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

On Oct 21, 10:51 pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:38 pm, wrote:

www.junkscience.comisrun 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.

Yes the word that best describes the lawyer monkey screaming "I'm
important" from his cage is pathetic. I didn't say lobbyists are bad
you did. I merely pointed out that he has no background in climatology
or any other hard science, has taken positions contrary to observed
fact in the past for money and admits he is doing so now. Since he
freely admits that he is taking his position only for money he is not
a reliable source of information. As anybody who has half a brain
knows any statement needs to viewed in the light of reliability. If
someone admits he is lying then their statements carry no weight

On Oct 22, 6:27*am, wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:51 pm, "
wrote:



On Oct 21, 9:38 pm, wrote:

www.junkscience.comisrunby *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.

Yes the word that best describes the lawyer monkey screaming "I'm
important" from his cage is pathetic. I didn't say lobbyists are bad
you did. I merely pointed out that he has no background in climatology
or any other hard science, has taken positions contrary to observed
fact in the past for money and admits he is doing so now. Since he
freely admits that he is taking his position only for money he is not
a reliable source of information. *As anybody who has half a brain
knows any statement needs to viewed in the light of reliability. If
someone admits he is lying then their statements carry no weight

Weak strawman. Most "climate scientists" receive grant money for their
"studies". Should their findings then be treated as inherently
biased??

Pot, kettle, black. For the 10th time, what is your "30 year science"
background? Since you refuse to answer, I conclude you have none.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:25:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Weak strawman. Most "climate scientists" receive grant money for their
"studies". Should their findings then be treated as inherently
biased??

There have been a number of studies examining the relationship between
funding sources and scientific bias (in many areas, not limited to
climate research). None has found any systematic bias. In fact, cases of
bias are rare, even where the funding source can easily produce such an
appearance (cancer researchers accepting tobacco money, for example).

The vast majority of grant money supporting climate research consists of
public funds with no attached (or implied) expectation of a particular
result. Where is the source for bias? A researcher makes his name by
discovering something new, not parroting what is already known. And it's
not like many researchers are getting rich off their work, anyway.

On the other hand, you have a very small amount of climate research
being funded by oil companies and other sources that have been
implicated in producing climate change. While the scientists involved
may be perfectly honest and unbiased, certainly there is the real
possibility of bias in such a case. It is worthwhile to look at the
funding source of any research you quote; I'd certainly look with more
skepticism on most privately funded work than I would on that which is
publicly funded.
_________________________________________________

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

On Oct 21, 10:44*pm, "
wrote:
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.

Diebel is long gone from the company. Has been for over 5 years.
Present problems at Meade are not his doing. Present management is
what we were talking about, at least I was when referring to their low
penny stock valuation.

Rolando

"Paul Schlyter" wrote:

Suppose you're hit by a car travelling at 50 mph. You would die, or
at least be seriously injured by such a hit.

Not if you're from Sweden:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mPx7A-WDZzo

;-)

On Oct 21, 2:34*pm, "
wrote:

And, again, I know you true believers don't like this focus but
"global warming" and "global warming is caused primarily by man-made
CO2" are two very different concepts--even you can't be that stupid.
We may well be in a natural cyclical warming cycle--it is the ultimate
arrogance to assume we can turn it off if we just spend enough money.

Man-made carbon dioxide is an additional element, separate from
natural cycles.

Natural cycles balance over time, but human interference is outside
that system, so the "green" suspicion of human activity as something
that could be unbalanced is not entirely unreasonable.

The quantity of man-made carbon dioxide can be estimated, and its
likely effects on global temperatures can be estimated as well. That
human fossil fuel consumption is going to make the world warmer than
it would otherwise be is _not_ particularly controversial or
difficult.

Whether or not any actual warming is taking place - or if the weather
has just been warm for a couple of years, and man-made carbon dioxide
is actually needed to stave off an ice age that natural cycles are
trying to bring us - yes, that is harder to tell. But when we get to
the point that Russian peat bogs are about to release vast quantities
of methane, or when the Great Barrier Reef is about to die from ocean
acidity, it seems like there are grounds for concerns.

The greens _have_ been crying wolf for so long, it is hard to believe
that they are right for once, but human activity has continued to
increase, and so that we would get to the point of real problems -
first with the ozone layer, now with global warming - is not really
that surprising.

Also, the use of an emotion-laden term like "arrogance" does not help
in convincing people of your case. When I saw that, little alarm bells
went off, because I had seen this sort of thing before in discussions
of global warming, by people who believed...

that life here began on or near 4004 B.C., and

the only human activity that is likely to engender global catastrophe
is sin, which will lead to God, in His own good time initiating (or
permitting) the events described in the Book of Revelations.

Thus, the idea of a global catastrophe taking place early through
secular causes, whether ecological disaster or global thermonuclear
war, ought to be left out of our thinking, as it distracts people from
prayer and Bible reading.

There is no "arrogance" in concern over human carbon dioxide
emissions. It is considered that they may have serious effects because
the numbers total up so as to indicate that the current increased
level of atmospheric carbon dioxide means that the heat the Earth
would normally radiate into space each night is instead heating up the
air, raising the Earth's equlibrium temperature. Adding up numbers to
determine the answer is not a process in which emotional attitudes of
arrogance or humility have any part.

