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

On Oct 16, 5:35*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:05*pm, "
wrote:





Natural, long-term cyclical global warming may indeed be occurring.
The notion, however, that it is caused primarily by man-made CO2--
which can be reversed by man--is unproven nonsense propagated by
greens with an agenda who refuse to debate their "science". The so-
called "hockey-stick" computer generated warming graph, for example,
is a fraud! GIGO!

Reminds me of the folks who were predicting "just around the corner"
$200/ barrel oil last summer--the "madness of crowds" is an impressive
thing to watch.

Millions are dying each year of malaria, for, example, that could be
eradicated with DDT ( as was done in the US with NO proven adverse
human side effects ). How about that for a cause? Or current
starvation in many countries?

It is fortunate for your argument that there is little political will
to change past and present behaviours. So the proof of man's
involvement in global warming is literally just around the corner. No
country has matched its promises on cutting back on their CO2 release.
Most have increased their CO2 dramatically. The Arctic is already
setting records for summer ice loss which is not being replaced in the
winters. There is hardly a glacier anywhere on the globe which has not
lost the will to live. Extreme weather is already a regular phenomenon
around the world. The global bread baskets are turning to saline dust.
Even an optimist, like yourself, *must recognise we are close to the
tipping point. Will the North resist the pressures for completely open
borders to save billions from starvation and extreme heat with
consequent desertification only to have nothing to offer in the way of
food, housing, health care and social security?. Around 1/6th of the
world's population is already hungry. A similar number live in mega-
slums with no land to grow their own food. *Following present trends
It is going to get very ugly indeed within as little as 10-15 years.
Perhaps you should pray for a painless pandemic?

Mindless response.

I didn't say no global warming--I said NO proof man generated CO2 is
the primary cause.

Mass starvation? BS. The temperate climate regions best suited for
crops will simply move North to Canada and Siberia.

Not very familiar with history of previous recorded warming cycles are
you?

On Oct 16, 9:31*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:05:36 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Natural, long-term cyclical global warming may indeed be occurring.
The notion, however, that it is caused primarily by man-made CO2--
which can be reversed by man--is unproven nonsense propagated by
greens with an agenda who refuse to debate their "science"...

Similarly, when somebody other than the OP steps in with factually
incorrect information, which he'll defend in the face of clear and
obvious evidence to the contrary, you also need to pull the plug...
_________________________________________________

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

This from the nutcase who is here on record as saying that, in his
esteemed opinion, bird life is more valuable than human life. But they
are mostly Black Africans so they don't count, right?

Do you have any clue, for example, how many birds the massive wind
turbine farms called for by the Greens would kill? What the downwind
weather effectof removing all that energy from prevailing winds might
be? Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Have any clue what Newton says
about conservation of energy?

Folks like Al Gore and Boone Pickens are getting rich off of
simpletons like you--laughing all the way to the bank--with their huge
"carbon footprints".

Pathetic.

Another emotional, Luddite.

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.


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

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


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.


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.
_________________________________________________

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

On Oct 16, 9:31*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:05:36 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Natural, long-term cyclical global warming may indeed be occurring.
The notion, however, that it is caused primarily by man-made CO2--
which can be reversed by man--is unproven nonsense propagated by
greens with an agenda who refuse to debate their "science"...

Similarly, when somebody other than the OP steps in with factually
incorrect information, which he'll defend in the face of clear and
obvious evidence to the contrary, you also need to pull the plug...
_________________________________________________

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

This from the nutcase who is here on record as saying that, in his
esteemed opinion, bird life is more valuable than human life. But they
are mostly Black Africans so they don't count, right?

Do you have any clue, for example, how many birds the massive wind
turbine farms called for by the Greens would kill? What the downwind
weather effectof removing all that energy from prevailing winds might
be? Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Have any clue what Newton says
about conservation of energy?

Folks like Al Gore and Boone Pickens are getting rich off of
simpletons like you--laughing all the way to the bank--with their huge
"carbon footprints".

Pathetic.

Another emotional, Luddite.

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

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.

--
(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.

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??