Prev: weight
Next: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
From: kdthrge on 19 Apr 2007 02:10
On Apr 18, 12:20 pm, Lloyd <lpar...(a)emory.edu> wrote:

>
> > IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do
> > some thinking on your own?
>
> OK, I'll choose the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, EPA, NASA,
> NOAA, IPCC, and thousands of articles in scientific journals.

All this proves is that the college kids in order to get a degree must
regurgitate what is expected of them. Some of these kids get hired out
of school to organizations that use letters to denote their name. None
of this has anything to do with science. Science is the demonstration
of method in the determination of cause and effect. Far too many
poorly educated idiots collecting a public check and agreeing to
nonscientific assumptions in collective stupidity, does not establish
science.

So Lloyd, if scientific analyses proves that these multitudes of
articles are based upon invalid assumption, and that for the most
part, each of the articles quotes from the other articles and are
generally just a rewrite of the same old stale grenhouse theory paper
that no one ever bothered to link up to actual science or labortatory
investigation, besides the enjoyment found with stroking on the IR
transparent test tube, does that mean that each of these individuals
can be held criminally and civilly liable for their complicity in the
very serious crime that you are complicit ?????
Thanks for penning the names of those organizations that are
submitting science to the world for evaluation. The investigation is
just beginning.

Sad you should mention the IPCC. You always claim that your assertions
have all met the full brunt of peer review. The IPCC can be proved in
mathematical form to be guilty of fraud due to their lack of
acknowledgment of peer review and the continued fabrication of science
(their obbsesion with their mentally fabricated graphs), and the
continued manufacture of seditious propaganda. I wonder where the hell
they get the money for their criminal enterprise against free people
of the world??

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a pyschological disease. Seek professional help and buy
an air conditioner.


From: Bill Ward on 19 Apr 2007 03:55
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote:

> In article <pan.2007.04.18.23.40.15.840224(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill
> Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:57:56 +0000, mmeron wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
>>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
>>>>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:

<snip>

>>>>>>Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money.
>>>>>>Leftists always know how to spend your money better than you do, so
>>>>>>they feel obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they
>>>>>>always say they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as
>>>>>>everyone who makes more money than you do, and split the loot with
>>>>>>you, if you'll vote for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy
>>>>> votes using voters money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>>>>> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
>>>>> same"
>>>>
>>>>Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars
>>>>to get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My
>>>>hunch is that the government has too much power, and they're selling it
>>>>off to the highest bidder.
>>>>
>>> Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple
>>> case of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it).
>>>
>>> In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute
>>> monarchy and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural, the
>>> people who had most of the wealth also had most of the power.
>>> Straightforward. Now, with democracy we're trying to achieve the
>>> impossible and decouple wealth and power. Well, it doesn't really
>>> work. What we manage to achieve is to create a gradient of wealth and
>>> of power. On one side we've a group of people who (to begin with) have
>>> great power but little wealth while on the other side we've the
>>> opposite. Once the gradients are established, you get flow, where
>>> wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those in power trade
>>> some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth.
>>>
>>> When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls
>>> for more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think
>>> those are his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the first
>>> thing bought and sold are the regulators".
>>>
>>> Mind you, while I'm not a naive idealist I'm not totally cynical either
>>> and I do recognize that there are people who get into the power
>>> structure not to enrich themselves but in order to effect "some change
>>> in the world". However:
>>>
>>> 1) They are a minority.
>>> 2) Once they find themselves within the system they're mostly forced
>>> to play by its rules.
>>> 3) If they're really sincere, they can be very dangerous. Throughout
>>> history people who sincerely believed in their mission caused way more
>>> damage than plain crooks.
>>>
>>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>>> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
>>> same"
>>
>>Well put, Mati. I've sometimes wondered if we should choose our
>>political representatives randomly like we do juries. And anyone who
>>sincerely wanted the job would be automatically disqualified.
>>Stochastocracy, anyone?
>>
> I think the idea has merit, especially the part about automatic
> disqualification of those who seek the job. Beyond this, two
> observations:
>
> 1) There is a fable by the French writer La Fontaine, where you've a
> wounded soldier lying on the battlefield, awaiting treatment. In the
> meantime his friend sits down next to him and, trying to comfort him,
> tries to chase the flies away from his wounds. "Leave them alone" says
> the wounded soldier, "they are quite gorged already. If you chase them
> away they'll be replaced by new ones who'll be hungry". So, while it
> sounds counterintuitive to some, I would argue that you'll get a less
> corrupt government if membership will be limited to wealthy people, in
> fact just to "old wealth" (second generation at least) since they're not
> hungry anymore.
>
> There is a common public belief that if we elect people "more like us",
> i.e. like the general public, then they'll be more sympathetic to our
> problems. sounds nice but empirical evidence doesn't appear to support
> it.
>
> 2) All else aside, the more we ask the government to control and
> regulate, the more corruption we'll get. Mencken's point and it is
> inevitable.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

On point one, we're pretty much already restricted to those who
can either afford to run, or have enough well connected friends who can
fund them. I don't personally think campaign funding reform is ever going
to work, but maybe just being explicit as you say would work.

On point two, if the government doesn't have a power, politicians can't
sell it. Maybe we should revisit the Interstate Commerce issue, and give
the excess powers back to the States, or to the people.

You're no fun to argue with, Mati - we agree too much.

Bill Ward

From: mike3 on 19 Apr 2007 04:36
On Apr 17, 7:39 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
> mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
> They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
> and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.
>
> But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible without
> the deliberate genocide of much of the population.
>

It is possible if we were to get our individual energy use down
far enough.

> The alternative of rebuilding power plants is so expensive as to
> require the bulk of the gross national product and indeed beyond the
> cost of even the total estimated US wealth of 30 trillion dollars.
>
> This drive to eliminate CO2 emissions, will require the expenditure of
> considerable amount of fuel, if only in the construction of new plants
> which also require considerable concrete which is responsible for 5%
> of anthropogenic CO2 as it is.
>
> Nuclear power plants may not need carbon based fuels to operate. But
> they are very expensive to build and it is very expensive and
> dangerous to deal with the spent fuel, besides the danger of accident.
>
> It is impossible to modify existing power plants to restrict CO2.
> A plant so designed, uses much more fuel, nearly twice as much, to
> deliver the same energy to the consumer.
>
> An 80% reduction in emissions will require a 50% increase in the use
> of fuel. Otherwise, the essential services of the population will have
> to be averted.
>
> The plan of the caps and trade to make energy more expensive and the
> price of energy traded on an open market is sheer ludicrous insantity.
> In electrical production, it can only lead to emission reduction by
> the direct strangulation from the essential use of electrictiy. The
> price of electrictiy will rise, and the same CO2 will go into the air
> for each kilowatt hour.
>
> Those who wish to claim success in europe with this system which
> punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, have no actual
> understanding of the situation. A better perspective would be what
> happened in California when the fraud was presented and enacted of the
> benefits of deregulation of electrical production. This only led to
> the corruption that directly and deliberately frauded the state of
> California, and caused the widespead brownouts and effect on the
> economy.
>
> The governer of California was deposed for this. And now the people of
> California have done the same thing by allowing their politicians to
> enact the same sort of fraud and forthcoming extortion from the
> essential needs for electrical power. Perhaps these politicians are
> expecting to be safely in the grave, before retribution for their
> actions can be exacted.
>
> These proponents of this insane control of energy and reduction in CO2
> which in truth has absolutely no effect on global warming, should also
> present actual mathematics on the actual reduction in global CO2 that
> could be incurred.
>
> The fact of CO2 emissions, is that without the halt of the burning of
> the tropical forest which convert CO2 to oxygen, this 80% reduction in
> US emissions will have absolutely no effect upon global CO2 increase.
>
> Those proposing and supporting this form of genocide, by calling for
> 80% reduction in emissions, should be made aware of the critical facts
> and the crime of which they are complicite.
>
> Deatherage

I do not support genocide. You support a straw man.

From: kdthrge on 19 Apr 2007 20:31
On Apr 18, 12:27 pm, Lloyd <lpar...(a)emory.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:39 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
> > mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
>
> And a repeal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics too.

You are such a classic propagandist. Play on the antagonism of the
petulant minds that likewise enjoy your superstition, and you can
enjoy your communal hatred and insanity, together. Why don't you head
on down to the rally and chant your hate slogans?

What the hell do you know about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics? This
means very little without the concept of entropy. You obviously know
nothing of either.

Suppose you consider a column of air 1 meter sq., from sea level to 6
kilometers. At 6 kilometers the air pressure is 1/2. The temperature
at this altitude is about -30F. Suppose the air at the surface is 90F.
What is the entropy of the entire column of air for 1degC??
What is the entropy of the bottom cubic meter??
What is the entropy of the top cubic meter for 1degC??
So what is the entropy difference for the top cubic meter, to acheive
the state of the lowest cubic meter??

If grenhouse gases supposedly stop radiation that would otherwise
leave the system and not be absorbed into the heat, what temperature
must the top half of the column reach in order to have the energy to
increase the temperature of the bottom half by 1degC?
How can you justify your theory of radiative forcing by any
mathematics which in any way are from actual thermodynamics of heat??

The surface of the earth receives a quantity of direct radiation. The
surface is in a state of practicle equilibrium, since temperatures and
averages are not radically changing.
Therefore, each day, the surface must lose equivelent energy that it
recieves. Practically, the earth absorbs more than it radiates to
40deg latitude. Above this latitude it radiates more than it recieves.

But the point is, each day this equivelence in Joules is lost from the
surface, and must transpire and leave the atmosphere. Even to change
this rate of loss by 7Wm-2 over the entire surface of the earth ,
would increase the temperature of the atmosphere 1degC in about 17
days according to the heat capacity of the atmosphere.

So if you consider the fourth power law of temperature to energy, and
the entropy of the air at sea level for 1degC, how can you in any way
justify the concept of radiative forcing to the top of the
troposphere?

You only attribute the false concept of radiative forcing to this
altitude, because if the CO2 affected temperatures, it could be
detected in direct experiments within very short distances from the
surface. Of course with your theoretical ideas, you can claim a
process of radiative forcing which you cannot demonstrate in the
laboratory by any means.

Also, each cubic meter of air has a specific entropy.
This must be fulfilled with actual quantity of energy in calories or
Joules. The mystical power of CO2 that is claimed but cannot be
demonstrated in the laboratory is fraud.

But you know what is really funny, Lloyd??
My analyses of this here is very rough, this is not my profession. If
your analyses of this is not perfect, you are guilty of heinous crime.
To late to bone up, chump.
hahahahHAHAHAHhahahHhahahahHHAHAHAHAH
HAhahahcrackpotlloydhahahahahcrackpotlloydhahahahahah

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a pyschological disease. Seek professional help and buy
an air conditioner.


From: kdthrge on 19 Apr 2007 20:49
On Apr 19, 2:36 am, mike3 <mike4...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:39 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
> > mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
> > They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
> > and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.
>
;> > But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible
without
'> > the deliberate genocide of much of the population.
>
;> It is possible if we were to get our individual energy use down far
enough.

That is a very cute collection of words. Mostly we use energy for our
essential needs. Your imagined centralized organization of material
and authority for your idealized result would be nothing more than a
modern Stalin 5 year plan. And it is entirely analogous to the insane
parnoias and mandates that the Chinese went through in the early years
of communism. Such as when they decided the sparrows were eating all
the grain, and they went on a national program to kill the sparrows.

Get a real life and quit your overblown Simms video game for other
peoples lives. Even to just make electricity more expensive would kill
a certain number of old people who could not afford air conditioning.
If you tolerate this from of genocide, you are a skunk of AGW. Your
own fate should be the same.

You have no idea how difficult it is to run a profitable business. You
have no idea how difficult it is to be a working person, and pay your
bills for the essentials of life without being driven into poverty by
some idiots with shortsitedness and long little fingers they want to
get up everybodies butt., and nothing but dogmatic slogans which they
put off to be science, for their insane contemplations of reality.

The 80% reduction target is complete insanity and way beyond the
genocide level for emissions reductions.

Deatherage


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: weight
Next: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame