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

On Oct 21, 12:37*pm, "M104gal, aka Potty Mouth, wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:05*pm, wrote:

On Oct 21, 10:41*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:38:45 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

Coal was used increasingly as a fuel in Europe from about AD 1000 on.
The usage increased dramatically around the late 1700s. For the most
part, this was low grade coal by modern standards, and burned almost
always in very inefficient ways.

The rise in coal burning, followed shortly by an observed rise in
atmospheric CO2 and in global warming, represents one of the stronger
pieces of evidence that the climate is influenced by human activities..
_________________________________________________

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

Interestingly, a very large part of the rise of CO2 can be attributed
to the way we grow our food now. Food production used to be solar
powered and sustainable. Not too many years ago there were 15 million
individual farms in the US, now there are only about 1 million. Most
farming is now done by large agribusinesses. Extensive uses of
hydrocarbon based fertilizer and oil for mechanized farming are
contributing a huge portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The use of
corn and soybeans as the staple of our food supply has replaced time
honored ways of land use such as crop rotation and leaving fields
fallow to replenish the soil fertility. Corn here in the Midwest is
not grown on traditional fertile soil any more, rather it is grown
with ancient hydrocarbons that we pump out of the ground. We are
literally eating oil in our daily food stuffs. Can we do this forever?

The petroleum cycle gets even more interesting. We make and use vast
quantities of plastics out of oil. These are used once and discarded.
Slowly but surely this stuff makes its way to the ocean, the ocean
being the lowest elevation on the planet. Large amounts of plastic
rides around in the top layer of the ocean, being slowly pulverized
into finer and finer bits, but never really degrading into its
molecular components. Oceanographers have found that these fine bits
of plastic, which resemble zoo plankton, are making up more and more
of the material constituents of the top few meters of the ocean water.
Filter feeders ingest them, small fish eat these filter feeders, end
eventually larger fish (tuna) eat these smaller fish. Then we eat the
fish. We are literally eating our own plastic waste (yum, have you had
your sushi today?).

Unca Rollo

The end is near, the end is near Dr Malthus


Interesting thing about the headline is that accusing the left of
policies that lead to "eventual enslavement" is a favorite tactic of
right wing regimes. Hitler used this same tactic last century to
eliminate the intellectuals that stood in his way of world dominance.
What do we have today? Take a look: http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2966

Left, right, conservative, liberal, progressive, reactionary,
permissive, exploitive - these are some of the miriad directions on
the compass of human interaction.

Unca Rollo

On Oct 21, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On the other hand, the
RC makers are doing terriffic, even in this lousy market.

Unca Rollo

"Doing terrific" when they, on average, are selling only a few units
per month. Are you for real?? The glass guy for RC Optical is begging
for work supplying anyone who asks including RC Optical's competition.

The Meade founder, John Diebel, walked over $50,000,000 out of his
company during the dot com hysteria. Timing son, timing.

On Oct 21, 2:13 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

BradGuth wrote:
Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

Since the launch of the Hipparcos satellite, the trigonometric parallax
of Sirius can be measured with an accuracy of a fraction of a percent.
Perhaps you know that the trigonometric parallax yields the distance
directly, and is not sensitive to interstellar extinction.

The "mutual closing rate" (i.e. the radial velocity) is measured
through shifts in the wavelength of spectral lines, and that method too
is insensitive to interstellar extinction.

Anything else you'd like to know?

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

Thanks so much, as I sort of knew that much but wasn't willing to so
easily give up on my manifesto without a good fight.

I still want to see everything plugged into a fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator that we can fudge those numbers here and there, just
like others get to do in order to better establish their bragging
rights as based upon public funded eye-candy.

~ BG

The topic of “cosmological ice ages” and subtopics of global warming
that’s only partially caused by way of artificial means, are simply
deductive formulated analogies, though certainly offering subjective
interpretation as limited by the best available science, and if
perchance I’m not sufficiently right, then perhaps neither are you or
the rest of your collective mainstream mindset that apparently isn’t
allowed to connect dots.

-

Venus might as well be reclassified as an exoplanet.

A nearby Epsilon Eridani w/exoplanet of 1.6 Jupiter mass, orbiting at
3.4 AU from a slightly smaller and cooler (perhaps 30% luminosity
because it’s more IR spectrum) version than our sun, as having a kind
of newish and passive star that’s making it likely for life to exist/
coexist on such a planet, though perhaps more than likely upon one of
its magnetosphere protected moons. Of other smaller planets (possibly
Earth or Venus like) should by rights exist.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../grm34.html#c4
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...trclos.html#c0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_Eridani

There’s also some hope for Alpha Centauri A/B hosting a viable planet
or two, as well as our solar system trek through interstellar space
being directly linked to the same barycenter that’s keeping Centauri
and Sirius in charge of our ice age and subsequent thaw cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri

Too bad we can’t even explore and directly benefit from our
incredible Selene/moon that’s so nearby and absolutely chuck full of
and otherwise holding onto all sorts of nifty stuff, much less fondle
Venus or for that matter any other local planet or moon in person.

Obviously we’re still having too much terrestrial fun at screwing one
another to death, as well as trashing mother Earth for all she’s
worth, and then some. The brown-nosed and pretend-Atheist clownism of
Usenet/newsgroups is the digital AIDS or MRSA version of systematic
intellectual trauma and carnage that’s in full blown global epidemic
mode.

Mainstream media wouldn’t dare extrapolate anything from Google/NOVA
Groups or via Usenet/newsgroups without a full flack suit and loads of
other body armor, including an industrial grade genital cup and butt
plug, full hasmat wetsuit and extra special snorkels or rebreathers
for surviving the cesspools of mainstream orchestrated infowar
disinformation and infomercial spewed crapolla that gets continually
promoted as the one and only truth.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

On Oct 21, 5:06*pm, "M104gal, aka Potty Mouth wrote:

The Meade founder, John Diebel, walked over $50,000,000 out of his
company during the dot com hysteria. Timing son, timing.


Yes I know. John Diebel made many smart moves and made a killing
several times. Meade has had two such disasters, and each time Diebel
was able to profit from Meade's misfortune.

Unca Rollo

In sci.astro.amateur message , Tue, 21 Oct
2008 20:44:42, Paul Schlyter posted:
In article ,
wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:38=A0am, "
wrote:

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

Millions of homes buring coal in their furnaces. Thousands of power
plants and industrial processes using coal to heat and light and
provide energy.

Not light - that came some 50 years later.

Gas lighting was first introduced about 1800 and used in towns about 10
years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_lighting. Gas mantles
came in at the tail of that century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_la
mps; previously, I think fish-tail burners were used.

Much wood was of course used in the past; lowland Britain used to be
largely forest, most of which has gone. The same can no doubt be said
for much of Europe and the more habitable parts of North America,

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)

On Oct 21, 12:35*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 21, 11:29*am, wrote:



On Oct 21, 8:38 am, "
wrote:

On Oct 20, 9:26 pm, wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:26 am, "

So it is your claim that we have been able to measure the surface ( I
assume you must mean this as opposed to atmospheric ) temperature,
with consistent measuring devices, all over the world, including the
oceans ( which make up 70% of the earth's surface ), to an accuracy of
1 or 2 degrees C. for the last 150 years??

NONSENSE!

Have you already forgotten the predictions 25 short years ago of the
"coming ice age"? Were those "scientists" just stupid?

Are you really claiming that Canada does not have a huge arable area
right now that will simply grow if Canada warms up?

Do you really claim that the huge ( much bigger than the Northern ice
cap ) Southern ice cap has not GROWN over the last several years?

Do you really think China, for example, should be exempted from
putting more than one huge coal-fired energy plant a day on line?

Do you really think the world should devote a substantial part of its
available resources to chase a "theory" when we have so many pressing
needs which are killing millions right now? Or do you perhaps also
value dogs more than humans?

Do you really think current climate computer "models" are not subject
to SUBSTANTIAL modifications as our knowledge of the subject
increases?

Do you really think the many PhD climatology scientists who think most
of the current future climate models are seriously flawed are
charlatans?

Don't you think the current modelers who are predicting disaster ought
to open up all the details of their models for debate and discussion?
It is called the "scientific method"

You claim to be a "scientist". In what field, exactly?

Quoting directly from the UK Met Office Hadley Center

"The dataset is based on regular measurements of air temperature at a
global network of long-term land stations and on sea-surface
temperatures measured from ships and buoys."

Very specifically since 1850. *Europe, China and Japan all had sites
that record temperatures at high profile sites (Paris, Bejing. London)
in to the early 1700's See

Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander,
L.V., Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Global analyses
of SST, sea ice and night marine air temperature since the late
nineteenth century. J Geophys Res, 108 D14.

P. Brohan, J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones,
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature
changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 111,

The National Climatic Data Center had records for both land and sea
surface temperatures that date back to 1854. See

Smith and Reynolds Vol. 17 Journal of Climate.
Peterson and Vose Vol 78 Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society
A large number of sites across the US have measured temperature
records back to 1812. At the time the US Army collected the daily high
and low temperatures at forts across what was the entire US at the
time. The Army still requires these reading to this day.

As far a predictions for a ice age 25 years ago. There were no
scientific publications that described anything you claim NewsWeek,
Time and National Geographic are the sources of the myth of global
cooling. Looking at the papers referenced in NewsWeek, Time and the
National Geographic you will note that the cooling described would
occur in 10,000 IF we continued to put aerosols into the air such that
there was a 1000 fld increase each year. Read
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" *by Thomas
C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck. *Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society Vol. 89 2008

Looks pretty bad for you so far, you are batting 0 for 2

As far as the PhD. Climatologist who say that global warming isn't
occurring there are none. There are some retired meteorologists who
question how much of the observed warming is man-made, but then again
they have been getting paid by the oil/gas industry to say so and
freely admit that they are spokesman for the oil/gas industry.

If you wish to debate how to reduce the warming and want question the
methods and means I agree China and India are and will continue to be
large sources of emissions. However the profligate waste of energy by
the US is equally bad.

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

With this and your other weak arguments you have proven my point--
global warming is a natural cycle which we still do not understand
fully.

To you Greens however it is a religion. I call the notion that global
warming is definitively and primarily caused by man-made CO2 a stupid,
knowing hoax.

And your suggestion that temperatures all over the world, including
oceans, was taken with carefully calibrated similar instruments
accurate to within a few degrees C is just plain silly. That doesn't
even happen today.

And is the southern ice cap ( much larger than Greenland ) growing
today? Yes or no?

You are, once again, what kind of "scientist"? I notice you also
prefer to remain anonymous--- "mommycal"---- Why???

Who was doing this precise temperature measuring in the Amazon or
central Africa or Antarctica or in Siberia in 1854? You can't be that
dumb, can you?

Gee you really are slow on the uptake. Only you claimed there was
global warming in 1850. In order to accurate determine the slope of a
line you need more than 1 one data point. To determine the change in
slope of a line you need many points. The most accurate way to
determine the rate of change in global average temperature (the slope
of the line) is to compute the mean global temperature every year over
a long period of observations. Using the long record of observations I
can compute the slope. The slope will vary significantly from year to
year, but an average slope computed using 20 to 30 years of slopes
will average out the year to year variation.

Station temperatures and sea surface temperatures have been measured
with 1 deg C accuracy for a very long time. Even the cheapest give-
away thermometer can read to 0.5 deg C and meteorologists/
oceanographers have been measuring the temperature with far more
accurate instruments for more than a hundred years.

No weak arguments. The long term changes in climate are well
understood. If you had bothered to look in a textbook or web page
about Milankovich cycles and continental drift you would have found a
detailed description about long term climate change.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center both polar caps are
showing increases in temperatures and decreases in ice thickness in
the case of Antarctica (precursor to a ice free Antarctic) and nearly
a complete loss of ice in the Arctic.

I use a pseudonym your_mommy_called to prevent hate mail just like
you.

Poor stupid lawyer, he looks at the world around himself, doesn't
understand the simplest of concepts that every one around him seems to
understand without trouble and screams I'm important. Every one just
looks at the trained monkey in the cage.

Poor stupid "scientist". Even your friend Roland claims man started
global warming in the 1850ties with "millions of coal fired
fireplaces"

Still haven't given us a clue as to your "scientific" background. I'll
bet you don't even have a degree.

Hate mail? What a joke--I can respond in kind to fanatics who spew
insults.

And like most fanatics you ignored my questions for which you have no
answer--you would be a hoot on a witness stand. Or perhaps you teach
part time in a rundown "charter school" *and that makes you a
physicist. You Greens are funny.

Or perhaps you have to "keep your proprietary computer model
algorithms secret" like most of the modelers--that is no "scientific
method"--it is quackery.

And your claim that "only retired PhD scientists paid by the oil
companies" dare question GW orthodoxy is pathetic. Google is your
friend but I am not going to do your research for you. Save yourself
some time--go he

http://www.junkscience.com/

You look pretty stupid at this point. Using google you can that find
at

http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/chammp/chammp.html
http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/sec5pg1.html
http://www.llnl.gov/liv_comp/meiko/a...r/camille.html
http://www.acl.lanl.gov/GrandChal/GCM/gcm.html

These sites provide the source, tutorials and documentation for the
major models in use to predict climate. Choosing any one of these
sites will also give how the models were tested and verified, and a
list of sites doing verification.

www.junkscience.com is run by Steve Milloy a famous tobacco lobbiest.
One of the primary purposes of his website, junkscience.com, is to
"debunk" environmentalism. Milloy has started a host of short-lived
"organizations" to provide financial cover for his activities. These
indude Citizens for the Integrity of Science, The Advancement of Sound
Science Center, NoMoreScares.com, Regulatory Impact Analysis Project,
Inc, and the Environmental Policy Analysis Network. Some have been
registered as non-profits with the IRS, but have one employee (Milloy)
and sometimes one other board member.

Milloy was once Executive Director of the defunct Advancement of Sound
Science Coalition and is still the director of the Advancement of
Sound Science Center, an apparently related entity. He was also
Director of the National Environmental Policy Institute. Milloy's
publications include "Junk Science Judo," "Science without
Sense" (Cato Institute, 1995), "Science-Based Risk Assessment: A Piece
of the Superfund Puzzle" (National Environmental Policy Institute,
1995) and "Silencing Science" (Cato Institute 1999) which he co-wrote
with Michael Gough.Though Milloy denies ever having been a lobbyist,
Milloy shows up in federal lobbying registration data for 1997 as
having expenditures on his behalf, indicating his firm, the EOP Group,
believed him to be an active lobbyist. The same federal records
indicate Milloy represented the American Petroleum Institute, FMC
Corp, Fort Howard, International Food Additives Council, and Monsanto.
Interestingly, according to these records, Milloy lobbied for Monsanto
on the subject of "food safety and labeling," which is lobbyist speak
for "biotech foods." (Center for Responsive Politics, Lobbyist
Database) According to the Washington Representatives, Milloy was
still registered as a lobbyist with the EOP Group in 1999, with the
American Petroleum Institute and FMC Corp listed as clients. (1999
Washington Representatives).

Looks like you didn't use google at all. The semi-trained monkey
continues to howl from his cage.

On Oct 21, 6:03*pm, wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:06*pm, "M104gal, aka Potty Mouth wrote:

The Meade founder, John Diebel, walked over $50,000,000 out of his
company during the dot com hysteria. Timing son, timing.

Yes I know. John Diebel made many smart moves and made a killing
several times. Meade has had two such disasters, and each time Diebel
was able to profit from Meade's misfortune.

Unca Rollo

Sounds like Diebel was a pretty fair businessman to me especially
since Celestron went broke three times during this same time period.

On Oct 21, 9:38*pm, wrote:

www.junkscience.comis run by *Steve Milloy a famous tobacco lobbiest.
One of the primary purposes of his website, junkscience.com, is to
"debunk" environmentalism. Milloy has started a host of short-lived
"organizations" to provide financial cover for his ...

read more »

If you think all lobbyists are bad you are truly clueless as to how
government works,mommy dearest.

You still haven't said what your education is and what field you
worked in as a "scientist" for 30 years.

I really doubt you have any formal education since you are so clueless
on how government works. Name any large national organization, liberal
or conservative--it has lobbyists in Washington nitwit. You can't even
spell the word--pathetic.

In article ,
BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:13 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

BradGuth wrote:
Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

Since the launch of the Hipparcos satellite, the trigonometric parallax
of Sirius can be measured with an accuracy of a fraction of a percent.
Perhaps you know that the trigonometric parallax yields the distance
directly, and is not sensitive to interstellar extinction.

The "mutual closing rate" (i.e. the radial velocity) is measured
through shifts in the wavelength of spectral lines, and that method too
is insensitive to interstellar extinction.

Anything else you'd like to know?

Thanks so much, as I sort of knew that much but wasn't willing to so
easily give up on my manifesto without a good fight.

Why are you using arguments you already know is wrong? Doing so is
disastrous for our credibility....


I still want to see everything plugged into a fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator that we can fudge those numbers here and there, just
like others get to do in order to better establish their bragging
rights as based upon public funded eye-candy.

To successfully promote a theory you can't just run some piece of fun
and fancy software, and fudge some numbers here and there to get the
result you want without any understanding of why you got that result.

In this particular case (your claim that the Sun orbits Sirius) such
a piece of fancy software isn't even needed. You only need paper
and pencil, a pocket calculator, and some knowledge of fundamental
celestial mechanics to figure out why it cannot be so, given the
actual observations we have of the stars near our Sun. If you
lack the knowledge, I recommend this book as a good introduction
to the subject: http://www.willbell.com/math/mc7.htm
It seems to be out of print now, however used copies can still be
obtained at Amazon.com

Good luck!




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