A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Protecting yourself



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old June 18th 19, 10:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Zen Cycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:17:25 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.


Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland.

The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.
2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.
3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda that claims industrialisation is to blame. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. That's why the Mann-IPCC-Global Warming Hysteria tried to beat sensible people who know their history with the Hockey Stick to submit to the lie that there were no Roman and Medieval Warm periods, warmer than today, and no Little Ice Age, because those three events prove that Global Warming, if any, are natural.
4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?
5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them....)
6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? You didn't know that, did you, because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters on how flat the earth is. At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts.

Andre Jute
Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus


You and slow tom seem to have a real hard-on for dr.spencer. Here's another opinion:

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011...lunder-part-1/

AFAIK Spencers support of "intelligent" design shows he has little regard for following the science. Looking for data to support a conclusion isn't science.
Ads
  #162  
Old June 19th 19, 02:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,631
Default Protecting yourself

On 6/17/2019 10:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2019 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:18:08 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.

I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and
NOAA 46% of
scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond
natural climatic
variability. When you actually look into it NASA and
NOAA have actually
counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that
the Weather
Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't
show any heating
and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the
weather
satellite program, finally resigned when he could no
longer stand the
blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He
expressed the
belief that these two would very soon begin
counterfeiting the satellite
records to match their computer models and that is now
exactly what they
have been doing.

Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search
the daily
newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has
computerized
their records. This gives pretty good records back to
the 1850's. But
actually looking at the daily records in spots all over
the world you
can see that NASA has actually lied about practically
everything. They
have been working VERY hard to make the actual records
look like their
worthless computer models.

You and he obviously do not understand the physics of
temerature
recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an
excellent
explanation on the web if you want to search for it.

FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I
live and the
actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often
varies from the
average be a significant amount.

There is also another report on the web lookng at the
"variation" of
those readings and ointig out that whie the actual
"readings" seem to be
similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot
more "shuddering/
oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature.
Which fits in the
the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is
now more energy in
"the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not
peaks) extremes.

Not to mention that "ice caps" and glacier are melting
and seas are
rising.

But than, there are people who believe that the earth is
flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies
https://www.livescience.com/24310-fl...th-belief.html
https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/some-p...world-is-flat/




What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play
along with someone's pet theory:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...ction-1688833/



Specific deadlines and the like are notoriously difficult to
predict. That's true of everything. But it certainly doesn't
disprove the overall effect. See
https://skepticalscience.com/himalay...rs-growing.htm
or dozens of other sources.

Ever been to Glacier National Park? The photos and views
comparing past and present are pretty startling.


Change is normal.
Under the retreating Greenland glaciers are farmed fields
with stone borders from ~1000AD. Maybe we'll discover some
in Glacier Park one day; you never know what you don't know.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #163  
Old June 19th 19, 03:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 468
Default Protecting yourself

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:14:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Change is normal.


Correct.
It is the changing rate of change that is the problem.
If farmers can not get reliable/predictable weather, then you don't get
food.

Under the retreating Greenland glaciers are farmed fields with stone
borders from ~1000AD.


That is a known. It was covered in any decent history of the world.
It is all the other events/activities that are causing concern.

Maybe we'll discover some in Glacier Park one day;
you never know what you don't know.


Sure, but you can be reasonable sure what is real and likely.
You can also hazard 'worst case scenarios" and I'm someone that considers
"insurance" a wise investment in this world. YMMV.

  #164  
Old June 19th 19, 03:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,631
Default Protecting yourself

On 6/18/2019 9:05 PM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:14:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Change is normal.


Correct.
It is the changing rate of change that is the problem.
If farmers can not get reliable/predictable weather, then you don't get
food.

Under the retreating Greenland glaciers are farmed fields with stone
borders from ~1000AD.


That is a known. It was covered in any decent history of the world.
It is all the other events/activities that are causing concern.

Maybe we'll discover some in Glacier Park one day;
you never know what you don't know.


Sure, but you can be reasonable sure what is real and likely.
You can also hazard 'worst case scenarios" and I'm someone that considers
"insurance" a wise investment in this world. YMMV.


"worst case scenarios" would be me reliving 2010, when I'd
find, as Al Gore wrote in his 1992 book, major world cities
under water and widespread famine from mass crop failu
http://www.peopleandtheplanet.com/[email protected]=1535

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #165  
Old June 19th 19, 04:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,492
Default Protecting yourself

On 6/18/2019 9:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2019 10:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2019 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:18:08 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.

I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and
NOAA 46% of
scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond
natural climatic
variability. When you actually look into it NASA and
NOAA have actually
counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that
the Weather
Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't
show any heating
and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the
weather
satellite program, finally resigned when he could no
longer stand the
blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He
expressed the
belief that these two would very soon begin
counterfeiting the satellite
records to match their computer models and that is now
exactly what they
have been doing.

Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search
the daily
newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has
computerized
their records. This gives pretty good records back to
the 1850's. But
actually looking at the daily records in spots all over
the world you
can see that NASA has actually lied about practically
everything. They
have been working VERY hard to make the actual records
look like their
worthless computer models.

You and he obviously do not understand the physics of
temerature
recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an
excellent
explanation on the web if you want to search for it.

FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I
live and the
actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often
varies from the
average be a significant amount.

There is also another report on the web lookng at the
"variation" of
those readings and ointig out that whie the actual
"readings" seem to be
similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot
more "shuddering/
oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature.
Which fits in the
the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is
now more energy in
"the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not
peaks) extremes.

Not to mention that "ice caps" and glacier are melting
and seas are
rising.

But than, there are people who believe that the earth is
flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies
https://www.livescience.com/24310-fl...th-belief.html
https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/some-p...world-is-flat/





What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play
along with someone's pet theory:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...ction-1688833/



Specific deadlines and the like are notoriously difficult to
predict. That's true of everything. But it certainly doesn't
disprove the overall effect. See
https://skepticalscience.com/himalay...rs-growing.htm
or dozens of other sources.

Ever been to Glacier National Park? The photos and views
comparing past and present are pretty startling.


Change is normal.


Some change is normal. Some change is abnormal.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #166  
Old June 19th 19, 09:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,598
Default Protecting yourself

On 6/15/2019 5:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

snip

Yes, CRV (California Refund Value).
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer/programinfo/faq
The remaining recycling centers continue to accept CRV recyclables, as
long as the state continues to pay them for the collected materials.
However, since nobody wants the PET bottles, it's unlikely that this
practice will continue.


The state isn't paying for the collected materials, the money comes from
the CRV fee paid when you buy the product. The original goal of the
whole CRV program was to reduce litter of glass, plastic, and aluminum
bottles. The state benefits financially when a CRV container is tossed
since they don't have to refund the deposit.

The problem with recycling is that the amount of energy and money it
takes to properly recycle is very high. Wash out that plastic food
container with hot water, sort it, pick it up in a separate truck, pay
the sorting cost at the recycling center, ship it to where it can be
used to make something useful, is all more costly than using virgin
plastic or steel or glass. Aluminum is still worth recycling.

Not generating so much plastic waste in the first place would be better.
I was just in Europe. The countries I was in have safe tap water. But
you'll rarely find it available in a drinking fountain, most everyone's
buying drinking water in single-use plastic bottles. In San Francisco,
just past security there's a station to fill a water bottle. In the
Vienna airport there was no such animal. We finally found one drinking
fountain hidden in a hallway in one terminal. Also, we were told to
leave empty containers (water, beer, etc.) next to a garbage can where
they would be picked up by people that make their money doing recycling.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Protecting the head ... Nick Kew UK 24 December 30th 06 10:19 AM
Protecting my shins pkplonker Unicycling 8 November 19th 06 10:02 AM
Protecting your saddle? firisfirefly Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:43 AM
Protecting your saddle? mornish Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:40 AM
Protecting your saddle? Jerrick Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.