Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 11 Jan 2010 09:06 Charlie E. <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote in news:ir4lk550l6gd3rmiugp7dnj0i9de7jnn76(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:25:55 +0000, Nobody <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>Or, more glibly: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". >> >>The people claiming that isolated weather measurements are evidence >>for or against climate change (but note: it's only ever the deniers >>who do this) *know* that the argument is nonsense. It's essentially a >>"shibboleth", a means by which members of the tribe can identify >>themselves to each other. > > Only deniers? When for years, every hurricane, tornado, or heat spell > was just another indicator of global warming? Where have you been? > > ;-) > > Charlie > IMO,the use of "deniers" is a clue that the poster is a "denier" themself. It's NOT a "settled issue". -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Jim Yanik on 11 Jan 2010 09:10 Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote in news:etblk55jmdknk4eh747a38sjd58m73fg1f(a)4ax.com: > The cost of wind energy is not just the cost of wind turbines, but > there are also a lot of infrastructural costs. > > Like solar panels,they still need maintenance. and both are not any practical replacement for current power generation needs. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: invalid on 11 Jan 2010 09:34 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:44:02 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:27:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Jan 11, 1:57�am, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >>> >>> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >No damn way! >>> >>> >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are >>> >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold >>> >spells on record with another cold front headed this way. >>> >>> Get used to it. >>> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The... >> >>The Daily Mail isn't exactly a quality newpaper, and British science >>reporting isn't wonderful, even in the quality papers. I wouldn't get >>too excited about this revelation, which the reporter has probably >>lifted from a denialist web-site. > >Which nonsense, of course, authorizes you to dismiss the peer-reviewed >journal article. And all the snow on the ground as well. > >You seem to have stopped thinking some decades ago. > >John -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHY DON'T YOU INSTEAD POST A QUESTION ABOUT A CIRCUIT?
From: invalid on 11 Jan 2010 09:34 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:06:52 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:44:02 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:27:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >>>On Jan 11, 1:57�am, John Larkin >>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>> >>>> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >No damn way! >>>> >>>> >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are >>>> >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold >>>> >spells on record with another cold front headed this way. >>>> >>>> Get used to it. >>>> >>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The... >>> >>>The Daily Mail isn't exactly a quality newpaper, and British science >>>reporting isn't wonderful, even in the quality papers. I wouldn't get >>>too excited about this revelation, which the reporter has probably >>>lifted from a denialist web-site. >> >>Which nonsense, of course, authorizes you to dismiss the peer-reviewed >>journal article. And all the snow on the ground as well. >> >>You seem to have stopped thinking some decades ago. >> >>John > >The Slow man school of science: > > http://xkcd.com/687/ -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHY DON'T YOU INSTEAD POST A QUESTION ABOUT A CIRCUIT?
From: Bill Sloman on 11 Jan 2010 18:54
On Jan 11, 4:44 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:27:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 11, 1:57 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" > > >> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> >No damn way! > > >> >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are > >> >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold > >> >spells on record with another cold front headed this way. > > >> Get used to it. > > >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The.... > > >The Daily Mail isn't exactly a quality newpaper, and British science > >reporting isn't wonderful, even in the quality papers. I wouldn't get > >too excited about this revelation, which the reporter has probably > >lifted from a denialist web-site. > > Which nonsense, of course, authorizes you to dismiss the peer-reviewed > journal article. I don't think that the journalist had understood the peer-reviewed journal article at all well (in the unlikely event that they'd actually read it). If memory serves, it certainly wasn't predicting this kind of cold snap, but merely a slowing down in the rate of global warming from the rate we saw from the late 1970's to the end of the 1990s. > And all the snow on the ground as well. The snow on the ground is just the usual winter weather - more extreme than usual, but there's no evidence that it falls outside the expectations one would have of the regular Gaussian distribution of extreme weather. > You seem to have stopped thinking some decades ago. I probably stopped having thoughts that you could follow on global warming quite some time ago, back when I started doing a bit of reading in the area. In this case, absence of evidence that you can follow isn't evidence of the absence of underlying thought processes. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |