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

On Oct 18, 12:14 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I believe that some lives have negative value:
they harm me, or they harm many people.

Yes, but that is practical value. Even their lives still have the
immense intrinsic value of a human life - if they could be
rehabilitated, and brought to rejoin the human family, then to still
seek revenge, when that option is genuinely available instead, would
be wrong.

John Savard

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Yes, but that is practical value. Even their lives still have the
immense intrinsic value of a human life - if they could be
rehabilitated, and brought to rejoin the human family, then to still
seek revenge, when that option is genuinely available instead, would
be wrong.

To be clear, I don't think acting in revenge is ever a good thing.
_________________________________________________

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

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.

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

We never made a penny off the billions spent on the Apollo program, yet
it dramatically boosted our economy over time.

So it's that simple to get out of an economic depression: just start a
new project which is both horribly expensive and 100% non-profitable... g

But, seriously, your statement here is self-contradictory. Don't you
think some people make at least some pennies from an economy which
is "dramatically boosted" ???

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:32=A0am, Chris L Peterson

You should study up on law a little, too. You are committing libel here,
by accusing me of saying something that I did not say. Your action is
subject to legal action if I were so inclined; at the least, its highly
uncivil. Or maybe you simply lack the education to understand the role
of quotes in English. What's it going to be... uncivil and libelous, or
uneducated and stupid? Decisions, decisions.

What I said was that the collapse of civilization [from climate change]
is a very real possibility. That's a very different statement than what
you have attributed to me. Civilizations _have_ collapsed due to climate
shift: the Mayans (possibly by their own actions), the Anasazi, ancient
Greenlanders, and others. Modern societies in Africa have arguably
devolved to barbarism because of environmental strains. A
There is no doubt- no doubt at all- that the collapse of civilization is
a possibility that comes with global climate change. Nobody can put an
accurate number to the likelihood that this will happen; right now it's
probably a small number. But the ramifications are so negative that only
a fool would ignore the possibility.


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

LOL. I am a lawyer dipstick. What you know of the law could be put in
a thimble.

Talk to a lawyer--if you know one--he will laugh in your face.

Such a lawyer won't last long as a lawyer ..... laughing your customer
in his face is an efficient way to make sure you won't have any
customers in the future. If the lawyer think his customer is completely
wrong, there are more polite ways to tell the customer so than laughing
in his face...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
wrote:
On Oct 18, 3:16=A0am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article =
.com,



wrote:

Wrong! =A0Don't be so ignorant.... =A0ocean ice melting won't raise the
sea level at all - because that ice already is in the water. =A0Therefore
the ice cap around the North Pole melting won't raise the ocean. =A0What
will raise the sea level is when glaciers on land melts. =A0The biggest
glacier on land is of course the ices of Antarctica. =A0The second bigges=
t
is Greenland, although that one is much smaller than the one in Antarctic=
a.

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?

If this was just a "scientific theory" it would be easy, although
somewhat time consuming, to test empirically: just continue as before,
and see and measure what happens!

However, this is more than just a test of a scientific theory. =A0It is
also a likely catastrophy. =A0Which means the price to test this
scientific theory is too high. =A0Or would you be willing to probably hav=
e
your home flooded, just to test this theory? =A0If not, why do you demand
millions and millions of others living in many coastal cities around the
world to take that risk?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, =A0Grev Turegatan 40, =A0SE-114 38 Stockholm, =A0SWEDEN
e-mail: =A0pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: =A0 =A0http://stjarnhimlen.se/

You can't be unaware of the FACT that the Southern ice cap has been
GROWING in recent years. Are you simply dishonest?

What happens during a few years isn't particularly important. It's what
happens in the long run -- several decades or longer -- which is important.

And the notion that any sea level rise will occur virtually overnight
producing coastal flooding" is laughable and pathetic--you can't be
that dumb, can you?

Who claimed it would happen overnight? I certainly didn't! If it happens,
it will take years or decades, not just one or a few nights. Remember that
the Hollywood movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is just that: a Hollywood movie...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:46:26 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

And the notion that any sea level rise will occur virtually overnight
producing coastal flooding" is laughable and pathetic--you can't be
that dumb, can you?

Who said anything about "overnight"?

The Hollywood movie "The Day After Tomorrow" did. Apparently, "M104galaxy"
is taking the Hollywood movies too seriously....



The ocean has risen over the last
century, and we're paying a price for it now. An inch or two is all it
takes to make the difference between minor damage and near total
destruction from a storm surge. The ocean doesn't have to physically
rise over your house for it to have a major impact on you if you're
living on a coastline.

The most conservative models predict a sea level rise over the next
century of the better part of a meter. And a wise planner doesn't bet on
the most conservative estimate. It is near certainty that many coastal
areas are facing serious problems from ocean level increases in the near
future.
_______________________________________________ __

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


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
wrote:

You really think we can predict the weather for the next 200 years??
Pathetic.

No-one has claimed to be able to predict the weather for the next 200
years! And you, Mr Ignorant, need to educate yourself about the difference
between "cilmate" and "weather" .... yes, there is a difference! You
cannot predict the weather even one single year into the future. Yet,
you are able to tell, with an extremely high degree of certainty, that
the next summer will be warmer than the next winter .... how come if
one cannot predict the weather? Because we can predict the climate
much better than we can predict the weather....


The computer weather models are no better than cosmology computer
models--subject to dramatic changes to fit evolving data. Or perhaps
you think we now *know" all there is to know about cosmology??

No-one has ever claimed we know everything there is to know. But
do you really think that, just because there are holes in our knowledge,
we should completely ignore what we DO know?

In your private life, do you have any insurances? Life insurance?
Health insurance? Home insurance? Car insurance? Insurance of
anything else? I believe you do have at least some insurances. But
why? Nobody can, with absolute certainty, predict that you will
die young, get seriously ill, get your home burglarized or destroyed,
or get your car stolen or damaged --- so don't you think all these
insurances you take are just a big waste of your money? You should
cancel all your insurances immediately!!! After all, nobody can prove
that you won't do fine without any of them ..... right?


You can view the actions against the global warming as a kind of insurance.
It's true we don't have complete knowledge about what will happen. But
that implies we also cannot tell with certainty that nothing serious
will happen. Our best studies, with the uncertainties that all studies
always have, say that the global warming most likely will have serious
consequences we do not wish. Your response is "Since these studies aren't
completely 100% certain, I ignore them and hope that they are wrong, even
though they probably are right to great parts" - do you think such a response
is sensible? If so, do you act similarily with e.g. your life insurance and
your health insurance ("since nobody can prove with 100% certainty that
I will get seriously ill or die young, I won't take any of these
insurances") ? If so, you're at least consistent, although consistently
stupid....


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
John Savard wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:28:08 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote, in part:

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.

That is ridiculous.

One human life is (intrinsically) more valuable than ANY amount of money
or material things.

Not quite ..... I often hear the variety "one human life is priceless"
meaning that one just cannot put a monetary value on one human life.
Your interpretation is that one human life is worth an infinite amount
of money. But the world doesn't work that way - or else the governments
around the world would put no upper limit on the funds spent on things
as giving a home to homeless people so they don't have to freeze to
death in winter. Likewise, there would be no upper limit on the funds
spent on improving traffic safety so that not one single person would
die in traffic accidents. Et cetera et cetera .... in real life there
is a price on a human life.

This category, of course, includes pets, livestock,
and wild animals.

It is true that in our world, there is not enough food to feed everyone,

That's false! The problem isn't the amount of food but the distribution
of food. And the price of food!! Some poor people just caannot afford to
byt the food they need for survival - at the same time, food is destroyed
in other parts of the world because it cannot be sold for profitale prices.
Now, try to merge these facts with the notion "one human life is more
valuable than ANY amount of money" ..... if people really thought this,
no food would e thrown away but instead be transported to those who
really need it. Transportation cost would be no issue since "one human
life is more valuable than ANY amount of money" ..... again, the world
doesn't work this way.

And the world cannot work that way either ---- putting an infinite
monetary value on one single human life would mean it's quite rational
to make the whole world bankrupt just to save the life of one single
human life. Of course, making the whole world bankrupt would cause a
very large number of deaths -- preventing this would cost a large but
finite sum of money, again putting a price tag per human life....

Claiming that one human life is worth an infinite amount of money will
create another weird effect: since no infinity is larger than another
infinity, then one human life would be worth no less than a million
human lives. Again, the world doesn't work like that. In a catastrophy
situation where there aren't enough resources to save everyone, the
efforts are focused on what probably will save most people. So the
lives of 10 people are worth more than the life of one single person
in such a situation. Quite sensible - but it does imply that the value
of the life of one person is finite, not infinite.

I think it's best to say that one human life is "priceless", i.e. we
cannot put a monetary value on it. Not even an infinite monetary value...

and so enough money to save more than one life is too valuable to spend
on saving only one life somewhere else. This is practical value rather
than intrinsic value.

Thus, since many humans would die if, say, ants or earthworms became
extinct, these species have greater practical value (but not greater
intrinsic value) than a human life.

This is the human view. Now we'd like to hear the view of the ants
and of the earthworms.... or perhaps even of the Earth.... ;-)

To assign a mere thing higher intrinsic value than a human being is
idolatry.

The situation where things compete with human beings in practical value
is a bad situation, one which we should try to remedy. This is done, for
example, by increasing the power and resources available to humanity, so
that less conflict exists between human survival and the sources of that
survival.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article id,
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.astro.amateur message , Thu, 16 Oct
2008 07:14:43, Paul Schlyter posted:
In article 6hxJk.334622$TT4.282639@attbi_s22,
Sam Wormley wrote:
Hank Kroll wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In addition, if the Sun was in such an orbit, the orbital period would
be of the order of several billion years instead of a mere 105 thousand
years.

I think you exaggerate, slightly.

Earth goes around Sol in one year, at about 500 light-seconds; Sirius
and Procyon are at about 10 * 31e6 light-seconds. Other things being
equal, T is proportional to R^1.5. That gives me just under half a
billion years, to be reduced because S & P are heavier.

You're right! However, half a billion years, or 0.2 billion years,
is still much longer than just 105 thousand years. And the orbital speed
would be very slow --- perhaps some 60 feets per second.... slow enough
for the Sun to be ejected out of orbit by any star happening to pass
within a few light years. And there would be many such star passages
during 0.5 or 0.2 billion years.... so must likely the Sun would not
be able to complete even one single revolution in its orbit before
being ejected out of it.



--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/