government grants on a recurring basis. The Earth IS warming up. Being that it is already nearly as cold as it has ever been since the last ice age, that's not such a bad idea! What will just blow the new global warmists into orbit is if it, once again like it did from 1940-1975, goes into a sustained cooling period, or, worse yet, if it goes into another Little Ice Age like it did in the late 1800's when my Irish ancestors had to flee to America through Ellis Island because it was too cold in Ireland to feed her people....in an era when thousands and thousands of huge smoke stacks were just POURING coal fumes, carbon black, wood fire pollution into the atmosphere....and we almost froze to death from......"global warming" caused by humans. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3EM2a1Qjg http://youtube.com/watch?v=zwgruLoOb...elated&search= http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...arming_swindle /index.html and the best one to date: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...022478442170&% 20amp;q=global+warming+swindle Very professionally done....watch it all. Larry -- Grade School Physics Factoid: A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without skilled demolition. |
Help w/physics problem
Chuck wrote in news:1180637803_47997
@sp12lax.superfeed.net: Especially if you taste the drink from time to time to relieve the boredom of the experiment. This is also highly dependent on what you're drinking during the experiment! Larry -- Grade School Physics Factoid: A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without skilled demolition. |
Help w/physics problem
Larry wrote:
Gordon wrote in news:135u5c719h357a6 @corp.supernews.com: Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon Global warming has turned into a new religion, as usual for religions no longer based on facts. If they can be made to BELIEVE that glass is overflowing, for a substantial donation of course, then the glass will overflow....in their minds. One little problem with rising oceans not bantered about is the warmer ocean has a HUGE increase in EVAPORATION over it's now larger surface. The hotter it gets, the bigger its surface, the more it evaporates...tons and tons! The ocean may rise 20 ft, in some places. For instance, in the Bay of Fundy, it rises 60 ft, every day....and global warmists never mention it. They probably don't BELIEVE it rises 60', even if it falls 60' six hours later. You can see how this religion, like the rest of them, is a religion of CONVENIENT beliefs....those that generate the largest government grants on a recurring basis. The Earth IS warming up. Being that it is already nearly as cold as it has ever been since the last ice age, that's not such a bad idea! What will just blow the new global warmists into orbit is if it, once again like it did from 1940-1975, goes into a sustained cooling period, or, worse yet, if it goes into another Little Ice Age like it did in the late 1800's when my Irish ancestors had to flee to America through Ellis Island because it was too cold in Ireland to feed her people....in an era when thousands and thousands of huge smoke stacks were just POURING coal fumes, carbon black, wood fire pollution into the atmosphere....and we almost froze to death from......"global warming" caused by humans. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3EM2a1Qjg http://youtube.com/watch?v=zwgruLoOb...elated&search= http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...arming_swindle /index.html and the best one to date: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...022478442170&% 20amp;q=global+warming+swindle Very professionally done....watch it all. Larry As the Greenland ice-cap melts, more topsoil is exposed, and can be used for agriculture, to feed the rapidly-rising population of the earth. Same with Antarctica. Isn't God wonderful? Dennis. |
Help w/physics problem
Actually, the gradual rise in sea level exactly matches the rise in the number of boats on the sea! (If you don't believe that just ask me!) Therefore, all you sailors are direct contributors and should be ashamed! Gordon Rubbish! It is directly due to the pollution of the oceans by modern industrial waste and agricultural chemofertilsers which have drastically reduced the sponge population. Phylum Porifera are very sensitive to pollutants. |
Help w/physics problem
On May 31, 7:20 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
The Global Warming Crisis (tm) is not a matter of science, but of faith. Hokey Smokes! Al gore looks just like a priest! It's all making spooky sense to me now :) |
Help w/physics problem
Gordon wrote:
Al Gore told me that global warming was causing the arctic ice cap to melt and the ocean is going to rise 20 feet. Last night I mixed a drink in a tall glass with lots of ice. I left it sit too long and the ice melted but the glass did NOT overflow. In fact the liquid level was the same! What's wrong here? (besides ruining a perfectly good drink) Thanks Gordon You're right for the ice, but the problem is the temperature rising, the volume of water will increase of .2% per degree F. So if temperature of the water increase of 5 F it will result of a 1% global increase. Sorry if i did some mistakes, i'm french speaking. Andre |
Help w/physics problem
On 2007-05-31 21:09:55 -0400, Larry said:
The Earth IS warming up. As is Mars. The sun's in a particularly active phase at the moment. Time will tell which direction the trend really is.* Meanwhile, Our activities have pretty much zero effect in the grand scheme of things. Truth be told, most on this group have lower "carbon footprints" than most of humanity. When we go out for a weekend, our "footprint" drops dramatically. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Help w/physics problem
Jere Lull wrote in news:2007061804332927544-
jerelull@maccom: As is Mars. The sun's in a particularly active phase at the moment. Time will tell which direction the trend really is.ÿ Meanwhile, Our activities have pretty much zero effect in the grand scheme of things. Truth be told, most on this group have lower "carbon footprints" than most of humanity. When we go out for a weekend, our "footprint" drops dramatically. Hmm....wonder how we're going to sell Mars Global Warming that will make billions for the corporations? Can we raise a 12 oz can of Freon to $10 over it? As to the carbon footprint, you all need to see "The Global Warming Swindle" over on YouTube.com. These aren't conspiracy nuts. These are some of the finest geoscientists on the planet. They're not playing along..... For instance, from 1940 to 1975, when we all drove such awful monster V- 8s with gooky carbs and had not paid for $5000 in pollution control nonsense, the planet COOLED by several degrees because the sun cooled, of course. Doesn't anyone remember the alarm bells going off that we are going into another ice age and we're all going to freeze to death? Those dire predictions, of course, provided us with the excuse for all the pollution controls costing consumers trillions, the '73 oil embargo, etc., etc., all in the name of corporate profits. Then, of course, the sun warmed up, again, as it has for millions of years, and the propaganda departments had to make them forget ice ages and start selling the current line of bull**** we're all going to cook and die, Global Warming. It became a new profit industry that's now gotten so big it has to be true, even though it is not. Carbon dioxide went from .48 PARTS PER MILLION to .52 PARTS PER MILLION, an infintesimally small percentage of the gas you're breathing. The main "greenhouse gas", water vapor, increased as the sun warmed the earth, creating larger storms and more SELLABLE panic. Goebbles would have been very proud. Listen to the scientists. Watch the whole video for yourselves. Al Gore should be hung. Larry -- http://www.spp.gov/ The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP |
Help w/physics problem
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:33:30 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2007-05-31 21:09:55 -0400, Larry said: The Earth IS warming up. As is Mars. The sun's in a particularly active phase at the moment. Time will tell which direction the trend really is.* Just make it up as you go along, why don't you! "The sun is in the quiet period for the current cycle (cycle 23)." "Last Updated: May 16, 2007" http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...lar_cycle.html "direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades." http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html |
Help w/physics problem
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:47:21 +0000, Larry wrote:
Jere Lull wrote in news:2007061804332927544- jerelull@maccom: As is Mars. The sun's in a particularly active phase at the moment. Time will tell which direction the trend really is.ÿ Meanwhile, Our activities have pretty much zero effect in the grand scheme of things. Truth be told, most on this group have lower "carbon footprints" than most of humanity. When we go out for a weekend, our "footprint" drops dramatically. Hmm....wonder how we're going to sell Mars Global Warming that will make billions for the corporations? Can we raise a 12 oz can of Freon to $10 over it? As to the carbon footprint, you all need to see "The Global Warming Swindle" over on YouTube.com. These aren't conspiracy nuts. These are some of the finest geoscientists on the planet. They're not playing along..... For instance, from 1940 to 1975, when we all drove such awful monster V- 8s with gooky carbs and had not paid for $5000 in pollution control nonsense, the planet COOLED by several degrees because the sun cooled, of course. Doesn't anyone remember the alarm bells going off that we are going into another ice age and we're all going to freeze to death? Those dire predictions, of course, provided us with the excuse for all the pollution controls costing consumers trillions, the '73 oil embargo, etc., etc., all in the name of corporate profits. Then, of course, the sun warmed up, again, as it has for millions of years, and the propaganda departments had to make them forget ice ages and start selling the current line of bull**** we're all going to cook and die, Global Warming. It became a new profit industry that's now gotten so big it has to be true, even though it is not. Carbon dioxide went from .48 PARTS PER MILLION to .52 PARTS PER MILLION, an infintesimally small percentage of the gas you're breathing. The main "greenhouse gas", water vapor, increased as the sun warmed the earth, creating larger storms and more SELLABLE panic. Goebbles would have been very proud. Listen to the scientists. Watch the whole video for yourselves. This one? "In a recent interview the Oscar winner *(Lord Puttnam, the deputy chairman of Channel 4) criticised The Great Climate Change Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary widely attacked for using flawed scientific evidence to undermine the case for global warming. He said: “I wish it hadn’t happened. My job is chairing the climate change committee in Parliament and it’s not helpful. It’s the kind of slightly juvenile thing that happens when you take your eye off the ball.” " http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1873049.ece |
Help w/physics problem
* Jere Lull wrote, On 6/18/2007 4:33 AM:
The sun's in a particularly active phase at the moment. Time will tell which direction the trend really is. Are you sure about that? Meanwhile, Our activities have pretty much zero effect in the grand scheme of things. Indeed - the Sun will die in a few billion years, so why bother doing anything? Party On, Dude! Truth be told, most on this group have lower "carbon footprints" than most of humanity. When we go out for a weekend, our "footprint" drops dramatically. This may apply to the few real liveaboards who use a few gallons of fuel a week, and nothing else. But I would guess that many (most?) on this group leave the A/C running in their house when they drive their SUV to the marina to go out for the weekend. And certainly, anyone who heats a house in the northern winter, or cools it in the south, or drives an American car even a few thousand miles a year has a larger "footprint" than "most of humanity." I wonder how much energy goes into the manufacture of a new boat, or even a new car? If someone buys an extra high efficiency car only to use for short trips around town, does that actually have a higher footprint? |
