The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2008 01:44 z wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > More snow here last night. > > > > Graham- > > a week before thanksgiving? damn, it's global cooling after all. We haven't had snow before Xmas here in years. A decade even ? Or more ? Graham
From: bill.sloman on 24 Nov 2008 09:34 On 23 nov, 19:12, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 07:20:23 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > On 23 nov, 15:02, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > >> > > > On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:21:04 +0000, Eeyore wrote: > >> > > > > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > >> > > > >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:00:00 +0000, Me wrote: ... > >> > > > >> > Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications > >> > > > >> > in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But > >> > > > >> > whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the > >> > > > >> > world's governments to embark on some of the most costly > >> > > > >> > economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which > >> > > > >> > may actually not exist, is a question which should give us > >> > > > >> > all pause for thought. > >> > > > >> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/o... > > >> > > > >> Hear, Hear! > > >> > > > > Crikey ! You do know it's a right wing paper I hope ? > >> > > > > ;~) > > >> > > > That's irrelevant when what they're saying is true. > > >> > > I was just pulling your leg for fun ! ;~) > > >> > > Yes, even right-wingers can be right some of the time. You know as > >> > > Parliament debated the latest > Climate Change Bill here in the UK > >> > > as snow fell on the roof for the first > >> > time that early in the year > since 1922 it was our former > >> > Conservative MP for St Albans who queried the basis of it all. > > >> > Previously I had no respect for the man other than he helped my g/f > >> > get her new car put right by BL > when the dealers couldn't. > > >> > > The Speaker of the House did what ? He told him to 'shut up' ! I > >> > > thought Parliament was for > debate. > > >> > Informed debate. Your former MP for St. Albans seems to be as ill- > >> > informed as you are, and the Speaker of the House does seem to be > >> > better-informed (which wouldn't be difficult). > > >> The Slow Man wants to stifle debate. > > >> Yes, that fits the picture. > > > I'd love it if Graham learned enough to take part in a real debate. All he > > can manage is pointing to bogus and irrelevant authorities - and he hasn't > > even bothered going that far here, since he is effectively setting himself > > up as his own (thoroughly bogus) authority on what constitutes debate. > > Perhaps you could explain in your own words the scientific basis and > evidence for your beliefs, then we could debate it properly. That would be something of a waste of time. The IPCC exists to precis the published work of the world's climatologists, and present it to the world - with a special report for the world's politicians, who set up the IPCC to do the job in the first place. http://www.ipcc.ch/ and here's their 2007 report http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf I've read enough of the published papers they cite to be happy that they are doing their job. Eeyore has this mad conspiracy theory that claims that anthropogenic global warming is an invention designed to attract more grant money for research on the climate, and that all the top climatologists collaborate in producing fake data that supports this scam. If the climatologists were capable pf orchestrating such a demanding swindle, one would expect that they'd apply their superhuman skills to a scam that would make them real money, but people demented enough to go in for conspiracy theories don't seem to be equipped to ask this kind of question. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2008 09:36 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...(a)example.net> wrote: > > Bill Ward wrote: > > > > > Perhaps you could explain in your own words the scientific basis and > > > evidence for your beliefs, then we could debate it properly. > > > > When you say, "the scientific basis and evidence for your beliefs", > > are you talking about the beliefs or the warmingsts, or the belief > > of the real scientists? In real science, we believe in the facts, > > which the warmingists avoid like a vampire avoids mirrors. > > Not exactly true. When I do point you at facts, you proceed to ignore > them. Because 'AGW facts' are rarely facts at all but 'masssaged' or 'corrected' or otherwise tinkered with, excused or eliminated to fit the theory. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2008 09:38 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > growing corn the American way requires burning enough oil to more > than counter-balance the carbon capture in the growing corn Even that's untrue. It's a common myth. The ROEI is a good 2:1 with modern processes. So the naysayers quote old methods and studies only. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2008 17:37
bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > Perhaps you could explain in your own words the scientific basis and > > evidence for your beliefs, then we could debate it properly. > > That would be something of a waste of time. Indeed because there is NONE ! It's like vapourware. Graham |