TK was exactly right. OT

In article ,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 23, 9:28*pm, wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:01*pm, Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:24*pm, wrote:

A few things that have me perplexed:

1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
warming from the previous century
3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
cool
4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
levels or CO2 atmospheric levels

Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't looked at
the data:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp...//anonymous.co...

Very pretty charts. *I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
that it's not surface temps that matter. *Oh, wait... you're trotting
out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
data.

Hmmm.

You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
degree celsius warmer than a century ago.

Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.

Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
warming has continued since then.

Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
to solar activity.

No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.

³There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but
we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be
confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!²

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jun 23, 11:02*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

³There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but
we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be
confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!²

I can press when there needs to be pressed. I can hold hands when
there needs to be hold hands.

wrote:
It's the story of the American west - we discovered alchemy, turning gold
into condos.

At the moment the converse isn't working.

On Jun 19, 7:38*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:


Every month or so, Bill comes across something that validates one of
Tom's thousands of arguments. Then he gets confused and thinks it
validates them all. Or something, I don't get it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Fred
I think just happen to think he should get credit for when he is
right, just as he should be challenged when he's wrong. I agree with
your assessment, and it what I've been saying in that there's almost
always a kernel of truth in there underneath.
This is where JT and I were butting heads on Micheal Moore too. Lots
of truth there, lots of distortion. Both should be recognized. Things
are either true(reproducible, verifieable, or open to mathematical
proof), Supposition (varies from major pre-ponderance of the evidence
down to the exceptions that may prove the rule eventually), and proven
false (pretty much same standard as for proven) lots of grey in the
middle, but things need to be recognized for what they are, and dealt
with as such. When there's a question I lean towards "We don't know",
"Not proven", etc...because you can move on from there and are open
minded. Just because we believe something, or say something doesn't
make it so. It makes us idiots, and closed minded bigots frequently.
What is, is.
Bill C

In article
,
" wrote:

"Want" is a funny word, isn't it? The way you use it
there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
or don't want it, leaving it valueless. I don't personally
want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
for condos.

I promise that they will not bulldoze the saguaro.
They will sell them for a pretty penny,
_then_ they will bulldoze the habitat.
Hope this clears things up for you.

--
Michael Press

On Jun 21, 8:08 pm, Howard Kveck

There are certainly a number of liberals/progressives calling for greater use of
biofuel but the driving force is companies like ADM. They get huge subsidies for
growing corn for biofuel. The subsidies they got for simply growing corn is one
reason why corn producers in Africa are out of business: food aid does not show up as
dollars, to be spent were the receiving country chooses (like buying from local
sources). It invariably is set up to show up as a comodity, sourced from here. And
that means subsidised ADM corn.

Subsidies hell. Mandates. We have ethanol mandates in addition to
subsidies. Why do they need subsidies if they have mandates?

r15757 wrote:
Subsidies hell. Mandates. We have ethanol mandates in addition to
subsidies. Why do they need subsidies if they have mandates?

Perhaps they should get womandates instead.

On Jun 23, 11:30*pm, "
wrote:


"Want" is a funny word, isn't it? *The way you use it
there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
or don't want it, leaving it valueless. *I don't personally
want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
for condos.


- Show quoted text -

Hey Ben
The point here is that the undeveloped land in the reserves and parks
is collectively owned by the people, paid for by our tax dollars. I
don't want my government selling off the rights for a buck an acre, or
something close. As an owner, like you, it's worth much more to me as
it is right now. Just the pleasure of knowing it is there, in that
condition, is worth more to me than what I would get out of selling
off the rights to develop it. On a purely free market basis, if
nothing else, I'm not selling it because all of the offers have been
FAR below what I consider the actual value to be to me. I'm a big
proponent of folks selling the development rights to land trusts too.
Cuts the money going to the government, and preserves the land. Works
for me!
Bill C
Sounds like you see it the same way.

On Jun 23, 9:50*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:28*pm, wrote:



On Jun 23, 10:01*pm, Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:24*pm, wrote:

A few things that have me perplexed:

1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
warming from the previous century
3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
cool
4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
levels or CO2 atmospheric levels

Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't looked at
the data:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp...//anonymous.co....

Very pretty charts. *I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
that it's not surface temps that matter. *Oh, wait... you're trotting
out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
data.

Hmmm.

You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
degree celsius warmer than a century ago.

Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.

Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
warming has continued since then.

Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
to solar activity.

No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.

Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
-Paul

On Jun 23, 8:30 pm, "
wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:53 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Jun 23, 1:59 pm, "
wrote:
It is an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not an Arctic
National People Refuge. The whole point of it is that
nobody wants it. Other than oil prospectors.

And so they should not be precluded from working land that no one else
wants.

"Want" is a funny word, isn't it? The way you use it
there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
or don't want it, leaving it valueless.

The way you use it is the way a child demanding a chocolate bar uses
it. I mean it to the point one is willing to act on the wants through
their own efforts -- to put visible self-created investment into
acheiving the want. Saying "I want to retire a multi-millionaire at
age 50" means nothing unless one is willing to do something about it.

To have some idea about the values people hold, we can only look at
their actions and attempt to make reasonable judgments about what the
values behind those actions mean. IOW, talk is cheap. Assuming that a
reasonable judgment could be made, there is next the cost of viewing
and assessing the information. That study itself could have a high
transaction cost -- perhaps unfundable. A low cost way of teasing out
a hint of values is to look at what people are willing to pay (in
money/time/resource) for X, as it is a form of action/transaction. It
is very imperfect, as price is not value, but the sad reality is that
any other method of assessing value faces even graver difficulty in
the ironic attempt to drive the subjectivity out of a subjective
matter. I mean that despite all its problems as a "value viewer," the
price system is the best thing available. I think polling -- asking
people what they value -- has worse problems, although I do not claim
that it can never give a decent answer. IOW, talk is cheap. (That
politicians specialize in talk should give that one away.)

So if you want to have some hint of how valued something is -- that
landscape from valued to valueless -- look at what the going price
across markets are in money/time/resource/blood. And make sure that
the entity doing the spending is spending _their own_ money/time/
resource/blood. And note that is never the function of The State, who
never spends its own money/time/resource/blood, since it can only
seize those from the population under its regime. Yes, The State
always destroys the price system wherever it decides to "supply a
good." If you want to have an affordable hint about values, the worst
possible thing you could do is destroy the price system. Sad but
true. Don't be a commie unless your basic goal is to obscure human
values and insert your own in place. I mean, if you value tyrrany...

You want X, you value X? What are you going to _do_ for it?

I don't personally
want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
for condos.A

Yeah, the guvmint stole the land fair and square, so "they" should
decide how it is used. You want to possess a view of the mountains
or something else about the mountains, but you can't really describe
how you gained title to the mountains or how you paid for them. So
you use the hammer of the state to seize the land for your purposes,
denying others of more direct and obvious use. When you say "the
state," you really mean yourself owning that land. You want to take
control of that resource by fiat, since "owning property" is
essentially a matter of answering the "who controls the physical
thing" question.

Your way of looking at it has to do with the way you were trained to
think about it. The language is your (as with anyone) tool of
abstraction -- your way of framing the world. Your frames control the
boundaries of your conceptions and perceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_framing

I'm not going to give you any hints. You might become dangerous.