Help w/physics problem
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
: On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:47:21 +0000, Larry wrote: Jere Lull wrote in news:2007061804332927544- jerelull@maccom: As is Mars. The sun's in a particularly active phase at the moment. Time will tell which direction the trend really is.ÿ Meanwhile, Our activities have pretty much zero effect in the grand scheme of things. Truth be told, most on this group have lower "carbon footprints" than most of humanity. When we go out for a weekend, our "footprint" drops dramatically. Hmm....wonder how we're going to sell Mars Global Warming that will make billions for the corporations? Can we raise a 12 oz can of Freon to $10 over it? As to the carbon footprint, you all need to see "The Global Warming Swindle" over on YouTube.com. These aren't conspiracy nuts. These are some of the finest geoscientists on the planet. They're not playing along..... For instance, from 1940 to 1975, when we all drove such awful monster V- 8s with gooky carbs and had not paid for $5000 in pollution control nonsense, the planet COOLED by several degrees because the sun cooled, of course. Doesn't anyone remember the alarm bells going off that we are going into another ice age and we're all going to freeze to death? Those dire predictions, of course, provided us with the excuse for all the pollution controls costing consumers trillions, the '73 oil embargo, etc., etc., all in the name of corporate profits. Then, of course, the sun warmed up, again, as it has for millions of years, and the propaganda departments had to make them forget ice ages and start selling the current line of bull**** we're all going to cook and die, Global Warming. It became a new profit industry that's now gotten so big it has to be true, even though it is not. Carbon dioxide went from .48 PARTS PER MILLION to .52 PARTS PER MILLION, an infintesimally small percentage of the gas you're breathing. The main "greenhouse gas", water vapor, increased as the sun warmed the earth, creating larger storms and more SELLABLE panic. Goebbles would have been very proud. Listen to the scientists. Watch the whole video for yourselves. This one? "In a recent interview the Oscar winner *(Lord Puttnam, the deputy chairman of Channel 4) criticised The Great Climate Change Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary widely attacked for using flawed scientific evidence to undermine the case for global warming. He said: “I wish it hadn’t happened. My job is chairing the climate change committee in Parliament and it’s not helpful. It’s the kind of slightly juvenile thing that happens when you take your eye off the ball.” " http://entertainment.timesonline.co....tainment/tv_an d_radio/article1873049.ece He's part of the Global Warming Profession, a new grant-operated group around the planet who's very existence DEPENDS on humans being the cause. It matters not that humans aren't the cause, just that the grant money from the public treasuries keeps pouring in....just like AIDS. Millions of people have HIV that never get AIDS...and have for thousands of years that we know of. Thousands of AIDS patients die of AIDS and have NEVER had HIV....a big percentage of AIDS victims! But, the CDC money pot DEPENDS on AIDS being caused by HIV, which it, obviously, is not. Money is pouring in to cure HIV. Same idea. Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over Lord Puttnam? The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are irrefutable, once you get the Al Gore politics/money out of it. Larry -- http://www.spp.gov/ The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP |
Help w/physics problem
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:
Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over Lord Puttnam? Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv. The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are irrefutable, ********! I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed since. |
Help w/physics problem
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote: Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over Lord Puttnam? Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv. The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are irrefutable, ********! I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed since. You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data and and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one side has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics. My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree. In the meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot. |
Help w/physics problem
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:47:08 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote: Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over Lord Puttnam? Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv. The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are irrefutable, ********! I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed since. You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data and and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one side has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics. There is no need today to listen to the media or political parties. You can read the iPCC reports which are fairly transparent or surf the WWW. The orginal papers are referenced and available. From there you can get the methods, error bars etc. The 'other' side has little but lies and lobbyists. My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree. It is not about saving the planet, it is about economics, mass emigration, wars etc.. If sea level does rise significantly it will cost LOT's!(tm) to lose cities that we have built everywhere in the world around ports and on flat low lying ground. It will cost (it is estimated) Lot's Less(tm) to reduce emissions but still Lot's(tm). Larry does not want to pay the (relatively) chickenfeed amounts to do research that has not, so far, given the answers he wants. Go figure! " funding both sides" The problem is "the other side" has no/few ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation.. In the meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot. Right... |
