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

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, 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 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, 1:06*pm, "
wrote:
"true believers" . You do read Forbes, don't you?

Forbes is a right-wing nutjob publication, prick. You might as well
cite "Fox News".

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, 3:06*pm, wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:06*pm, "
wrote:

"true believers" . You do read Forbes, don't you?

Forbes is a right-wing nutjob publication, prick. You might as well
cite "Fox News".

And you are totally clueless about financial matter, prick. I'll bet
you have a net worth of, say, minus 0, right?

Do you ever wonder from time to time how wealthy people get that
way?? Bet you are a pimply faced teen, right?

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:44:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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

There's no such thing as a proven theory. "Probably" and "almost
certainly" are entirely correct (and skeptical) ways of describing
theories that have a substantial body of evidence supporting them. Terms
like that mean that theories should be taken seriously. It doesn't mean
they are fact.

We have an option to take actions that will reduce the negative impact
of climate change that we're probably causing. And we have nothing to
lose, as switching away from petroleum, and requiring that coal plants
sequester all CO2, can only result in a huge boost to our economy. And
if it prevents civilization from collapsing along the way (a very real
possibility, IMO), so much the better!
_________________________________________________

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

Ya !!

"true believers" . You do read Forbes, don't you?

Forbes is a right-wing nutjob publication, prick. You might as well
cite "Fox News".

In article ,
wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:54=A0pm, 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 =A0precisely. 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?

That language merely reflects the fact that there are always uncertainties
in virtually everything. Scientists readily admits this, while media
people refuses to admit it, and afterwards when it turned out they were
wrong, they prefer to "forget" what they once said.

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?

Wrong! Don't be so ignorant.... ocean ice melting won't raise the
sea level at all - because that ice already is in the water. Therefore
the ice cap around the North Pole melting won't raise the ocean. What
will raise the sea level is when glaciers on land melts. The biggest
glacier on land is of course the ices of Antarctica. The second biggest
is Greenland, although that one is much smaller than the one in Antarctica.

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. It is
also a likely catastrophy. Which means the price to test this
scientific theory is too high. Or would you be willing to probably have
your home flooded, just to test this theory? If not, why do you demand
millions and millions of others living in many coastal cities around the
world to take that risk?


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