"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.

Ok, which of these statements is false:

Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are
accepted as
your offer of surrender.

You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion

Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of heat is
the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless of course
you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question yourself.

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w.../gw_index.html
"But how did the official line of Royal Science and mass-media coverage
manage to flip flop from the hysteria of anticipated 'global cooling' to the
hysteria of 'global warming'?

By 1989, mass-media mouthpieces were promoting the notion, now dominant,
that 'all' scientists in the U.S. and Europe were agreed on the reality of
'global warming'. The magazine Science, of course, was at the forefront of
the new fashion. When Lindzen submitted, in the spring of 1989, a critique
of the myth to Science, the paper was rejected without even being
peer-reviewed. Eventually, it was accepted by the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, but Science took it upon itself to criticize the
blackballed article before it was even published - one in a long line of
clear-cut instances of Science's unethical behavior, and proof positive of
the existence of an unspoken policy of general circulation of leaked
submissions.

The direct political reasons for the promotion of the 'global warming' fad
are to be found in the convergence of diverse social forces:

.. the evolution of left (social-democratic) political forces towards a new
electoral marketing - militant form of environmentalism, and technocratic
managerialism;

.. the transformation of 'ecological' organizations into profitable
non-profit, macro-capitalist funds;

.. the design of national State bureaucracies to control the entirety of
social life with new regulatory mechanisms;

.. the emergence of a new International State technobureaucracy in search of
supranational powers and jurisdictions.

To these social forces one must add the worldwide unregulated growth of
cadres and the transformation of forces of antiproduction and destruction
into profitable ventures. Thus -

.. an excess of PhD's in physics and mathematics with little left to aim for
other than the pursuit of a career within the official institutions of
organized dissent, where they endlessly generate models and fads pliable to
political interests, in particular those fads that are dear to the global
techno-socialist management of capitalism; and

.. the subsidies, grants and investment provided to 'green' groups by some of
the worst polluter industries (eg oil, nuclear companies, utilities, etc) as
a way to redeem their status or blanch their image, and as a sort of
'protection fee'.

Finally, there is, as we said, a softness that, so far, is intrinsic to
environmental sciences, and which makes them particularly vulnerable to
mystification and political manipulation.

Of all these social forces and trends, it is apparent that the main role is
played by the emerging global technobureaucracy. Taken separately, the
other forces were unlikely to amass sufficient momentum for a deep social
penetration. They needed a substantial partner in power, and a
pseudo-scientific doctrine that could be shoved down everyone's throat.
That's what they found in the UN, in its latest role as a 'regulator' of
'sustainable development and global growth', and in its highly corrupt NGO
structure. From the sham Rio de Janeiro Conference, in 1992, to Kyoto, these
neo-left-wing militants - their ranks swollen with crypto-anarchist
volunteer slave-labor - formed the frontlines of the New Global Order, the
millenial paradigm, even as they claimed to be denouncing 'globalism'.
Pliable to the new international capitalism of global looting, the 'global
warming' movement disguised its objectives as scientific, and 'dictated'
them as being in the objective interest of mankind. The myth of 'global
warming' was their precious tool:

"Global warming advocacy is big business, hundreds of millions in research
and other funds are available annually for those scientists and
organizations who spout the party line (just check the Pew Foundation gravy
trains), don't fool yourself, scientists and professors need money and
research funds, and some are willing to violate the scientific method to
obtain them. (...) Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, WWF, etc, who make
these claims, (...) who present themselves as non-profit/non-partisan, are
neither. They are just as biased and unscientific in their approach as the
big oil, car and chemical companies are. They make money from fear
mongering to collect funds from well meaning, concerned, but scientifically
naive people." [4]

'Global warming' is likely to be the most expensive pseudo-scientific hoax
ever implemented. As of August 22, 2005 - and since the Kyoto protocol came
into effect on February 16, 2005 - the Kyoto Agreement has cost 80 billion
dollars for, supposedly, a prevention of warming by 0.0008 deg C... To
prevent a 1 deg C increase it will cost some 100 trillion dollars [5]. One
can measure this wasteful capital expenditure by the 16 billion that was
needed to shore up New Orleans and the Mississippi delta from a stage 5
hurricane like Katrina, or by the paltry 3 billion that the US spends
annually in orthodox research on alternative energy (reduced, in essence, to
solar cells and wind turbines) . 'Global warming' is a clearcut example of
the central role acquired by antiproduction in global capitalism. Its
promoters, with peer-reviewed mainstream publications at the forefront, have
struck gold - a very lucrative business, where nothing needs to be actually
produced, not even real science, in order for a 'healthy' profit to be made
under the cover of an altruistic advocacy voicing demands in the name of
mankind...

