Time to dispense with Greenland?

[Andre Jute]

In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.

[Woland99]

On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.

Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.

[Jay Beattie]

On Mar 27, 4:03*pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?

I would think your KT66s would keep you warm enough. -- Jay Beattie.

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute <fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
>ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
>with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
>certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
>again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
>doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
>the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
>loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
>Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
>Andre Jute
>http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
>PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
>feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
>fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
>and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
>has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
>eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
>out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.

In the meanwhile, here is some reading:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Scroll down, left column.

Enjoy,

Ron

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 12:03 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.

Holy ****! I don't know where the little doomsaying wankers get their
facts from -- I suspect they don't care about the facts because
environmentalism is now a religion rather than a scientific enquiry --
but this takes the cake: they immediately assumed that my joke, that
Greenland should melt away and fall into the sea, is based on fact!
Without even checking they simply started mourning the loss of
Greenland, when in fact it daily grows more ice.

Let me repeat. Greenland is in no danger of melting even fractionally,
never mind *away*. Quite the contrary. In fact ice thickness in
Greenland has been *growing* at two inches per annum for a decade, as
reported in
JOHANNESSEN, O.M., et al. 2005. Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the
Interior of Greenland, Sciencexpress, 20 October 2005

Oh, and by the way, as RonSonic has already pointed out about my other
throwaway joke, the current temperatures in the Arctic are not
unprecedented: they were as high or higher in the 1930s and 1940s
(Briffa), and all changes in Arctic temperature are much more closely
correlated to sun activity than to CO2 emissions (Soon).
BRIFFA, K.R., Osborn, T.J. and Schweingruber, F.H. 2004. Large-scale
temperature inferences from tree
rings: a review. Global and Planetary Change 40: 11-26.
SOON, W. W.-H. 2005. Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent
for multidecadal variations in the
Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years.
Geophysical Research Letters 32

You guys really should practice your debating skills a little more
before you start taking potshots at those who do their homework.

Maybe you got your "facts" from Al Gore's nasty little lying movie.
Among dozens of other errors, he gets both of those wrong. And
virtually all Gore's dumb (or more probably, considering his
partnership at Lehman Brothers, which wants to corner the business in
carbon permissions trading, deliberate, greedy) errors have already
appeared as gospel from RBTers in the thread : Time to dispense with
Greenland?"

Andre Jute
The irony is that by my lifestyle I'm vastly greener than any of you

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 12:58*am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.

For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.

Andre Jute
Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims

[Bill Sornson]

Woland99 wrote:

> Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.

The warmest year on record was 1998. The earth's been /cooling/ since then.

HTH (BKIW).

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Woland99:
>Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
>in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.

"Think globally
Act Loco"
--
PeteCresswell

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 1:29*am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 4:03*pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> I would think your KT66s would keep you warm enough. -- Jay Beattie.

I have an amp with KT66 of course -- every serious audiophile has --
but I don't play them much as they're on a pair of Quad II I
repatriated for my retirement from Japan in an exchange for one of the
amps I concocted, and on a couple of other pairs I have, one awaiting
a rebuild, one on loan to a less fortunate audiophile. But KT66 hardly
put out any heat in comparison to the absolutely ***** of heat
generators, my Class A1 80W single-ended "Millennium's End" amps with
300Bs to drive the Svetlana SV572-3. If you know that a single-ended
amp is doing *well* if it reaches 20% efficiency, you can imagine how
much heat that amp generated; each driver 300B had it its power shunt-
regulated by its own SV372-10. But I didn't break it up because of the
heat, but because a four-unit amp with hundreds of volts just on the
signal lines, never mind the kilovolt powerlines, is a bloody
dangerous implement -- or so I sanctimoniously told people; the true
reason was that the thing, with so many hefty transformers on it, was
an absolute backbreaker to move, and I move my amps all the time. I
used it to drive my QUAD ESL63 electrostats, just because people said
I couldn't do it. Right now I'm playing a tiny 6SL7/6SN7 high-voltage
headphone amp, also of my own devising, to drive STAX electrostratic
headphones. (Well, before the usual ignorant net crocodiles call me a
liar, the signal section is tiny; the power supply is twice the size
of a 140W silicon camp sitting under the same table.)

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 1:29*am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> >ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> >with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> >certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> >again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> >doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> >the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> >loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> >Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> >Andre Jute
> >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> >PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> >feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> >fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> >and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> >has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> >eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> >out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> In the meanwhile, here is some reading:http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
>
> Scroll down, left column.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Ron

Thanks for the giggle. Let's see, 1922. If the short-term trend they
observed since 1918 had continued, Gaia would now be a frizzled ball
of molten tar. Relax, Ron, you won't burn, you're only a character in
my novel whom it has amused me to give a separate volition.

Any event, I think it far more likely that we will freeze than burn,
and sooner too. The last mini-Ice Age was about 8k years ago, and it
seems to me at a quick glance that ice ages run in 8k cycles (they're
sorta like the longwave Kondratieff cycles economists are familiar
with). It will be embarrassing if those environmentalists (before they
were even called that) who warned weekly of our impending doom in the
deep freeze caused by the hole in the ozone layer, and whom I mocked
mercilessly through the 1960's, were to be proven right, just when
most of them have turned to warning about how we're creating the
flames of hell on earth... How the hell can anyone believe
"scientists" whose story changes that radically from decade to decade?

Andre Jute
I may not be a better prophet than those clowns, but at least I can
draw a trend line -- and if it is long enough, it is flat, flat, flat.

[mike.a.schwab@gmail.com]

On Mar 27, 8:29*pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> >ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> >with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> >certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> >again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> >doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> >the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> >loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> >Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> >Andre Jute
> >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> >PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> >feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> >fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> >and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> >has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> >eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> >out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> In the meanwhile, here is some reading:http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
>
> Scroll down, left column.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, this document is showing the fossil fuel burned into CO2 since
the 1850s were already having a warming effect. Especially since ice
shelfs are extremely sensitive to slight changes in water temperature.

The question really should be "When do the Florida and Bangladesh
refugees get sent to the winter wheat farms where the glaciers used to
be on Greenland?".

[Woland99]

On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
> perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
> who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
> warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
> claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
> claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
> chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>
> Andre Jute
> Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims

I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
in Earth science can be tricky but which part of global
warming theory that you find may not be correct?
I thought it was not matter of "belief" anymore and majority
of scientists agree on it. Besides - even if you have your doubts
there was that risk management-influenced argument on Youtube
that was somewhat convincing:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
It is 10 mins long and after watching it there is absolutely
nothing you can do but agree that there should be some action taken.
Try it.

[Jay Beattie]

On Mar 27, 8:32*pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:29*am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 4:03*pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > I would think your KT66s would keep you warm enough. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> I have an amp with KT66 of course -- every serious audiophile has --
> but I don't play them much as they're on a pair of Quad II I
> repatriated for my retirement from Japan in an exchange for one of the
> amps I concocted, and on a couple of other pairs I have, one awaiting
> a rebuild, one on loan to a less fortunate audiophile. But KT66 hardly
> put out any heat in comparison to the absolutely ***** of heat
> generators, my Class A1 80W single-ended "Millennium's End" amps with
> 300Bs to drive the Svetlana SV572-3. If you know that a single-ended
> amp is doing *well* if it reaches 20% efficiency, you can imagine how
> much heat that amp generated; each driver 300B had it its power shunt-
> regulated by its own SV372-10. But I didn't break it up because of the
> heat, but because a four-unit amp with hundreds of volts just on the
> signal lines, never mind the kilovolt powerlines, is a bloody
> dangerous implement -- or so I sanctimoniously told people; the true
> reason was that the thing, with so many hefty transformers on it, was
> an absolute backbreaker to move, and I move my amps all the time. I
> used it to drive my QUAD ESL63 electrostats, just because people said
> I couldn't do it. Right now I'm playing a tiny 6SL7/6SN7 high-voltage
> headphone amp, also of my own devising, to drive STAX electrostratic
> headphones. (Well, before the usual ignorant net crocodiles call me a
> liar, the signal section is tiny; the power supply is twice the size
> of a 140W silicon camp sitting under the same table.)

That's right, you have Quad speakers and not Quad amps (at least not
in your system). That's why I was thinking the KT66s. You must be a
favorite of the local electric utility. Around here, your heat output
and power usage would get you investigated for being an indoor pot
growing operation. -- Jay Beattie.

[fred.garvin@yahoo.com]

On Mar 27, 9:35*pm, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING..html
>
> > > > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > > > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> > For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
> > perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
> > who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
> > warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
> > claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
> > claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
> > chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
>
> I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> in Earth science can be tricky but which part of global
> warming theory that you find may not be correct?
> I thought it was not matter of "belief" anymore and majority
> of scientists agree on it. Besides - even if you have your doubts
> there was that risk management-influenced argument on Youtube
> that was somewhat convincing:http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
> It is 10 mins long and after watching it there is absolutely
> nothing you can do but agree that there should be some action taken.
> Try it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sure, let's take action, any action, to prevent a climatalogical
catastrophy that isn't actually happening, even if it means destroying
the strongest economic engine (US-styled capitalism) in modern times?

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 3:35*am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING..html
>
> > > > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > > > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> > For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
> > perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
> > who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
> > warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
> > claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
> > claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
> > chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
>
> I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> in Earth science can be tricky

Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.

> but which part of global
> warming theory that you find may not be correct?

I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.

> I thought it was not matter of "belief" anymore and majority
> of scientists agree on it.

The guys who said the IPCC rewrote their reports to say the opposite
of what they had written were severely discouraged by having their
grants taken away, and told they couldn't sue the government. You
should just count the big names who are supposed to have signed IPCC
papers who say they never said that, or agreed to the other thing.

Anyway, a consensus of guys with grants at stake? Cive me a break. We
now tell grad students to put "environmental" in the title of their
thesis to show they're right-thinking. I can remember when I couldn't
get promoted because I was not a Keynesian -- best thing that ever
happened to me, because I instantly took my skills and judgement into
the private sector with predictable results. Twenty years later all
those fashionable Keynesians were silent and twenty years later they
were all convinced monetarists.

> Besides - even if you have your doubts
> there was that risk management-influenced argument on Youtube
> that was somewhat convincing:http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
> It is 10 mins long and after watching it there is absolutely
> nothing you can do but agree that there should be some action taken.
> Try it.

Ugh. That's not risk management. That's scare-mongering of the same
sort we saw with the atom bomb (which brought world peace) and nuclear
power (which is still the only clean power that is actually
deliverable in enough megawatts). Kyoto is the most expensive guilt-
trip the world has ever seen, billions spent to show we "care"; nobody
now thinks it will work, but that too was presented as "the
precautionary principle". Try this instead: That you will die is
certain; when is uncertain and it bothers some people with not enough
to keep them occupied. A precaution against the uncertainty of your
moment of death is to cut your wrists right now -- you can act to
reduce the uncertainty to zero. Does the gain to your entirely
unnecessary peace of mind overweigh the loss to your family and
society. Jeremy Bentham is spinning in his grave. There is change in
nature; it is uncertain; the precautionary principle, risk management
does not reduce that uncertainty: it aggravates it by misdirecting
resources. The managers who consistently bring off risky decisions are
artists, not scientists. Ever hear of a work of art made by a
committee? Environmental threats are without exception created and
"managed" by committees, and at that committees with a constant
financial interest in keeping the threat alive.

The fellow in your film glides smoothly over a big lie right near the
beginning of his little story when he's standing before his 3x3 grid
of possible actions and outcomes. He says, "If we do something
significant to prevent global warming." That's the sort of lie you
hear from tele-evangelists, plastic guttering salesmen and Mormon
missionaries. He doesn't know the outcome of any of his actions, you
don't, I don't. We don't know what is "significant" action. What we do
know is that natural forces are larger than any manmade significance.
What offends me most about most environmentalists is their hubris,
their belief that they matter, that our moment in time must at all
costs be preserved, that change is evil. Their attitude is inspired by
fear, and evolution will eventually rid the genome of them. Good
riddance.

Andre Jute
Darwinist

[Bill Sornson]

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:35 pm, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
>>>>> ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim
>>>>> winter, with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last
>>>>> year. I certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we
>>>>> shall not
>>>>> again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that
>>>>> we're all doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on
>>>>> global warming, the sooner the better. And I've been to the
>>>>> Arctic. If it melts, no loss. Not to mention that the cold wind
>>>>> ruining my rides starts around Greenland. Time to dispense with
>>>>> Greenland too, don't you think?
>>
>>>>> Andre
>>>>> Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>>
>>>>> PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in
>>>>> earnest... I feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang
>>>>> around arguing fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their
>>>>> religion of doom
>>>>> and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year,
>>>>> and
>>>>> has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who
>>>>> keeps his eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know
>>>>> better will be
>>>>> out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>>
>>>> Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
>>>> in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>>
>>> For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
>>> perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
>>> who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
>>> warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and
>>> still claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the
>>> fundamental claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic
>>> isn't much chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle
>>> name.
>>
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
>>
>> I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
>> in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
>> in Earth science can be tricky but which part of global
>> warming theory that you find may not be correct?
>> I thought it was not matter of "belief" anymore and majority
>> of scientists agree on it. Besides - even if you have your doubts
>> there was that risk management-influenced argument on Youtube
>> that was somewhat convincing:http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
>> It is 10 mins long and after watching it there is absolutely
>> nothing you can do but agree that there should be some action taken.
>> Try it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure, let's take action, any action, to prevent a climatalogical
> catastrophy that isn't actually happening, even if it means destroying
> the strongest economic engine (US-styled capitalism) in modern times?

You've uncovered their true agenda. NOW you're in for it!

Bill "like we can control climates anyway" S.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 4:28*am, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:35*pm, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > > > > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest.... I
> > > > > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > > > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > > > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > > > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > > > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > > > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > > > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > > > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> > > For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
> > > perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
> > > who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
> > > warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
> > > claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
> > > claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
> > > chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>
> > > Andre Jute
> > > Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
>
> > I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> > in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> > in Earth science can be tricky but which part of global
> > warming theory that you find may not be correct?
> > I thought it was not matter of "belief" anymore and majority
> > of scientists agree on it. Besides - even if you have your doubts
> > there was that risk management-influenced argument on Youtube
> > that was somewhat convincing:http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
> > It is 10 mins long and after watching it there is absolutely
> > nothing you can do but agree that there should be some action taken.
> > Try it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure, let's take action, any action, to prevent a climatalogical
> catastrophy that isn't actually happening, even if it means destroying
> the strongest economic engine (US-styled capitalism) in modern times?

Well, Kyoto is all about punishing efficient economies for being
efficient and rich (and white) and permitting those in the third world
(like China and Taiwan and India!) to pollute more.

Andre Jute
Human stupidity is the only resource that is not rationed by the Kyoto
Agreement

[Tom Sherman]

fred.garvin@yahoo.com aka Fred Garvin wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:35 pm, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
>>>>> ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
>>>>> with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
>>>>> certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
>>>>> again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
>>>>> doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
>>>>> the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
>>>>> loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
>>>>> Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>>>>> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>>>>> PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
>>>>> feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
>>>>> fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
>>>>> and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
>>>>> has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
>>>>> eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
>>>>> out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>>>> Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
>>>> in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>>> For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
>>> perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
>>> who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
>>> warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
>>> claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
>>> claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
>>> chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
>> I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
>> in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
>> in Earth science can be tricky but which part of global
>> warming theory that you find may not be correct?
>> I thought it was not matter of "belief" anymore and majority
>> of scientists agree on it. Besides - even if you have your doubts
>> there was that risk management-influenced argument on Youtube
>> that was somewhat convincing:http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
>> It is 10 mins long and after watching it there is absolutely
>> nothing you can do but agree that there should be some action taken.
>> Try it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure, let's take action, any action, to prevent a climatalogical
> catastrophy that isn't actually happening, even if it means destroying
> the strongest economic engine (US-styled capitalism) in modern times?
>
I am rooting for global warming to teach the foolish puny humans a
lesson for their arrogance and hubris.

True moral character comes from hardship and suffering.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Woland99]

On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> > in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> > in Earth science can be tricky
>
> Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
> spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I meant is that
in geophysics controlled experiment on a large scale is impossible -
we cannot control some parameters and measure others and try to
create mathematical model based on such measurements (control voltage
measure resistance and infer resistance). We can only measure selected
set (hopefully complete set of parameters) during processes that
occur
naturally. That requires somewhat complete modeling and assumptions
how
different part of the models (terms in set of equations) can dominate
behaviour in different. Which meachanism can be uncoupled and which
neglected. Not sure why you mention chaos theory - we do not know -
and
cannot know precise boundary condition and while short term behavior
is
most certainly chaotic we try to find presence of global trends.

> I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
> spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.

Please provide a reference. What would be the source of CO2 that is
emited when temperature rises? Could it be that ocean was heating up
and CO2 became less soluble in water and hence released into
atmosphere?

> The guys who said the IPCC rewrote their reports to say the opposite
> of what they had written were severely discouraged by having their
> grants taken away, and told they couldn't sue the government. You
> should just count the big names who are supposed to have signed IPCC
> papers who say they never said that, or agreed to the other thing.

That is some hearsay - you want to tell me that there is some sort of
dark cabal of climatologists forcing everybody to change their data
or
else be ostracized? Hmmmmm - not sure if anybody can convince you o/w.
It may be possible in one institution. But science is global. And
nobody
can control ALL the research. That is a fairytale.

> Anyway, a consensus of guys with grants at stake?

Not just grants. You falsify data and it just takes one reviewer to
take closer look and you are DEAD - you career is over - nobody would
take such risk.

> I can remember when I couldn't
> get promoted because I was not a Keynesian

OK so now comes "chip on the shoulder story" - thank for admitting
that.

> Ugh. That's not risk management. That's scare-mongering of the same
> sort we saw with the atom bomb (which brought world peace)

One word. Dirty bomb.

> and nuclear
> power (which is still the only clean power that is actually
> deliverable in enough megawatts).

and Chernobyl.


> Kyoto is the most expensive guilt-
> trip the world has ever seen, billions spent to show we "care"; nobody
> now thinks it will work, but that too was presented as "the
> precautionary principle".

Lots of words and no proof. And some nonchalant hand-waving a'la
"nobody believes". Well let's see who in the know believes?

> Try this instead: That you will die is
> certain; when is uncertain and it bothers some people with not enough
> to keep them occupied. A precaution against the uncertainty of your
> moment of death is to cut your wrists right now -- you can act to
> reduce the uncertainty to zero.

Analogies (esp faulty) do not prove anything.

> Environmental threats are without exception created and
> "managed" by committees, and at that committees with a constant
> financial interest in keeping the threat alive.

Polar ice melting at unheard before rate is not managed by a
committee. It is not some abstract creation. It is measurable FACT.

> The fellow in your film glides smoothly over a big lie right near the
> beginning of his little story when he's standing before his 3x3 grid
> of possible actions and outcomes. He says, "If we do something
> significant to prevent global warming." That's the sort of lie you
> hear from tele-evangelists, plastic guttering salesmen and Mormon
> missionaries. He doesn't know the outcome of any of his actions, you
> don't, I don't. We don't know what is "significant" action. What we do
> know is that natural forces are larger than any manmade significance.

That is only halfway correct. Computer models can predict the outcome
of your actions - like eg. cutting CO2 emissions. Those models can be
to
some degree verified and refined by fitting them to correctly model
past
behavior given (more or less correct initial data - 60 or 100 years
ago
and our best estimates of CO2 released into atmosphere during that
period).
And that is NOT witchcraft - you can fine-tune and verify your
modeling.
Then you ask to extrapolate trends forward and try to run them with
different
level of CO2 emissions. Now what exactly is so hard about that?

> What offends me most about most environmentalists is their hubris,
> their belief that they matter, that our moment in time must at all
> costs be preserved, that change is evil. Their attitude is inspired by
> fear, and evolution will eventually rid the genome of them. Good
> riddance.

That is philosophy and personal opinion - possibly inspired by your
bad
experience in grad school or on post-doc position. But OK - you do
not
"like" environmentalists - what does that have to do with the
question
of how accurate climate modeling currently is?

[D'ohBoy]

On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 3:35 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > > > > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > > > > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > > > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > > > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > > > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > > > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > > > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > > > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > > > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> > > For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
> > > perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
> > > who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
> > > warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
> > > claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
> > > claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
> > > chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>
> > > Andre Jute
> > > Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
>
> > I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> > in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> > in Earth science can be tricky
>
> Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
> spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.
>
> > but which part of global
> > warming theory that you find may not be correct?
>
> I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
> spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.
>

Holy crap man! WOW! Holy ****!

You just created a whole new logical paradigm: if one causal sequence
of events is true, then ANY OTHER CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING THE
COMPONENTS OF THE ORIGINAL CAN'T BE TRUE! This can be applied to a
whole buncha stuff to prove it doesn't work! And that stuff won't
work, through the force of your immense intellect.

And the function of causal relationships (or lack thereof) will be
dependent on the one the causal relationship you declare first! The
Principle of Primacy!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When there's a lot of it in the atmosphere,
it retains heat/energy moreso than with lower levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere. And BTW, Global Warming also means more, wilder weather
swings. Hot or cold. Seen any of those lately, genius?

Dumbass. And you even got dumbass Bill Sornson in on the moronicism.
Go back to sucking Lush Rimjob's **** and give up the trolling, eh?

D'ohBoy

[Tom Sherman]

Andre Jute wrote:
> [...]
> Ugh. That's not risk management. That's scare-mongering of the same
> sort we saw with the atom bomb (which brought world peace)[...]

Which world is that? This one has many ongoing wars.

I will admit to a serious case of schadenfreude the first time an atomic
weapon is used against a country that has been threatening another with
"nuclear blackmail". Turnabout is fair play, after all, no?

"Man the wise" - that has to be the greatest joke ever told!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 6:10*am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> Woland99 wrote:
> > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> The warmest year on record was 1998. *The earth's been /cooling/ since then.
>
> HTH (BKIW).

Shut up, Bill. 1998 was a *great* year, mild and pleasant. We want
more years like 1998. If these environmental wreckers find out about
1998, they will have another world conference to stop us getting
another year like that. -- Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Hey, Woe, I don't want to waste a lot of time on your kindergarden
debating tricks, but don't you think it a bit odd for someoone who
brags about "having degree in geophysics", as you do, to ask me for a
reference to the IPCC data correlating temperature rise and CO2
emissions? What sort of an school gave you that degree if you still
have to ask such a fresher question?

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

On Mar 28, 7:24*am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> > > in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> > > in Earth science can be tricky
>
> > Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
> > spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.
>
> I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I meant is that
> in geophysics controlled experiment on a large scale is impossible -
> we cannot control some parameters and measure others and try to
> create mathematical model based on such measurements (control voltage
> measure resistance and infer resistance). We can only measure selected
> set (hopefully complete set of parameters) during processes that
> occur
> naturally. That requires somewhat complete modeling and assumptions
> how
> different part of the models (terms in set of equations) can dominate
> behaviour in different. Which meachanism can be uncoupled and which
> neglected. Not sure why you mention chaos theory - we do not know -
> and
> cannot know precise boundary condition and while short term behavior
> is
> most certainly chaotic we try to find presence of global trends.
>
> > I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
> > spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.
>
> Please provide a reference. What would be the source of CO2 that is
> emited when temperature rises? Could it be that ocean was heating up
> and CO2 became less soluble in water and hence released into
> atmosphere?
>
> > The guys who said the IPCC rewrote their reports to say the opposite
> > of what they had written were severely discouraged by having their
> > grants taken away, and told they couldn't sue the government. You
> > should just count the big names who are supposed to have signed IPCC
> > papers who say they never said that, or agreed to the other thing.
>
> That is some hearsay - you want to tell me that there is some sort of
> dark cabal of climatologists forcing everybody to change their data
> or
> else be ostracized? Hmmmmm - not sure if anybody can convince you o/w.
> It may be possible in one institution. But science is global. And
> nobody
> can control ALL the research. That is a fairytale.
>
> > Anyway, a consensus of guys with grants at stake?
>
> Not just grants. You falsify data and it just takes one reviewer to
> take closer look and you are DEAD - you career is over - nobody would
> take such risk.
>
> > I can remember when I couldn't
> > get promoted because I was not a Keynesian
>
> OK so now comes "chip on the shoulder story" - thank for admitting
> that.
>
> > Ugh. That's not risk management. That's scare-mongering of the same
> > sort we saw with the atom bomb (which brought world peace)
>
> One word. Dirty bomb.
>
> > and nuclear
> > power (which is still the only clean power that is actually
> > deliverable in enough megawatts).
>
> and Chernobyl.
>
> > Kyoto is the most expensive guilt-
> > trip the world has ever seen, billions spent to show we "care"; nobody
> > now thinks it will work, but that too was presented as "the
> > precautionary principle".
>
> Lots of words and no proof. And some nonchalant hand-waving a'la
> "nobody believes". Well let's see who in the know believes?
>
> > Try this instead: That you will die is
> > certain; when is uncertain and it bothers some people with not enough
> > to keep them occupied. A precaution against the uncertainty of your
> > moment of death is to cut your wrists right now -- you can act to
> > reduce the uncertainty to zero.
>
> Analogies (esp faulty) do not prove anything.
>
> > Environmental threats are without exception created and
> > "managed" by committees, and at that committees with a constant
> > financial interest in keeping the threat alive.
>
> Polar ice melting at unheard before rate is not managed by a
> committee. It is not some abstract creation. It is measurable FACT.
>
> > The fellow in your film glides smoothly over a big lie right near the
> > beginning of his little story when he's standing before his 3x3 grid
> > of possible actions and outcomes. He says, "If we do something
> > significant to prevent global warming." That's the sort of lie you
> > hear from tele-evangelists, plastic guttering salesmen and Mormon
> > missionaries. He doesn't know the outcome of any of his actions, you
> > don't, I don't. We don't know what is "significant" action. What we do
> > know is that natural forces are larger than any manmade significance.
>
> That is only halfway correct. Computer models can predict the outcome
> of your actions - like eg. cutting CO2 emissions. Those models can be
> to
> some degree verified and refined by fitting them to correctly model
> past
> behavior given (more or less correct initial data - 60 or 100 years
> ago
> and our best estimates of CO2 released into atmosphere during that
> period).
> And that is NOT witchcraft - you can fine-tune and verify your
> modeling.
> Then you ask to extrapolate trends forward and try to run them with
> different
> level of CO2 emissions. Now what exactly is so hard about that?
>
> > What offends me most about most environmentalists is their hubris,
> > their belief that they matter, that our moment in time must at all
> > costs be preserved, that change is evil. Their attitude is inspired by
> > fear, and evolution will eventually rid the genome of them. Good
> > riddance.
>
> That is philosophy and personal opinion - possibly inspired by your
> bad
> experience in grad school or on post-doc position. But OK - you do
> not
> "like" environmentalists - what does that have to do with the
> question
> of how accurate climate modeling currently is?

[A Muzi]

Woland99 wrote:
> Not just grants. You falsify data and it just takes one reviewer to
> take closer look and you are DEAD - you career is over - nobody would
> take such risk.

Or maybe not so much:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/when-warmings-hockey-stick-breaks
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom Sherman]

Woland99 ??? wrote:
> [...]
> That is philosophy and personal opinion - possibly inspired by your
> bad
> experience in grad school or on post-doc position. But OK - you do
> not
> "like" environmentalists - what does that have to do with the
> question
> of how accurate climate modeling currently is?
>
I dislike environmentalists, even when I agree with them (which is most
of the time).

Letting personal feelings overrule rational judgment is for the mentally
weak or lazy.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 6:19*pm, "mike.a.sch...@gmail.com"
<mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:29*pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > >ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > >with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > >certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > >again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > >doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > >the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > >loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > >Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > >Andre Jute
> > >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > >PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > >feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > >fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > >and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > >has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > >eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > >out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > In the meanwhile, here is some reading:http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
>
> > Scroll down, left column.
>
> > Enjoy,
>
> > Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, this document is showing the fossil fuel burned into CO2 since
> the 1850s were already having a warming effect. *Especially since ice
> shelfs are extremely sensitive to slight changes in water temperature.
>
> The question really should be "When do the Florida and Bangladesh
> refugees get sent to the winter wheat farms where the glaciers used to
> be on Greenland?".

Jesus. You mean Greenland isn't going to fall into the sea -- that
instead it will grow bigger. Hell! That means the winds blowing from
Greenland to Ireland will be even nastier. I'm moving to Florida, or
may Queensland, except they're even more uncouth in Queensland than in
Florida.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[Michael Press]

In article
<712dbb6b-503a-4f0b-8321-11ab0fca1617@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"mike.a.schwab@gmail.com" <mike.a.schwab@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, this document is showing the fossil fuel burned into CO2 since
> the 1850s were already having a warming effect. Especially since ice
> shelfs are extremely sensitive to slight changes in water temperature.

They were smarter than we are. If it were not for burning
coal and petroleum we would still be in the little ice age.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article
<712dbb6b-503a-4f0b-8321-11ab0fca1617@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"mike.a.schwab@gmail.com" <mike.a.schwab@gmail.com> wrote:

> The question really should be "When do the Florida and Bangladesh
> refugees get sent to the winter wheat farms where the glaciers used to
> be on Greenland?".

You do know that Scandinavians established a colony in
Greenland that sustained itself for a couple hundred
years? They were driven out by [wait for it] global cooling.

--
Michael Press

[Woland99]

On Mar 28, 1:36 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey, Woe, I don't want to waste a lot of time on your kindergarden
> debating tricks, but don't you think it a bit odd for someoone who
> brags about "having degree in geophysics", as you do, to ask me for a
> reference to the IPCC data correlating temperature rise and CO2
> emissions? What sort of an school gave you that degree if you still
> have to ask such a fresher question?
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> On Mar 28, 7:24 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> > > > in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> > > > in Earth science can be tricky
>
> > > Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
> > > spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.
>
> > I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I meant is that
> > in geophysics controlled experiment on a large scale is impossible -
> > we cannot control some parameters and measure others and try to
> > create mathematical model based on such measurements (control voltage
> > measure resistance and infer resistance). We can only measure selected
> > set (hopefully complete set of parameters) during processes that
> > occur
> > naturally. That requires somewhat complete modeling and assumptions
> > how
> > different part of the models (terms in set of equations) can dominate
> > behaviour in different. Which meachanism can be uncoupled and which
> > neglected. Not sure why you mention chaos theory - we do not know -
> > and
> > cannot know precise boundary condition and while short term behavior
> > is
> > most certainly chaotic we try to find presence of global trends.
>
> > > I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
> > > spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.
>
> > Please provide a reference. What would be the source of CO2 that is
> > emited when temperature rises? Could it be that ocean was heating up
> > and CO2 became less soluble in water and hence released into
> > atmosphere?
>
> > > The guys who said the IPCC rewrote their reports to say the opposite
> > > of what they had written were severely discouraged by having their
> > > grants taken away, and told they couldn't sue the government. You
> > > should just count the big names who are supposed to have signed IPCC
> > > papers who say they never said that, or agreed to the other thing.
>
> > That is some hearsay - you want to tell me that there is some sort of
> > dark cabal of climatologists forcing everybody to change their data
> > or
> > else be ostracized? Hmmmmm - not sure if anybody can convince you o/w.
> > It may be possible in one institution. But science is global. And
> > nobody
> > can control ALL the research. That is a fairytale.
>
> > > Anyway, a consensus of guys with grants at stake?
>
> > Not just grants. You falsify data and it just takes one reviewer to
> > take closer look and you are DEAD - you career is over - nobody would
> > take such risk.
>
> > > I can remember when I couldn't
> > > get promoted because I was not a Keynesian
>
> > OK so now comes "chip on the shoulder story" - thank for admitting
> > that.
>
> > > Ugh. That's not risk management. That's scare-mongering of the same
> > > sort we saw with the atom bomb (which brought world peace)
>
> > One word. Dirty bomb.
>
> > > and nuclear
> > > power (which is still the only clean power that is actually
> > > deliverable in enough megawatts).
>
> > and Chernobyl.
>
> > > Kyoto is the most expensive guilt-
> > > trip the world has ever seen, billions spent to show we "care"; nobody
> > > now thinks it will work, but that too was presented as "the
> > > precautionary principle".
>
> > Lots of words and no proof. And some nonchalant hand-waving a'la
> > "nobody believes". Well let's see who in the know believes?
>
> > > Try this instead: That you will die is
> > > certain; when is uncertain and it bothers some people with not enough
> > > to keep them occupied. A precaution against the uncertainty of your
> > > moment of death is to cut your wrists right now -- you can act to
> > > reduce the uncertainty to zero.
>
> > Analogies (esp faulty) do not prove anything.
>
> > > Environmental threats are without exception created and
> > > "managed" by committees, and at that committees with a constant
> > > financial interest in keeping the threat alive.
>
> > Polar ice melting at unheard before rate is not managed by a
> > committee. It is not some abstract creation. It is measurable FACT.
>
> > > The fellow in your film glides smoothly over a big lie right near the
> > > beginning of his little story when he's standing before his 3x3 grid
> > > of possible actions and outcomes. He says, "If we do something
> > > significant to prevent global warming." That's the sort of lie you
> > > hear from tele-evangelists, plastic guttering salesmen and Mormon
> > > missionaries. He doesn't know the outcome of any of his actions, you
> > > don't, I don't. We don't know what is "significant" action. What we do
> > > know is that natural forces are larger than any manmade significance.
>
> > That is only halfway correct. Computer models can predict the outcome
> > of your actions - like eg. cutting CO2 emissions. Those models can be
> > to
> > some degree verified and refined by fitting them to correctly model
> > past
> > behavior given (more or less correct initial data - 60 or 100 years
> > ago
> > and our best estimates of CO2 released into atmosphere during that
> > period).
> > And that is NOT witchcraft - you can fine-tune and verify your
> > modeling.
> > Then you ask to extrapolate trends forward and try to run them with
> > different
> > level of CO2 emissions. Now what exactly is so hard about that?
>
> > > What offends me most about most environmentalists is their hubris,
> > > their belief that they matter, that our moment in time must at all
> > > costs be preserved, that change is evil. Their attitude is inspired by
> > > fear, and evolution will eventually rid the genome of them. Good
> > > riddance.
>
> > That is philosophy and personal opinion - possibly inspired by your
> > bad
> > experience in grad school or on post-doc position. But OK - you do
> > not
> > "like" environmentalists - what does that have to do with the
> > question
> > of how accurate climate modeling currently is?

Well since you are so polite and articulate in making your point...
I finished geophysics 26 years ago then was doing PhD in finite
element analysis of semiconductor devices for a brief time and
then started programming.
SO I would appreciate if you just post that link to data on CO2
level following rise of global temperature and prove it is not
related to release of CO2 from the oceans. And leave "kindergarten"
remarks aside.

[mike.a.schwab@gmail.com]

On Mar 28, 1:40*pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 6:19*pm, "mike.a.sch...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 8:29*pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > >ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > >with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > >certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > >again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > >doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > >the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > >loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > >Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > >Andre Jute
> > > >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > > >PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > > >feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > >fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > >and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > >has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > >eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > >out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > > In the meanwhile, here is some reading:http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
>
> > > Scroll down, left column.
>
> > > Enjoy,
>
> > > Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, this document is showing the fossil fuel burned into CO2 since
> > the 1850s were already having a warming effect. *Especially since ice
> > shelfs are extremely sensitive to slight changes in water temperature.
>
> > The question really should be "When do the Florida and Bangladesh
> > refugees get sent to the winter wheat farms where the glaciers used to
> > be on Greenland?".
>
> Jesus. You mean Greenland isn't going to fall into the sea -- that
> instead it will grow bigger. Hell! That means the winds blowing from
> Greenland to Ireland will be even nastier. I'm moving to Florida, or
> may Queensland, except they're even more uncouth in Queensland than in
> Florida.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html- Hide quoted text -
>
>

The land under the Greenland Icecap should be good farmland, once the
icecap melts. The shore line might be covered up some.

Perhaps someone has a topographical map showing the land levels under
the greenland icecap, to make sure it won't be under the new sea
level?

[Bill Sornson]

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Mar 28, 6:10 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Woland99 wrote:
>>> Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
>>> in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>>
>> The warmest year on record was 1998. The earth's been /cooling/
>> since then.
>>
>> HTH (BKIW).
>
> Shut up, Bill. 1998 was a *great* year, mild and pleasant. We want
> more years like 1998. If these environmental wreckers find out about
> 1998, they will have another world conference to stop us getting
> another year like that. -- Andre Jute

Well, that's the other dirty little secret. Wildlife and humans alike
/thrive/ in warmer temps; cold...not so much.

Bill "shutting up now" S.

[Andre Jute]

Anonymous Duhboy <peteng...@yahoo.com> sputtered:
> On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 3:35 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > > > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > > > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > > > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > > > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > > > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > > > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > > > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > > > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > > > > > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > > > > > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > > > > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > > > > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > > > > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > > > > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > > > > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > > > > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > > > > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> > > > For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
> > > > perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
> > > > who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
> > > > warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
> > > > claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
> > > > claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
> > > > chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>
> > > > Andre Jute
> > > > Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
>
> > > I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> > > in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> > > in Earth science can be tricky
>
> > Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
> > spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.
>
> > > but which part of global
> > > warming theory that you find may not be correct?
>
> > I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
> > spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.
>
> Holy crap man! *WOW! *Holy ****!
>
> You just created a whole new logical paradigm: *if one causal sequence
> of events is true, then ANY OTHER CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING THE
> COMPONENTS OF THE ORIGINAL CAN'T BE TRUE! *This can be applied to a
> whole buncha stuff to prove it doesn't work! *And that stuff won't
> work, through the force of your immense intellect.
>
> And the function of causal relationships (or lack thereof) will be
> dependent on the one the causal relationship you declare first! *The
> Principle of Primacy!
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas. *When there's a lot of it in the atmosphere,
> it retains heat/energy moreso than with lower levels of CO2 in the
> atmosphere. *And BTW, Global Warming also means more, wilder weather
> swings. * Hot or cold. * Seen any of those lately, genius?
>
> Dumbass. *And you even got dumbass Bill Sornson in on the moronicism.
> Go back to sucking Lush Rimjob's **** and give up the trolling, eh?
>
> D'ohBoy

Nah, anonymous Duhboy, I'm just a simple overpaid jock who happens
also to know something about statistics. To me it seems that if CO2
emissions historically *follow* rising temperature, then CO2 emissions
are not responsible for global warming. Cause precedes effect, see?
Result follows cause, see? It's real simple for those of us with our
minds in gear.