John Savard

On Oct 22, 1:03*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

Thus, the idea of aglobalcatastrophe taking place early through
secular causes, whether ecological disaster orglobalthermonuclear
war, ought to be left out of our thinking, as it distracts people from
prayer and Bible reading.

There is no "arrogance" in concern over human carbon dioxide
emissions. It is considered that they may have serious effects because
the numbers total up so as to indicate that the current increased
level of atmospheric carbon dioxide means that the heat the Earth
would normally radiate into space each night is instead heating up the
air, raising the Earth's equlibrium temperature. Adding up numbers to
determine the answer is not a process in which emotional attitudes of
arrogance or humility have any part.

John Savard

Interesting rant. Do you also value the life of a dog more than a
human life as Peterson does?

FYI, I am an agnostic on religion--those questions are unanswerable by
anyone. I also don't subscribe to the Green religion where much is
taken on faith as propagated by the Green high priests whose methods
can't be questioned because it would be heretical. The heat of this
discussion is amusing--little minds, etc etc

On Oct 22, 9:25 am, "
wrote:
On Oct 22, 6:27 am, wrote:



On Oct 21, 10:51 pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 21, 9:38 pm, wrote:

www.junkscience.comisrunby 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.

Yes the word that best describes the lawyer monkey screaming "I'm
important" from his cage is pathetic. I didn't say lobbyists are bad
you did. I merely pointed out that he has no background in climatology
or any other hard science, has taken positions contrary to observed
fact in the past for money and admits he is doing so now. Since he
freely admits that he is taking his position only for money he is not
a reliable source of information. As anybody who has half a brain
knows any statement needs to viewed in the light of reliability. If
someone admits he is lying then their statements carry no weight

Weak strawman. Most "climate scientists" receive grant money for their
"studies". Should their findings then be treated as inherently
biased??

Pot, kettle, black. For the 10th time, what is your "30 year science"
background? Since you refuse to answer, I conclude you have none.

You can conclude anything you want and I can do nothing to change your
mind. However if you had an once of brains you would have drawn a
conclusion about what kind of science I am involved with by noting the
references I have used. Of course you come back with yet another
idiotic remark. You should compare the money that Watts, Christy,
Spencer, Milloy and the like receive to spreads fear, uncertainty and
doubt versus what a "climate scientist" receive. Siting on review
panels I get to see how much money is requested, how much actually
goes to the scientist and how much goes to pay for computer time,
staff and overhead. Considering that only between 10 to 15% of all
proposals are funded (that's from the NSF web site) and the amount of
time it takes to write a proposal being a scientist is not a way to
make money. Unlike slimey lawyers and financial analysts who regularly
sell their soul to highest bidder

On Oct 22, 2:11*pm, wrote:
On Oct 22, 9:25 am, "
wrote:



On Oct 22, 6:27 am, wrote:

On Oct 21, 10:51 pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 21, 9:38 pm, wrote:

www.junkscience.comisrunbySteve 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.

Yes the word that best describes the lawyer monkey screaming "I'm
important" from his cage is pathetic. I didn't say lobbyists are bad
you did. I merely pointed out that he has no background in climatology
or any other hard science, has taken positions contrary to observed
fact in the past for money and admits he is doing so now. Since he
freely admits that he is taking his position only for money he is not
a reliable source of information. *As anybody who has half a brain
knows any statement needs to viewed in the light of reliability. If
someone admits he is lying then their statements carry no weight

Weak strawman. Most "climate scientists" receive grant money for their
"studies". Should their findings then be treated as inherently
biased??

Pot, kettle, black. *For the 10th time, what is your "30 year science"
background? Since you refuse to answer, I conclude you have none.

You can conclude anything you want and I can do nothing to change your
mind. However if you had an once of brains you would have drawn a
conclusion about what kind of science I am involved with by noting the
references I have used. Of course you come back with yet another
idiotic remark. You should compare the money that Watts, Christy,
Spencer, Milloy and the like receive to spreads fear, uncertainty and
doubt versus what a "climate scientist" receive. Siting on review
panels I get to see how much money is requested, how much actually
goes to the scientist and how much goes to pay for computer time,
staff and overhead. *Considering that only between 10 to 15% of all
proposals are funded (that's from the NSF web site) and the amount of
time it takes to write a proposal being a scientist is not a way to
make money. Unlike slimey lawyers and financial analysts who regularly
sell their soul to highest bidder

Your rants are amusing; try to control yourself sport--you might avoid
a coronary.

You need a little help on spelling as well.

On Oct 21, 11:44 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
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.

There you go again. I've never insisted that our solar system is in
orbit of Sirius.

What's wrong with our orbiting a barycenter?

Perhaps it is yourself that needs a reality check of your reading
comprehension skills.

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/

Thanks once again. I'm sure that it's pointless to claim what seems
obvious and most likely the long term cycle of terrestrial ice and
thaw. Obviously you have a better answer that you're keeping as a
secret, just for the fun of it.

What about considering multiple hydrogen shell flashover (aka slow
nova) events from Sirius B? (?one every 105,000 years?)

~ BG