Nothing could outdo the power of this hoax in fuelling anti-Americanism
worldwide, nor become as engrossing a plot for the 'prime time' show:

"The global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on
nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer
of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah. Redford
proclaimed that it was time to stop the research and begin acting. I
suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it
was also indicative of the overall attitude towards science. Barbara
Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael
Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an
advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public
television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans
a stable climate." [1]

From Jeremy Legget of Greenpeace, to George Mitchell and Albert Gore (who
compared the 'true believers' in 'global warming' to Galileo! Caramba!),
'global warming' had become the latest soap, an international brand to sell
books and plead for donations. Lindzen appropriately concludes:

"Rarely has such meager science provoked such an outpouring of
popularization by individuals who do not understand the subject in the first
place."

To the long list of circus performers, one must add that other latecomer
among the plethora of modern trashcans, the populist purveyor of gross
ineptitude - Wikipedia, ruled by a neo-maoist cabal of 'global warming'
zealots."

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:55 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first
post proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at
least equal to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can
employ that can spare you further ridicule.

Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration.

Calling a Harvard-educated, MIT-employed, chair-endowed Professor a "hack"
is a guaranteed way to get yourself laughed clear off the Internet.

Especially when you've posted not a single word demonstrating causality
between human activity and planetary temperature.

Hell, fool, you don't even acknowledge that the Earth and Mars are warmed
by the sun.

Small band......LMAO

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:55 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first
post proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at
least equal to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can
employ that can spare you further ridicule.

Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration.

Calling a Harvard-educated, MIT-employed, chair-endowed Professor a
"hack"
is a guaranteed way to get yourself laughed clear off the Internet.

Especially when you've posted not a single word demonstrating causality
between human activity and planetary temperature.

Hell, fool, you don't even acknowledge that the Earth and Mars are warmed
by the sun.

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their own
"religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith is
deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is at
fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you have, in
the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some sort of
environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting to control
your habits.

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.

Ok, which of these statements is false:

Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are
accepted as
your offer of surrender.

You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion

Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of
heat is the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless
of course you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question
yourself.

Some of my questions to you have gone unanswered. I see no reason to
show you any further courtesy until you learn to keep up with the
discussion.

Examine the thread and you will see who's "keeping up" and who's dodging.

If you can't do the first or refuse to acknowledge the last, I have no use
for you, and I doubt too many others have use for you either.

There aren't THAT many messages in the thread yet. Find the questions I've
asked you, and answer them. Then, perhaps we can continue. Your antics would
not be tolerated in a classroom.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
news
On 30 May 2006 10:17:22 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html

And he http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Both "news" articles are about the same study over a year ago, which
has since been shown to have serious flaws.

Here's a couple of things to look at:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf

Note that these are not some newspaper hack's slanted opinions, but
rather are open-minded, researched papers complete with abundant
references.

If Eric is still following this thread, he may find the second one
especially interesting, as it talks about the flaws in the computer
models used for climate predictions.


http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w.../gw_index.html
The dominant solar control of weather
Here much too much could be said. It begins perhaps with all those studies
that never succeeded in understanding the complex variation of the motion of
planets and the solar system, nor the different solar cycles caused by
distinct motion components, nor the effect of these cycles on the variations
in the intensity and spectral composition of solar emissions. Almost
everything in this chapter of climatology needs to be redone, since the sun
does not determine terrestrial weather, but drives its patterns and controls
or modulates its responses. Yet, so little is understood about this by
Official Science, and the pace of the investigation is so slow, that it
truly makes one cringe. In fact, solar-minded climatologists are largely
shunned by Official Science; they are an eccentricity of climatology.

This ties in with the subject of the previous section because, in still
another sense, the problem begins with not understanding the physical nature
of solar radiation and thus not understanding the variations in intensity or
spectral energy of this radiation. Yet, a displacement of solar ambipolar
radiation towards emissions having electric energy greater than 50 KeV would
result in a greater transfer of energy from the sun to the atmosphere, and
would readily promote UV photon production in the atmosphere. As
Landscheidt remarks, it is well established (see the references that he
provides [43]) that -

"change in the UV radiation of the Sun is much greater than in the range of
visible radiation. The UV range of the [electromagnetic] spectrum lies
between 100Å and 3800Å. Wavelengths below 1500Å are called extreme
ultraviolet, EUV. The variation in radiation between extrema of the 11-year
sunspot cycle reaches 35% in the EUV range, 20% at 1500Å and 7% around
2500Å. At wavelengths above 2500Å, the variation reaches still 2%. At the
time of energetic solar eruptions, UV radiation increases up to 16%."

Where are these variations taken into account in the models that predict
what they assume, namely, 'global warming'? Landscheidt provides an answer
to that question as well:

"There is not even an attempt to model such complex climate details, as GCMs
are too coarse for such purposes. When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse
protagonist) was asked why GCMs do not allow for the stratosphere's warming
by the sun's ultraviolet radiation and its impact on the circulation in the
troposphere, he answered: "This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into
the models."

So, in this chapter of forcing climatology to study what it should be
studying, a first entry would be an effective taking into account of the
variation of the so-called solar irradiance constant caused by such solar
features as 'faculae' [52]. A second entry would further propose that the
solar 10.7 cm radio flux has been abused as a proxy for the UV flux
associated with solar radiation, to paraphrase Fred Singer [53]. Further,
we claim this is a double abuse, since the ultimate cause of that EUV flux
is solar ambipolar radiation greater than 79.4 keV. In both of these
entries, it is actual research into basic science that is missing. Yet, the
myths of global warming rely upon the glorification of this absence.

Decadal ranges of variation in the irradiance 'constant', spanning 3W/m2, or
0.22% of the mean value of that 'constant', are observed by satellite
radiometers. The usual calculation is that 30% of this energy is reflected,
and only one quarter of the remainder absorbed (on the order of 239 W/m2),
with the result that the variation in absorbed energy only amounts to 0.53
W/m2 [43]. If one accepts that global warming reaches 2.4±0.4 W/m2, the
variation of the solar 'constant' only accounts for one fifth of this
magnitude. Even inference of the "solar radiative forcing change" as
"slightly less than 1W/m2" [54] cannot account for that accepted value of
global warming, nor for more than 0.27 deg C out of the claimed warming by
0.5 to 0.6 deg C [55]. The conclusion of 'global warming' advocates is, of
course, that the remainder of the warming must be man-made.

This is something of a false conundrum, since energy reflection varies for
land masses, oceans and ice cover, and to convert watts per meter squared
into degrees of atmospheric temperature is a relatively arbitrary process
with a range of 0.3 to 1.4 deg C per W/m2. As Landscheidt puts it, if one
chooses the mean value at 0.85 deg C/W/m2, the solar variation of 0.53 W/m2
accounts for 0.425 deg C of change. A mean value of 0.55 deg C/W/m2 would
suffice completely if the absorbed variation was "slightly less than 1
watt", as Soon, Baliunas et al proposed. Yet, all these researchers
conclude to the need to postulate a positive feedback mechanism that
enhances climate response to solar 'forcings', Soon and his group going as
far as proposing a "climate hypersensitivity model" where substantially more
absorption of solar radiation occurs in the stratosphere [55]. This is only
necessary if one can establish the conversion rate to be ca. 0.27 deg
C/W/m2. Yet, simple thought suffices to suggest that this a rate must vary
with varying atmospheric pressure and gas density. Moreover, with respect
to latent heat, one cannot make rigid inferences about its quantity on the
basis of some of its byproducts, temperature and radiant photon energy.
Landscheidt quotes a profound remark of Juan G. Roederer relating precisely
to this fact - a vintage aetherometric fact that is also obvious to
non-aetherometric scientists, and is pregnant with still more consequences
than even they suspect - and he employs it to argue for the existence of
positive feedback processes:

"In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as
the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be
triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their
spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude" [56]

For example, since ozone formation releases near UV photons, but ozone
itself does not release blue and IR photons unless certain conditions are
present (those needed for the production of water and oxygen), low ground
ozone is a heat trap - retaining, as latent energy, the sensible heat that
must be released in the course of the allotropic cycle. Hence, there is
another aspect pertaining to the trapping of heat that is amplified in
surface atmospheres by man-made pollution: namely the role of atmospheric
free-radical pollutants in trapping latent heat, prominent amongst which is
the role of ground-level ozone.