Help w/physics problem
If you embrace the IPCC report as the unvarnished truth, then it is
inevitable that you will claim "the other side has no/few ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation." But that claim in and of itself paints you into a very small corner from which there is no escape. "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:47:08 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote: Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over Lord Puttnam? Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv. The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are irrefutable, ********! I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed since. You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data and and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one side has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics. There is no need today to listen to the media or political parties. You can read the iPCC reports which are fairly transparent or surf the WWW. The orginal papers are referenced and available. From there you can get the methods, error bars etc. The 'other' side has little but lies and lobbyists. My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree. It is not about saving the planet, it is about economics, mass emigration, wars etc.. If sea level does rise significantly it will cost LOT's!(tm) to lose cities that we have built everywhere in the world around ports and on flat low lying ground. It will cost (it is estimated) Lot's Less(tm) to reduce emissions but still Lot's(tm). Larry does not want to pay the (relatively) chickenfeed amounts to do research that has not, so far, given the answers he wants. Go figure! " funding both sides" The problem is "the other side" has no/few ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation.. In the meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot. Right... |
Help w/physics problem
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:52:46 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: If you embrace the IPCC report as the unvarnished truth, I never said that. I said it was "fairly transparent" then it is inevitable that you will claim "the other side has no/few ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation." But that claim in and of itself paints you into a very small corner from which there is no escape. All the claims that people here have put forward against GW have been shown to be untrue/outdated/uninformed/unsupported/flawed/biased, so far. I feel sorry for them.. As it happens I am pushing the galactic cosmic ray/Forbush effect as hard as I can to the powers that be. The evidence is weak. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ys-for-a-spin/ "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:47:08 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote: Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over Lord Puttnam? Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv. The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are irrefutable, ********! I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed since. You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data and and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one side has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics. There is no need today to listen to the media or political parties. You can read the iPCC reports which are fairly transparent or surf the WWW. The orginal papers are referenced and available. From there you can get the methods, error bars etc. The 'other' side has little but lies and lobbyists. My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree. It is not about saving the planet, it is about economics, mass emigration, wars etc.. If sea level does rise significantly it will cost LOT's!(tm) to lose cities that we have built everywhere in the world around ports and on flat low lying ground. It will cost (it is estimated) Lot's Less(tm) to reduce emissions but still Lot's(tm). Larry does not want to pay the (relatively) chickenfeed amounts to do research that has not, so far, given the answers he wants. Go figure! " funding both sides" The problem is "the other side" has no/few ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation.. In the meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot. Right... |
Help w/physics problem
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:
The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are irrefutable, Svensmark? His name is mud. http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf |
Help w/physics problem
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
: has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics. The keyword in all these exchanges is "religious fervor", which is what this whole matter has become. Just look at the responses to the post and you can see how much of a religion it has become, complete with us heretics but, to date, lacking the burning-at-the-stakes and public floggings, which may come at any time. Science no long matters....obviously....MONEY does. Larry -- http://www.spp.gov/ The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP |
Help w/physics problem
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:34:27 +0000, Larry wrote:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in : has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics. The keyword in all these exchanges is "religious fervor", which is what this whole matter has become. Just look at the responses to the post and you can see how much of a religion it has become, complete with us heretics but, to date, lacking the burning-at-the-stakes and public floggings, which may come at any time. Science no long matters....obviously....MONEY does. Only in your world. I left from Frankfurt airport on Saturday. The guy next to me in the queue was busy telling his family, literally: "We own the World". Guess what accent he had.. We left our equipment parked at a sewage farm in the heat and flies.. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com