Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock

On Jul 10, 12:13*am, BS284 wrote:
On 7/9/2012 7:43 PM, wrote:

You seem to be worried about CO2 footprints and global warming,

I never said I was worried about CO2 and AGW. I said there was no
downside to making changes that reduce carbon foot print.

You could have built a smaller house with a more reasonable carbon
footprint, but less floor space = downside, correct?

And I listed
how I had reduced mine as evidence that it can be done quite easily with
just a little awareness and forethought.

Your footprint is still higher than others' so what have you proved?

I'm not suggesting anyone do anything to reduce their footprint (or
improve their finances). You are.

Suggestions only go to those who want to make an issue out of CO2.

Had
you built a very small dwelling when you had the chance you could have
had a more secure retirement and a much smaller carbon footprint.

See what I mean?

Mine was a true statement, was it not?

You need to get this in your head.

No, I don't.

For me, any positive impact on AGW is
a side effect of the move to alternative energy (I've not indicated
otherwise, AFAIK). I'm all about using alternatives if they are
available, (equally) affordable, and safe. If a push for reduced carbon
footprint is what gets us there, then I'm all in favor of that motivation..

Your statement makes no sense and seems to involve circular logic.
"Alternative" energy requires "non-alternative" energy to produce, in
general. It is likely that once we run out of "non-alternative"
energy, such as fossil fuel, wood, etc., then we will make futile
attempts to utilize "alternative" energy. In the meantime it is BAU
for you.

Now don't ask me any more questions, or tell me any more what to do.

You should have built a smaller house.

Cripes, all I did was make a comment about reducing my carbon footprint,
and you got all in my business.

Don't go preaching to people who already use less energy than you do,
lest they point out your hypocrisy.

You obviously have an axe to grind. I
suggest you sharpen it on someone else.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

On 7/10/2012 6:12 AM, wrote:
On Jul 10, 12:13 am, BS284 wrote:
On 7/9/2012 7:43 PM, wrote:

You seem to be worried about CO2 footprints and global warming,

I never said I was worried about CO2 and AGW. I said there was no
downside to making changes that reduce carbon foot print.

You could have built a smaller house with a more reasonable carbon
footprint, but less floor space = downside, correct?

You're missing the point entirely.

I built a 2000 square foot house to meet my families needs, and it uses
less energy than my first house, which was 1350 square feet, and which
we had outgrown. You seem hung up on the size of my new house, and
refuse to acknowledge the improved energy efficiency that I had built
in. (You also know nothing about what the actual cost was to purchase
the land and build that house, so don't presume to know anything about
my finances other than my lament over the lost equity due to market
forces that were negatively influenced by big money and government. And
those affected everyone, regardless of how smart they were about their
future.)

I reduced my carbon footprint, while increasing my space, because I made
some decisions about energy efficiency prior to construction. It was ALL
upside.

Chew on this...

If the local (state, or fed) government had regulations on new home
construction north of latitude 42 (or whatever, you get my meaning),
that required 2x6 exterior walls (like mine), it would reduce the carbon
footprint of the entire northern US, without people having to downsize
their living space to satisfy some sick requirement you seem to be hung
up on to make people suffer to accomplish the same goal.

There are only two ways to effect reduction of carbon footprint when it
comes to housing in a manner that will not adversely impact lifestyle
(something you seem to want to impose on others). Developers either
voluntarily use 2x6 construction, or the government mandates it.

We know which of those will work, and which will not. Private industry
never volunteers to reduce their profit by even one penny. But, given
the choice between incurring the cost of mandated improved energy
efficiency to build homes, and to not build homes, the developers will
most definitely choose to build homes and make what profit they can.

Add to that the simple fact that if JQPublic understood the impact of
2x6 construction in terms of reduced heating costs, they would be happy
to spend the extra money for that construction. My additional
construction cost has paid for itself in spades, without even
considering it a benefit to AGW. The problem is in the marketing. People
on "your side", are so against the "liberal agenda" that you create fear
and confusion among the masses. I'm not a liberal or a conservative. But
I'm smart enough to understand that energy efficiency with respect to
heating my home not only saves me money, it reduces my carbon footprint

End of story.

On Jul 10, 11:08*am, BS284 wrote:
On 7/10/2012 6:12 AM, wrote:

On Jul 10, 12:13 am, BS284 wrote:
On 7/9/2012 7:43 PM, wrote:

You seem to be worried about CO2 footprints and global warming,

I never said I was worried about CO2 and AGW. I said there was no
downside to making changes that reduce carbon foot print.

You could have built a smaller house with a more reasonable carbon
footprint, but less floor space = downside, correct?

You're missing the point entirely.

I built a 2000 square foot house to meet my families needs,

There you go, confusing your NEEDS with your WANTS. Typical
hypocritical liberal.

All you NEED is about 2500 calories per day (with 2-3 oz of protein,)
a half gallon of potable water, a few changes of clothing, a pair or
two of shoes, a few dozen square feet of shelter with access to a
small bath, and occasional medical, dental and eye care. I know of
many people who grew up in houses and apartments smaller than 1000
square feet and got around with sub-compact cars or no car.

and it uses
less energy than my first house, which was 1350 square feet, and which
we had outgrown.

You either had many kids or they had a weight problem. Which?

You seem hung up on the size of my new house, and
refuse to acknowledge the improved energy efficiency that I had built
in.

I'm sure some people can (or already have) come up with fuel-efficient
private jets, limos or an energy efficient twenty-room mansion,
complete with heated pool. Shall they be given medals for "saving the
planet?"

(You also know nothing about what the actual cost was to purchase
the land and build that house, so don't presume to know anything about
my finances other than my lament over the lost equity due to market
forces that were negatively influenced by big money and government.

If your custom-built mini-mansion were all that great, you should have
buyers falling over each other with offers.

And
those affected everyone, regardless of how smart they were about their
future.)

Again, you are better off than most in the Third World. Many of them
are certainly much more intelligent than you.

I reduced my carbon footprint, while increasing my space, because I made
some decisions about energy efficiency prior to construction. It was ALL
upside.

Except that your carbon footprint for just heating your house is
several times larger than the average total for all uses. A house
half that size would be an improvement.

Chew on this...

If the local (state, or fed) government had regulations on new home
construction north of latitude 42 (or whatever, you get my meaning),
that required 2x6 exterior walls (like mine), it would reduce the carbon
footprint of the entire northern US, without people having to downsize
their living space to satisfy some sick requirement you seem to be hung
up on to make people suffer to accomplish the same goal.

They would have to downsize just to pay for the additional
construction costs.

There are only two ways to effect reduction of carbon footprint when it
comes to housing in a manner that will not adversely impact lifestyle
(something you seem to want to impose on others). Developers either
voluntarily use 2x6 construction, or the government mandates it.

Let the market decide. New technology and construction materials
might make wood or metal framing obsolete if government regs don't
stand in the way. There is a point of diminishing returns WRT to
insulation, BTW.

We know which of those will work, and which will not. Private industry
never volunteers to reduce their profit by even one penny.

They do so all the time, in order to move merchandise. You probably
don't leave money on the table either.

But, given
the choice between incurring the cost of mandated improved energy
efficiency to build homes, and to not build homes, the developers will
most definitely choose to build homes and make what profit they can.

NO profit = no construction, no innovation, and higher prices for what
real estate is available.

Add to that the simple fact that if JQPublic understood the impact of
2x6 construction in terms of reduced heating costs, they would be happy
to spend the extra money for that construction. My additional
construction cost has paid for itself in spades, without even
considering it a benefit to AGW. The problem is in the marketing. People
on "your side", are so against the "liberal agenda" that you create fear
and confusion among the masses. I'm not a liberal or a conservative.

If you are not a conservative then you are a collectivist, a fancy
word for liberal.

But
I'm smart enough to understand that energy efficiency with respect to
heating my home not only saves me money, it reduces my carbon footprint

Big deal, most people already use less energy to heat.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:16:36 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/07/2012 22:30, David Friedman wrote:
In article ,
Desertphile wrote:

All of the physicists on the planet know Miskolczi is wrong.

...

As it happens I have a PhD in physics and I not only don't know that
Miscolczi is wrong

See links above.

My point was that your statement quoted at the top of this was
obviously false, since most physicists will never have hard of
Miskoczi--as I had not heard of him prior to the recent discussion.

I hate to use an appeal to authority, but in this case it is useful as
it saves me from having to do a lot of work. If you are serious and want
to check this stuff then if you have physics training you should read
the original papers yourself to spot the flaws.

Indeed. See below.

However, here is what a semi-reputable (others would say denier) has to
say about Miskolski's claims and their validity. Miskolski's claims are
hyped to blazes by online right wingnuts but that doesn't mean a thing.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/...skolczi%e2%80%
99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

What Spencer claimed:

"On the theory side, much of what he claims depends upon the validity of
his statement,

“for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation
emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other
way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be
occurring.�

What Miskolczi actually wrote (pdf pg6):

"It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange
equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning
that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of
radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the
other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring."

Miskolczi simply defined a term. Spencer deleted that fact, then
attacked the resulting straw man. Beginning a rebuttal by distorting the
original meaning is an automatic fail.


I think argument by wild exaggeration, insult, and assertion, by both
sides, is a fault, not a virtue, of this forum.

The thread is cross posted so it is in more than one "forum" (sic).

Read all about it!!

iSlaves banned by 'Frisco tree hugging envirohippies!

iRottenapple admits to using Roundup to expose ap mines under under the razor wire suicide nets of their commy jackboot run, iSlave factories!

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18790729

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:33:26 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

In article ,
Bill Ward wrote:

What Miskolczi actually wrote (pdf pg6):

"It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange
equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as
meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow
of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of
flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be
occurring."

Miskolczi simply defined a term. Spencer deleted that fact, then
attacked the resulting straw man. Beginning a rebuttal by distorting
the original meaning is an automatic fail.

I thought the quote sounded like a description of equilibrium.

Is that surprising? Does that relate in any way to the issue of
Spencer's bogus "rebuttal"?

Since you snipped the first part of my post, no one will ever know...

Oh, wait, no problem, I can just repost it:

repost

Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:45:51 -0500

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:16:36 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/07/2012 22:30, David Friedman wrote:
In article ,
Desertphile wrote:

All of the physicists on the planet know Miskolczi is wrong.

...

As it happens I have a PhD in physics and I not only don't know that
Miscolczi is wrong

See links above.

My point was that your statement quoted at the top of this was
obviously false, since most physicists will never have hard of
Miskoczi--as I had not heard of him prior to the recent discussion.

I hate to use an appeal to authority, but in this case it is useful as
it saves me from having to do a lot of work. If you are serious and want
to check this stuff then if you have physics training you should read
the original papers yourself to spot the flaws.

Indeed. See below.

However, here is what a semi-reputable (others would say denier) has to
say about Miskolski's claims and their validity. Miskolski's claims are
hyped to blazes by online right wingnuts but that doesn't mean a thing.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/...skolczi%e2%80%
99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

What Spencer claimed:

"On the theory side, much of what he claims depends upon the validity of
his statement,

“for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation
emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way,
regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.�

What Miskolczi actually wrote (pdf pg6):

"It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange
equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning
that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of
radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the
other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring."

Miskolczi simply defined a term. Spencer deleted that fact, then attacked
the resulting straw man. Beginning a rebuttal by distorting the original
meaning is an automatic fail.


I think argument by wild exaggeration, insult, and assertion, by both
sides, is a fault, not a virtue, of this forum.

The thread is cross posted so it is in more than one "forum" (sic).

/repost

Snipping doesn't work - for Spencer, you, or anyone else. It just
exposes you as trying to deceive readers. So much for your pretense of
objectivity.