Who is Lush Rimjob, and why should I want to suck his ****? FIY, in my
country we do leprechauns; we leave trolls to really ugly people like
you, dear anyonymous Duhboy.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre Jute's leprechaun at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/

[D'ohBoy]

On Mar 28, 2:04 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anonymous Duhboy <peteng...@yahoo.com> sputtered:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 3:35 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > > > > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > > > > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > > > > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > > > > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > > > > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > > > > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > > > > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > > > > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > > > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > > > > > > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > > > > > > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > > > > > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > > > > > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > > > > > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > > > > > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > > > > > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > > > > > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > > > > > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> > > > > For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
> > > > > perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
> > > > > who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
> > > > > warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
> > > > > claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
> > > > > claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
> > > > > chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>
> > > > > Andre Jute
> > > > > Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
>
> > > > I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> > > > in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> > > > in Earth science can be tricky
>
> > > Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
> > > spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.
>
> > > > but which part of global
> > > > warming theory that you find may not be correct?
>
> > > I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
> > > spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.
>
> > Holy crap man! WOW! Holy ****!
>
> > You just created a whole new logical paradigm: if one causal sequence
> > of events is true, then ANY OTHER CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING THE
> > COMPONENTS OF THE ORIGINAL CAN'T BE TRUE! This can be applied to a
> > whole buncha stuff to prove it doesn't work! And that stuff won't
> > work, through the force of your immense intellect.
>
> > And the function of causal relationships (or lack thereof) will be
> > dependent on the one the causal relationship you declare first! The
> > Principle of Primacy!
>
> > CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When there's a lot of it in the atmosphere,
> > it retains heat/energy moreso than with lower levels of CO2 in the
> > atmosphere. And BTW, Global Warming also means more, wilder weather
> > swings. Hot or cold. Seen any of those lately, genius?
>
> > Dumbass. And you even got dumbass Bill Sornson in on the moronicism.
> > Go back to sucking Lush Rimjob's **** and give up the trolling, eh?
>
> > D'ohBoy
>
> Nah, anonymous Duhboy, I'm just a simple overpaid jock who happens
> also to know something about statistics. To me it seems that if CO2
> emissions historically *follow* rising temperature, then CO2 emissions
> are not responsible for global warming. Cause precedes effect, see?
> Result follows cause, see? It's real simple for those of us with our
> minds in gear.
>
> Who is Lush Rimjob, and why should I want to suck his ****? FIY, in my
> country we do leprechauns; we leave trolls to really ugly people like
> you, dear anyonymous Duhboy.
>
> Andre Jute
> Visit Andre Jute's leprechaun athttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/


Andre the Intellectual Giant:

You totally miss the point. One causal relationship does not exclude
others. Yes, there was a bit of a bait and switch there in Gore's
discussion of CO2 levels. I agree, going from rising temps being
correlated with and linked in a causal fashion to rising CO2 levels
doesn't prove the inverse of the causal relationship.

However, the suggestion that a rise in CO2, which has been proven to
be a 'greenhouse gas', couldn't cause a rise in overall global
temperatures BECAUSE there is another causal relationship that says
that rising temps cause a rise in C02, is patently wrongheaded and an
utterly false syllogism.

Let me diagram for you your utterly childish and faulty syllogism
(pleased note that this is EXACTLY what you argued):

a has been shown to cause b;
b is happening

ERGO:

b could not have caused a.

Clear? If not clear yet, the first assertion is NOT 'IF AND ONLY IF'
but rather 'NON-EXCLUSIVE CORRELATION/CAUSATION HAS BEEN SHOWN'.

D'ohBoy

P.S.: You people who claim you are using your real name because you
have put two names down at the bottom of your post crack me up.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 28, 7:25*pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:32*pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 1:29*am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 4:03*pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> > > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > I would think your KT66s would keep you warm enough. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> > I have an amp with KT66 of course -- every serious audiophile has --
> > but I don't play them much as they're on a pair of Quad II I
> > repatriated for my retirement from Japan in an exchange for one of the
> > amps I concocted, and on a couple of other pairs I have, one awaiting
> > a rebuild, one on loan to a less fortunate audiophile. But KT66 hardly
> > put out any heat in comparison to the absolutely ***** of heat
> > generators, my Class A1 80W single-ended "Millennium's End" amps with
> > 300Bs to drive the Svetlana SV572-3. If you know that a single-ended
> > amp is doing *well* if it reaches 20% efficiency, you can imagine how
> > much heat that amp generated; each driver 300B had it its power shunt-
> > regulated by its own SV372-10. But I didn't break it up because of the
> > heat, but because a four-unit amp with hundreds of volts just on the
> > signal lines, never mind the kilovolt powerlines, is a bloody
> > dangerous implement -- or so I sanctimoniously told people; the true
> > reason was that the thing, with so many hefty transformers on it, was
> > an absolute backbreaker to move, and I move my amps all the time. I
> > used it to drive my QUAD ESL63 electrostats, just because people said
> > I couldn't do it. Right now I'm playing a tiny 6SL7/6SN7 high-voltage
> > headphone amp, also of my own devising, to drive STAX electrostratic
> > headphones. (Well, before the usual ignorant net crocodiles call me a
> > liar, the signal section is tiny; the power supply is twice the size
> > of a 140W silicon camp sitting under the same table.)
>
> That's right, you have Quad speakers and not Quad amps (at least not
> in your system). *That's why I was thinking the KT66s. You must be a
> favorite of the local electric utility. *Around here, your heat output
> and power usage would get you investigated for being an indoor pot
> growing operation. -- Jay Beattie.

I have a Quad amp in permanent readiness too, an old QUAD 405 MK II,
which is my standby amp from the days when I wrote a syndicated column
on recorded music against a weekly deadline. But after a while my
record collection included all the music I could play for the rest of
my life, so I stopped. The 405 just hasn't been removed from the
lowest shelf in the years since it stopped being instantly required if
the tube amp in use clocked out while I was playing a disc I wanted to
write about.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute]

So, Woe, you're confessing that you, a guy who claims to have a degree
in geophysics, called me names in a discussion of global warning --
and that you never even saw the IPCC data series on CO2 emissions and
temperature rise! This is crazy man. You should find out what you're
supposed to be talking about -- check the facts! -- before you start
calling people names. It is clowns like you who give all
environmentalists a bad name.

Andre Jute
Just the fax, mam

On Mar 28, 7:41*pm, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:36 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey, Woe, I don't want to waste a lot of time on your kindergarden
> > debating tricks, but don't you think it a bit odd for someoone who
> > brags about "having degree in geophysics", as you do, to ask me for a
> > reference to the IPCC data correlating temperature rise and CO2
> > emissions? What sort of an school gave you that degree if you still
> > have to ask such a fresher question?
>
> > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > On Mar 28, 7:24 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well since you are so polite and articulate in making your point...
> I finished geophysics 26 years ago then was doing PhD in finite
> element analysis of semiconductor devices for a brief time and
> then started programming.
> SO I would appreciate if you just post that link to data on CO2
> level following rise of global temperature and prove it is not
> related to release of CO2 from the oceans. And leave "kindergarten"
> remarks aside.


> > > On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
> > > > > in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
> > > > > in Earth science can be tricky
>
> > > > Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
> > > > spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.
>
> > > I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I meant is that
> > > in geophysics controlled experiment on a large scale is impossible -
> > > we cannot control some parameters and measure others and try to
> > > create mathematical model based on such measurements (control voltage
> > > measure resistance and infer resistance). We can only measure selected
> > > set (hopefully complete set of parameters) during processes that
> > > occur
> > > naturally. That requires somewhat complete modeling and assumptions
> > > how
> > > different part of the models (terms in set of equations) can dominate
> > > behaviour in different. Which meachanism can be uncoupled and which
> > > neglected. Not sure why you mention chaos theory - we do not know -
> > > and
> > > cannot know precise boundary condition and while short term behavior
> > > is
> > > most certainly chaotic we try to find presence of global trends.
>
> > > > I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
> > > > spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.
>
> > > Please provide a reference. What would be the source of CO2 that is
> > > emited when temperature rises? Could it be that ocean was heating up
> > > and CO2 became less soluble in water and hence released into
> > > atmosphere?
>
> > > > The guys who said the IPCC rewrote their reports to say the opposite
> > > > of what they had written were severely discouraged by having their
> > > > grants taken away, and told they couldn't sue the government. You
> > > > should just count the big names who are supposed to have signed IPCC
> > > > papers who say they never said that, or agreed to the other thing.
>
> > > That is some hearsay - you want to tell me that there is some sort of
> > > dark cabal of climatologists forcing everybody to change their data
> > > or
> > > else be ostracized? Hmmmmm - not sure if anybody can convince you o/w.
> > > It may be possible in one institution. But science is global. And
> > > nobody
> > > can control ALL the research. That is a fairytale.
>
> > > > Anyway, a consensus of guys with grants at stake?
>
> > > Not just grants. You falsify data and it just takes one reviewer to
> > > take closer look and you are DEAD - you career is over - nobody would
> > > take such risk.
>
> > > > I can remember when I couldn't
> > > > get promoted because I was not a Keynesian
>
> > > OK so now comes "chip on the shoulder story" - thank for admitting
> > > that.
>
> > > > Ugh. That's not risk management. That's scare-mongering of the same
> > > > sort we saw with the atom bomb (which brought world peace)
>
> > > One word. Dirty bomb.
>
> > > > and nuclear
> > > > power (which is still the only clean power that is actually
> > > > deliverable in enough megawatts).
>
> > > and Chernobyl.
>
> > > > Kyoto is the most expensive guilt-
> > > > trip the world has ever seen, billions spent to show we "care"; nobody
> > > > now thinks it will work, but that too was presented as "the
> > > > precautionary principle".
>
> > > Lots of words and no proof. And some nonchalant hand-waving a'la
> > > "nobody believes". Well let's see who in the know believes?
>
> > > > Try this instead: That you will die is
> > > > certain; when is uncertain and it bothers some people with not enough
> > > > to keep them occupied. A precaution against the uncertainty of your
> > > > moment of death is to cut your wrists right now -- you can act to
> > > > reduce the uncertainty to zero.
>
> > > Analogies (esp faulty) do not prove anything.
>
> > > > Environmental threats are without exception created and
> > > > "managed" by committees, and at that committees with a constant
> > > > financial interest in keeping the threat alive.
>
> > > Polar ice melting at unheard before rate is not managed by a
> > > committee. It is not some abstract creation. It is measurable FACT.
>
> > > > The fellow in your film glides smoothly over a big lie right near the
> > > > beginning of his little story when he's standing before his 3x3 grid
> > > > of possible actions and outcomes. He says, "If we do something
> > > > significant to prevent global warming." That's the sort of lie you
> > > > hear from tele-evangelists, plastic guttering salesmen and Mormon
> > > > missionaries. He doesn't know the outcome of any of his actions, you
> > > > don't, I don't. We don't know what is "significant" action. What we do
> > > > know is that natural forces are larger than any manmade significance..
>
> > > That is only halfway correct. Computer models can predict the outcome
> > > of your actions - like eg. cutting CO2 emissions. Those models can be
> > > to
> > > some degree verified and refined by fitting them to correctly model
> > > past
> > > behavior given (more or less correct initial data - 60 or 100 years
> > > ago
> > > and our best estimates of CO2 released into atmosphere during that
> > > period).
> > > And that is NOT witchcraft - you can fine-tune and verify your
> > > modeling.
> > > Then you ask to extrapolate trends forward and try to run them with
> > > different
> > > level of CO2 emissions. Now what exactly is so hard about that?
>
> > > > What offends me most about most environmentalists is their hubris,
> > > > their belief that they matter, that our moment in time must at all
> > > > costs be preserved, that change is evil. Their attitude is inspired by
> > > > fear, and evolution will eventually rid the genome of them. Good
> > > > riddance.
>
> > > That is philosophy and personal opinion - possibly inspired by your
> > > bad
> > > experience in grad school or on post-doc position. But OK - you do
> > > not
> > > "like" environmentalists - what does that have to do with the
> > > question
> > > of how accurate climate modeling currently is?
>

[Andre Jute]

Anonymoius Duhboy wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2:04 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Anonymous Duhboy <peteng...@yahoo.com> sputtered:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 28, 3:35 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> > > > > > > > ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> > > > > > > > with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year.. I
> > > > > > > > certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> > > > > > > > again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> > > > > > > > doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> > > > > > > > the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> > > > > > > > loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> > > > > > > > Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
>
> > > > > > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > > > > > > > PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
> > > > > > > > feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> > > > > > > > fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> > > > > > > > and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> > > > > > > > has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> > > > > > > > eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> > > > > > > > out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
>
> > > > > > > Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
> > > > > > > in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
>
> > > > > > For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
> > > > > > perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
> > > > > > who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
> > > > > > warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
> > > > > > claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
> > > > > > claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
> > > > > > chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
>
> > > > > > Andre Jute
> > > > > > Cyclists don't have to be fashion