But on an even more basic level - one that does not need to invoke any
aetherometric knowledge of ambipolar radiation, or an understanding of the
variations in UV photon production by solar radiation - a full or complete
account is yet to be made of the relative impact on weather systems and
climate of variables such as the 21.33 year sunspot cycle, the 9 to 12 year
oscillations of long and short solar orbitals in the plane of the ecliptic,
the quasi-biennial oscillation of stratospheric winds [57-58] and its
corresponding counterpart in the Southern Hemisphere.

In this context, we should cite as one of the important analytical
contributions the rather Aspdenian study by Landscheidt of the relation
between variations in solar radiation, solar rotation and orbital angular
momentum in the plane of the ecliptic. He identified a contribution of the
latter, on the order of 25%, to the total solar angular momentum [59], and
has, for more than two decades, been proposing a transfer of angular
momentum from the Sun's orbital in the ecliptic to the Sun's rotation around
its axis. Foukal suggested that increases in production of UV and X-ray
photons associated with stellar radiation could be a consequence of the
differential rotation of the solar chromosphere (fastest at the equator), ie
the process behind cyclic formation of sunspots and faculae [52]. He further
suggested that only stars with high rates of rotation had high energy
photons associated with their radiation spectra. Landscheidt's proposal
explains what feeds the cyclic changes in that solar rotation, and serves as
its periodic accelerator. This is of great consequence, first because the
process in question is likely the main factor altering the intensity and
spectral composition of solar radiation, and secondly because, in terms of
aetherometric theory, the motion of the Sun in the plane of the ecliptic is
matched by a periodic motion of the Sun and the entire solar system
transversely to the ecliptic so that the total angular momentum of the Sun
is a still greater quantity than heretofore suggested, and thus constitutes
a still greater reservoir for momentum transfer.

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith
is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting
to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched and
footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan rants
from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one or
two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly shredded by
the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our) habits"
is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on prohibition
("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An example of
prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR; and example of
compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of summer gasoline
(thankfully suspended for this year).


Fritz believes that if we had a sentient being in the White House, and that
person said this...

"I urge all of you to find ways to reduce your fuel consumption. Reexamine
your vehicle buying habits for instanct"

.....that this would be an example of someone controlling his behavior. To
any sane person, it's a reasonable request. Not to Fritz.

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their
faith is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door,
attempting to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched
and footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan
rants from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one
or two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly
shredded by the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for
example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our)
habits" is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on
prohibition ("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An
example of prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR;
and example of compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of
summer gasoline (thankfully suspended for this year).


Fritz believes that if we had a sentient being in the White House, and
that person said this...

"I urge all of you to find ways to reduce your fuel consumption.
Reexamine your vehicle buying habits for instanct"

....that this would be an example of someone controlling his behavior.
To any sane person, it's a reasonable request. Not to Fritz.


If you have a problem with Fritz, address that problem with Fritz. Since
you can't identify a problem you have with me, I have nothing to gain by
entertaining your attempts to debate Fritz by using me as a proxy. Come
back when you're rather less confused.

Just like a fundie preacher accuses a non believer of being a "sinner" or
"damned" etc. so goes the faithful of the global warming alarmist cult.


LMAO


Just more proof that the real purpose of the GW cult is political

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith
is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting
to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched and
footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan rants
from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one or
two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly shredded by
the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our) habits"
is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on prohibition
("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An example of
prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR; and example of
compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of summer gasoline
(thankfully suspended for this year).

LMAO

It is so easy to expose the GW alarmists for what they really are.

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith
is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting
to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched and
footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan rants
from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one or
two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly shredded by
the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our) habits"
is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on prohibition
("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An example of
prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR; and example of
compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of summer gasoline
(thankfully suspended for this year).

Typical of the "faithful" he knows what others thinks LMAO.
The "faithful" aren't usually so blatant as to knock on doors, because
they would be exposed for what they really are. Instead, they go through
the back window......via taxation.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

I don't know about you, but a fine cigar after dinner on the deck
listening to the water feature and watching the koi swing around in
the ornamental pond is very relaxing.

Nothing like the fine aroma of a good cigar to set off a pleasant
spring/summer evening.

And as we all know, relaxing is an important part of reducing stress.

So in a way, smoking is good for me. :)

Good for you?? What about stinking out the neighbourhood for blocks
around your house?