Now, are you going to deal with the fact that Spencer misquoted
Miskolczi, or not?

On Jul 8, 2:15*pm, Desertphile wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:25:58 -0700, David Friedman









wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:08:51 -0600, Desertphile wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:33:50 -0700, David Friedman
wrote:

In article ,
*Bill Ward wrote:

Google for "Miscolczi algebra error" and you'll find tons more.....

Are you satisfied now?

You haven't explained anything. *You did a Google search.

Following this thread and knowing nothing of Miscolczi I have some
sympathy for Bill's response. Without having followed the links you
gave, all they tell me is that some people think Miscolczi was wrong.

All of the physicists on the planet know Miskolczi is wrong.

Why Ferenc M. Miskolczi is Wrong
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html

Rebuttal of Miskolczi's alternative greenhouse claims
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebu...i_20100927.pdf

The Mystery of Tau – Miskolczi
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/...tau-miskolczi/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/25/...miskolczi-part....
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/26/...%e2%80%93-misk....
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/05/01/...%e2%80%93-misk....
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/05/15/...%e2%80%93-misk....
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/05/28/...%e2%80%93-misk....

The correct value of tau
http://landshape.org/enm/the-value-of-tau/

Miskolczi debunked and refutted in agonizing detail:
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebu...i_20100927.pdf
As it happens I have a PhD in physics and I not only don't know that
Miscolczi is wrong

See links above.

--
"I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party
started becoming goofy." -- Judge Richard Posner

Mafia + KKK +GOPers = Florida's Government Seven Trent is Mafia
Never use Mafia in vain,or try to find the name of the Godfather. That
is reality in today's America TreBert

On Jul 11, 12:01*am, Bill Ward wrote:
" Now, are you going to deal with the fact that Spencer misquoted
Miskolczi, or not? "

oh bill, here we go again, another attempt to conjure up the dead.
The souther jet stream strikes the andes mountains causing a wave in
the atmosphere, not connected to atmosphere-land thermal equlibrium or
the pressence of water vapor. When the mountain wave breaks in the
lower stratospere deposits heat, increasing circulation. The energy
transfer from which has contributions from the planets angular
momentum is not addresed by Miskolczi. In spite of your avoidance
and denials, such a transfer is important to understanding energy
transfers in planetary atmospheres, which makes Miskolczi's theory
flawed.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:07:39 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

After you have prepared your list of six completely different experiments
which show that more CO2 will warm the atmosphere, we will compare the
experimental support for AGW with that for evolution.

Nope. Do your own homework. You're the one with the extraordinary
claim- nobody needs to defend AGW.


No, your claim was that the experimental evidence of evolution being correct
was equal to the experimental evidence that AGW was correct.

My claim that you are wrong is not an extraordinary claim - evolution has
probably the best non-numeric experimental support of in theory of all
science, I would rather say that it was your claim that was extra-ordinary,
considering how well accepted Darwinian evolution is as a theory.

I then supplied a list of 6 strong, independent sources of experimental
evidence that evolution was correct, and asked for your six for AGW. Then
you ran away. That is because you lied, and you claim is patently false


Anything I can say would be pointless... how do you argue with a
person who stands next to you under the sky and insists it's green?

More accurately: how do you argue with a person who thinks the theory of
evolution through natural selection has no more experimental support than
does AGW? Its laughable. That's why you ran away.

On 7/11/2012 1:33 AM, David Friedman wrote:
In ,
Bill wrote:

What Miskolczi actually wrote (pdf pg6):

"It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange
equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning
that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of
radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the
other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring."

Miskolczi simply defined a term. Spencer deleted that fact, then
attacked the resulting straw man. Beginning a rebuttal by distorting the
original meaning is an automatic fail.

I thought the quote sounded like a description of equilibrium.

Um, that would probably be because he is defining the term "radiative
exchange equilibrium" rather than just "radiative exchange" as the
so-called rebuttal asserts.