[huskerlug] Re: A 100 watt laptop requires 960 lbs of coal per year!
- From: GreyGeek <jkreps@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:30:14 -0500
From the article:
"Figure 2: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The
principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in
glacier mass and
length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This
melting trend lags the temperature in crease by about 20 years, so it
pre dates the
6-fold in crease in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the
figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend."
The rate of glacier melting since 1950 is identical to the rate that
began around 1820. I.E., the slope is constant from around 1820 to the
present. So, if the rate has been the same from 1820 to the present one
can conclude that the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to the combustion
of fossil fuels plays no role in the melting process.
Your statement about those who disagree with you are lacking education
is an example of extreme arrogance and intolerance.
At one time everyone thought the Sun revolved around the world. All one
had to do was look up and watch it rise in the East and set in the
West. At night the stars did the same thing. Yet the observer did not
"move". The "evidence" was overwhelming and anyone who disagreed with
the obvious was a denier of both observations and the "facts" of
religion. They were either "re-educated" or they lost their lives if
they disagreed.
Today, people can lose their jobs and their careers if they disagree
with the prevailing "wisdom". You claim that anyone who disagrees with
your view of GW is "uneducated", yet thousands of highly educated
people in the field, certainly higher than you or me. disagree with GW.
IF science ever had a methodology it was to evaluate the data and form
an hypothesis, which was usually in the form of an Operational
Definition. The next step was to use the hypothesis to formulate a
prediction, and then create an experiment to test that hypothesis. Not
to prove it right, but to prove it WRONG. A million experiments cannot
prove an hypothesis right but only one can prove it wrong. Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity comes to mind. His theory predicted that
gravity could bend the path of light and he proposed an experiment to
test his theory. The next eclipse of the Sun gave the opportunity and
the light from the star he selected bent by the amount he predicted,
within experimental measurements. Had his prediction failed his theory
would have fallen.
That doesn't seem to be how it works today. Show me a GW hypothesis
that has a prediction that can be tested. Experiments/Research don't
test an hypotheses, they flat out attempt to PROVE the hypothesis. The
NIS and other gov agencies are the major funders of science research.
Grant applications include statements of hypotheses and methodologies.
Try to get funding to test theories of GW, or prove them wrong, and see
how many grants you'll get. The journals are filled with pro GW
articles because those studies are the ones that get funded. Studies
of other causes for GW are funded with other than tax money and face
uphill battles in the journals if they don't support GW. How did GW
get so deeply in bed with Politics? Like Nuclear Winter, and the Club
of Rome studies before it, GW was viewed by the Left as their means to
cripple capitalism in general and the US specifically. When ideologs
obtains offices of power they used their power to further their
cause. It reminds me of the Lysenko Affair in the old USSR. Lysenko
set genetics in the USSR back 50 years because he dictated what
conclusions genetic experiments should arrive at. Those conclusions
were determined in advance by political theory.
JLK
Joseph Smith wrote:
> The amount of ice melting is far from normal-- if you consider the
> past several millennia normal and the rapid change in the past couple
> of decades abnormal--- any sane person would.
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080325-antarctica-photo.html
>
> Do you really believe thousands of climatologists the world over are
> being mislead by summer glacial ice melt? I know its hard to imagine
> the impact we are having on this planet living in Lincoln, NE, but for
> god sake, at least educate yourself on the subject before you comment
> on it.
>
> On Apr 18, 2008, at 6:48 PM, John Moran wrote:
>
>
>> Okay, here goes - glaciers melt when it gets above freezing. It gets
>> above freezing a lot in the spring, summer, and fall.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Joseph Smith <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> so, I guess the answer to my question is no.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 18, 2008, at 6:33 PM, John Moran wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "anyone out there that isn't a conspiracy theorist??"
>>>>
>>>> I wish I could believe you said that ironically. The guy on Al
>>>> Gore's
>>>> side asking for rational allies?
>>>>
>>>> "Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries
>>>> recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the
>>>> so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists,
>>>> many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC
>>>> (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate
>>>> claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. "
>>>>
>>>> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
>>>> FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Joseph Smith <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They call themselves "Self described scientists". If your going to
>>>>> post links to anti-global warming "evidence", the least you could
>>>>> do
>>>>> is find information compiled by *real* scientists This SOB doesn't
>>>>> even believe in natural selection, less evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll ask again-- one of these bunk scientists has yet to give a
>>>>> satisfactory explanation for why 100,000 year old glaciers are
>>>>> melting
>>>>> away before our eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> give me a break.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> anyone out there that isn't a conspiracy theorist??
>>>>>
>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:19 PM, GreyGeek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> tw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry Joseph,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since 2003, the first year that network from my link was put in
>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>> temperatures are dropping. It's mostly bunk science and
>>>>>>> politically
>>>>>>> motivated at best. I mean, you can disagree with that all you
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> you're parroting the lines that people have used for the past
>>>>>>> hundred
>>>>>>> years to 'prove' their claims of both disastrous global warming
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> cooling. None of their claims have come true yet. There's a
>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
Other related posts:
