Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

On Oct 17, 9:28*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:53:43 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
This from the nutcase who is here *on record as saying that, in his
esteemed opinion, bird life is more valuable than human life.

I have never said that. I believe I said something along the lines that
an entire species of some birds is more valuable than some (unspecified)
number of individual human lives. You're welcome to disagree, but I
don't think my position is extreme or unusual.

You didn't limit your previous comments to an entire species of birds,
did you? What species? Unadulterated BS based upon a ridiculous book
written by an overwrought Green with no expertise in the field.
"Silent Spring" indeed. What bird species were "wiped out" in the US
during the extensive use of DDT to control mosquitoes?
Specifics please.

But they
are mostly Black Africans so they don't count, right?

So that's your position? I understand you better now.

What don't you understand about a rhetorical question? Malaria is
killing folks mostly in Africa, right? What color are most Africans?
Pink?? Gave you credit for intelligence you obviously don't have.


Do you have any clue, for example, how many birds the massive wind
turbine farms called for by the Greens would kill?

No. And I don't recall ever advocating massive wind turbine farms. And
if wind farms turn out to be a viable way of generating significant
energy, I don't necessarily think that a large number of bird deaths are
too high a price to pay.

Even if the massive turbines wipe out "an entire species" of migrating
birds? Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, right?



What the downwind
weather effectof *removing all that energy from prevailing winds might
be?

You can't honestly believe there's a valid argument here? We don't have
the physical resources to build enough wind turbines to measurably
reduce the energy from any wind pattern.

And you base this statement on ?????
Specifics please. What have been the results of environmental studies
on the deployment of massive wind farms as espoused by the Greens?
Have there been ANY studies?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You didn't limit your previous comments to an entire species of birds,
did you? What species?

What I said, specifically, was:

Personally, I place more value on an entire species of bird (eagle,
osprey, etc) than I do on the number of lives lost to malaria. That's a
matter of personal philosophy, however. It has nothing to do with
science.

Unadulterated BS based upon a ridiculous book
written by an overwrought Green with no expertise in the field.
"Silent Spring" indeed. What bird species were "wiped out" in the US
during the extensive use of DDT to control mosquitoes?

What I said above is all I said. I didn't say that any species was wiped
out (although it seems quite certain that a number of raptor species
were well on their way, and that because of the overuse or misuse of
DDT). BTW, I also said that I wasn't opposed to the use of DDT, and that
most of the problems it has caused have been the result of years of
misuse (which not only resulted in the near extinction of some valuable
species, but also produced a high level of resistance in mosquitoes and
may ultimately result in more human suffering).


Even if the massive turbines wipe out "an entire species" of migrating
birds?

Well, that's why we are wise to consider the environmental effects of
large projects. My position would be that if enough birds were killed to
cause a species to go extinct (particularly a very distinct species), an
extremely high value would need to be demonstrated by the project. More
than I think could reasonably be shown. If the overall population of the
bird species was only slightly or moderately affected, such a project
might well be acceptable.


You can't honestly believe there's a valid argument here? We don't have
the physical resources to build enough wind turbines to measurably
reduce the energy from any wind pattern.

And you base this statement on ?????

Common sense. Winds near the ground are the lowest speed winds, up to
tens of kilometers high. Turbines only extract a few percent at most of
the wind energy, and only from a fairly small cross section of the total
volume of the farm. And the biggest farms we could build would cover
only a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface. Any small forest or
mountain is obviously going to have a much greater impact on wind
patterns than a turbine farm.

There are any number of environmental tradeoffs to consider when it
comes to wind power generation, but the effects of removing a bit of
kinetic energy from natural air currents is not one of them.


Specifics please. What have been the results of environmental studies
on the deployment of massive wind farms as espoused by the Greens?
Have there been ANY studies?

Of course. Even the most cursory web search would answer that question.
Wind farms are evaluated for their impact on birds and animals, on their
effects on groundwater, on secondary effects from the transport of
power, on their true efficiency based on the energy cost of building and
maintaining the turbines, and more.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 17, 10:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
You didn't limit your previous comments to an entire species of birds,
did you? What species?

What I said, specifically, was:

Personally, I place more value on an entire species of bird (eagle,
osprey, etc) than I do on the number of lives lost to malaria. That's a
matter of personal philosophy, however. It has nothing to do with
science.

Unadulterated BS based upon a ridiculous book
written by an overwrought Green with no expertise in the field.
"Silent Spring" indeed. What bird species were "wiped out" in the US
during the extensive use of DDT to control mosquitoes?

What I said above is all I said. I didn't say that any species was wiped
out (although it seems quite certain that a number of raptor species
were well on their way, and that because of the overuse or misuse of
DDT). BTW, I also said that I wasn't opposed to the use of DDT, and that
most of the problems it has caused have been the result of years of
misuse (which not only resulted in the near extinction of some valuable
species, but also produced a high level of resistance in mosquitoes and
may ultimately result in more human suffering).

Even if the massive turbines wipe out "an entire species" of migrating
birds?

Well, that's why we are wise to consider the environmental effects of
large projects. My position would be that if enough birds were killed to
cause a species to go extinct (particularly a very distinct species), an
extremely high value would need to be demonstrated by the project. More
than I think could reasonably be shown. If the overall population of the
bird species was only slightly or moderately affected, such a project
might well be acceptable.

You can't honestly believe there's a valid argument here? We don't have
the physical resources to build enough wind turbines to measurably
reduce the energy from any wind pattern.

And you base this statement on ?????

Common sense. Winds near the ground are the lowest speed winds, up to
tens of kilometers high. Turbines only extract a few percent at most of
the wind energy, and only from a fairly small cross section of the total
volume of the farm. And the biggest farms we could build would cover
only a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface. Any small forest or
mountain is obviously going to have a much greater impact on wind
patterns than a turbine farm.

There are any number of environmental tradeoffs to consider when it
comes to wind power generation, but the effects of removing a bit of
kinetic energy from natural air currents is not one of them.

Specifics please. What have been the results of environmental studies
on the deployment of massive wind farms as espoused by the Greens?
Have there been ANY studies?

Of course. Even the most cursory web search would answer that question.
Wind farms are evaluated for their impact on birds and animals, on their
effects on groundwater, on secondary effects from the transport of
power, on their true efficiency based on the energy cost of building and
maintaining the turbines, and more.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Ah, selective clipping of my message, responses consisting of banal
generalities and selective answers-the last resort of those spouting
nonsense.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Ah, selective clipping of my message, responses consisting of banal
generalities and selective answers-the last resort of those spouting
nonsense.

Well, I tried to respond to what I perceived as the salient points in
your post. I you feel I failed, some specifics would be helpful.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 17, 10:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course. Even the most cursory web search would answer that question.
Wind farms are evaluated for their impact on birds and animals, on their
effects on groundwater, on secondary effects from the transport of
power, on their true efficiency based on the energy cost of building and
maintaining the turbines, and more.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Like this, I guess:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2...ng_weather.htm

And, of course, huge backup generators ( powered by ??? ) would still
be required because wind has a nasty tendency to be variable to say
the least. You do understand how ac current works I assume. Load??

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:46:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course. Even the most cursory web search would answer that question.
Wind farms are evaluated for their impact on birds and animals, on their
effects on groundwater, on secondary effects from the transport of
power, on their true efficiency based on the energy cost of building and
maintaining the turbines, and more.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Like this, I guess:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2...ng_weather.htm

That isn't a response to what I asked for. However, the article is
interesting. But it doesn't say a lot. Really big wind farms _might_
have a _small_ effect on _local_ weather conditions. Of course, there
are a lot of ifs, and nothing at all to suggest this is even a problem.
I find it amusing that you seem to place a lot of confidence in a
single, model-based study (which appears to be quite preliminary), while
at the same time arguing that much more sophisticated and well supported
models, which show a significant man-made contribution to global climate
change, are somehow worthless.

Of course, this is typical of bad science these days (AKA Bush science).
Base your views or policy on a narrowly selected subset of the
literature, not the body of evidence as a whole.


And, of course, huge backup generators ( powered by ??? ) would still
be required because wind has a nasty tendency to be variable to say
the least. You do understand how ac current works I assume. Load??

I don't really understand why we are talking about wind generators at
all. I never made them the subject of discussion, and I haven't taken
any real stand either for or against them as being useful or desirable
for large scale power generation.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 17, 12:23*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:46:33 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course. Even the most cursory web search would answer that question..
Wind farms are evaluated for their impact on birds and animals, on their
effects on groundwater, on secondary effects from the transport of
power, on their true efficiency based on the energy cost of building and
maintaining the turbines, and more.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Like this, I guess:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2..._impacting_wea...

That isn't a response to what I asked for. However, the article is
interesting. But it doesn't say a lot. Really big wind farms _might_
have a _small_ effect on _local_ weather conditions. Of course, there
are a lot of ifs, and nothing at all to suggest this is even a problem.
I find it amusing that you seem to place a lot of confidence in a
single, model-based study (which appears to be quite preliminary), while
at the same time arguing that much more sophisticated and well supported
models, which show a significant man-made contribution to global climate
change, are somehow worthless.

Of course, this is typical of bad science these days (AKA Bush science).
Base your views or policy on a narrowly selected subset of the
literature, not the body of evidence as a whole.

And, of course, huge backup generators ( powered by ??? ) would still
be required because wind has a nasty tendency to be variable to say
the least. You do understand how ac current works I assume. Load??

I don't really understand why we are talking about wind generators at
all. I never made them the subject of discussion, and I haven't taken
any real stand either for or against them as being useful or desirable
for large scale power generation.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Great answer and totally to be expected. There is a fascinating
article in the new issue of Forbes that equates the global warming
"theories" to any other faith-based religion complete with "prophets"
like Al Gore and Boone Pickens who cynically exploit for money the
"true believers" . You do read Forbes, don't you?

Man-made CO2 "significantly" affects global warning? You also don't
know how to use the language precisely. What the hell does
"significantly" mean to you in this context?

Do water vapor and cloud cover have perhaps an even more "significant"
effect? Do we know definitively that such things as sun cycles have no
"significant" effect on global warming ( which, btw, has occurred
numerous times in the recorded historical past long before the the
20th century ).

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:06:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Man-made CO2 "significantly" affects global warning? You also don't
know how to use the language precisely. What the hell does
"significantly" mean to you in this context?

In this case, it means that probably most, and almost certainly more
than half, of the global warming observed in the last 100 years has been
caused, directly or indirectly, by humans. Mostly from the release of
CO2 used for generating energy. That viewpoint is consistent with the
majority of well supported climate theories, and with the opinion of the
majority of climate scientists. While you're free to disagree with it,
you are not free to disregard it or treat it as bad science unless you
don't care to be taken seriously at all.

Do water vapor and cloud cover have perhaps an even more "significant"
effect?

These elements are both significant in determining climate. They are
important in the current context because both are also influenced by
human activities.

Do we know definitively that such things as sun cycles have no
"significant" effect on global warming ( which, btw, has occurred
numerous times in the recorded historical past long before the the
20th century ).

We have strong evidence that sun cycles are important factors in long
term climate change on the Earth. Changes in the Sun are not widely
considered to be significant factors in climate change in the last
century or two.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 17, 1:54*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:06:51 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Man-made CO2 "significantly" affects global warning? You also don't
know how to use the language *precisely. What the hell does
"significantly" mean to you in this context?

In this case, it means that probably most, and almost certainly more
than half, of the global warming observed in the last 100 years has been
caused, directly or indirectly, by humans. Mostly from the release of
CO2 used for generating energy. That viewpoint is consistent with the
majority of well supported climate theories, and with the opinion of the
majority of climate scientists. While you're free to disagree with it,
you are not free to disregard it or treat it as bad science unless you
don't care to be taken seriously at all.

Do water vapor and cloud cover have perhaps an even more "significant"
effect?

These elements are both significant in determining climate. They are
important in the current context because both are also influenced by
human activities.

Do we know definitively that such things as sun cycles have no
"significant" effect on global warming ( which, btw, has occurred
numerous times in the recorded historical past long before the the
20th century ).

We have strong evidence that sun cycles are important factors in long
term climate change on the Earth. Changes in the Sun are not widely
considered to be significant factors in climate change in the last
century or two.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

"Probably", "almost certainly", etc--are you trying to describe an
unproven theory or, even worse, a computer model with many
questionable assumptions?

You talk of "common sense". The panic types say we had record melting
of almost the entire northern ice cap this year. So, the world's
oceans should have risen a good bit of the 70 feet predicted by Al
Gore right?

In fact, the ocean water level rise was hardly measurable--what
happened? Did the Southern ice cap grow by a similar or larger amount
possibly?

If a "scientific theory" can't be empirically tested or it can't make
measurable predictions, it is sort of worthless, isn't it?

On Oct 17, 7:54*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:06:51 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Man-made CO2 "significantly" affects global warning? You also don't
know how to use the language *precisely. What the hell does
"significantly" mean to you in this context?

In this case, it means that probably most, and almost certainly more
than half, of the global warming observed in the last 100 years has been
caused, directly or indirectly, by humans. Mostly from the release of
CO2 used for generating energy. That viewpoint is consistent with the
majority of well supported climate theories, and with the opinion of the
majority of climate scientists. While you're free to disagree with it,
you are not free to disregard it or treat it as bad science unless you
don't care to be taken seriously at all.

Do water vapor and cloud cover have perhaps an even more "significant"
effect?

These elements are both significant in determining climate. They are
important in the current context because both are also influenced by
human activities.

Do we know definitively that such things as sun cycles have no
"significant" effect on global warming ( which, btw, has occurred
numerous times in the recorded historical past long before the the
20th century ).

We have strong evidence that sun cycles are important factors in long
term climate change on the Earth. Changes in the Sun are not widely
considered to be significant factors in climate change in the last
century or two.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

You don't even know what causes the basic seasonal variations in
daylight/darkness and that makes you stupid and dangerous when
commenting on climate studies.

The Earth orbits the Sun in a specific way insofar as a location will
turn slowly through 360 degrees with respect to the central Sun while
the separate motion of daily rotation keeps the rotational orientation
pointed in one direction in space.The combination of two separate
motions and two separate orientations generates experienced
variations on daylight and darkness everywhere but at the Equator.

If you cannot handle the annual cyclical daylight/darkness cycle,you
will certainly not be capable of handling anything more complicated
like seasonal weather patterns or climate.