frightening declassified images

On 1/27/2016 10:22 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2016 9:17 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 5:53 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2016 4:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:07:58 -0500, PAS wrote:

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

I have no interest in joining in this discussion, but I do have a
strong interest in the use of language.

Out of curiosity, is your "dog in the water" wordplay on rising ocean
temperatures or levels, or is it just an error? The idiomatic phrase
is "a dog in this fight".



I will answer, since I first used the expression. Here on the Isle of
Long, we have used the expression as I have stated. I have heard other
variations on the theme. I deliberately did not use the word "fight"
because it is not a fight. We were having a discussion. Unlike
discussions with others, PAS and I do not take our differences
personally. We have met several times, and I consider him a friend, so
there is no fight.
The Internet service here prohibits me from sites which may have
further documentation.

Like other regions, we have our sayings and, Lord knows, our accents. I
don't pronounce "R" when it's at the end of a word, like car. That's
just the way I tawk.

Good thing actually. Around here people pronounce 'r's where they
aren't like in Warshington. If a few people didn't drop an 'r' now
and then we would run out!

Hah! I went to school with a fellow from Washington. Not only did he
add an "r" but changed the "a" to an "e" - Wershington.

On 1/26/2016 7:26 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2016 6:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:38:11 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per PAS:
You can try these but only you can decide what you think is
appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html


As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136


This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect that no
opinions will be changed.

Seems easy to hung up on precise numbers.

How about we reduce this to the ridiculous....

Would anybody grant that at least twenty percent of climate scientists
agree ?

If so, consider that Russian roulette is 16-17%. (1/6 = 16.66666...)

Would a rational person play Russian roulette?

Suppose you weren't rich and you had the inside scoop that the chances
of your house burning to the ground were 16-17% ? Would you forgo
homeowner's insurance to save a buck?

No I wouldn't forego the insurance. But neither would I pay attention
to the person who advised me to protect the house by burning the
entrails of a goat on a fire made of oak chips on a day when the wind
would carry the smoke onto the house.

The question is, have those umpteen% of scientists correctly
identified the problem?


there are none so blind, as those who will not see.
(not original)

But some are claiming to see something that is not much more than a
figment of their imaginations.

On 1/27/2016 11:38 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/27/2016 9:17 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 5:45 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/26/2016 2:07 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 8:46 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:51:19 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/25/2016 2:31 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 10:47 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 3:43 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/22/2016 2:21 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 12:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
These declassified images recall what I think should be our
biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest
concern.

Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is
certainly
going
to accelerate global warming.






Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad
slower.


Or to no measurable affect at all.

I have not seen any reliable independent studies that support
your
statement. Perhaps you can provide some.

You wouldn't believe them anyway, would you? It's settled
science, as
the president proclaimed.

Try me. i am looking for peer reviewed studies, using appropriate
data.

You can try these but only you can decide what you think is
appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html




As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this
can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136



This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect
that no
opinions will be changed.

This has been covered in the past. It's 97% of a carefully selected
group of some 60-something scientists. It's a load of bull****.


I would not select a climate change specialist to analyze an oncology
issue. The issue is proper data analysis, by those with a proper
background and no dog in the water. .

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

Any researcher has a personal interest in supporting any research they
have done previously. However, it is always devastating to produce
results that end up being wrong. So they all have a very significant
interest in doing good research unless they are just flat being
bought. Are you suggesting the government will not sponsor good
research that indicates AGW is not a problem?

People in government have an agenda. I believe that, absolutely, there
is zero interest in the federal government sponsoring any research that
would indicate that man-caused global warming is a myth. It doesn't fit
the President's agenda or that of many others.

thank you for capitalizing.
This President's agenda is to do what's right. You probably don't
agree, and let's just agree to disagree.

We can always agree to disagree. But I winced when you said the
President's agenda is to do what's right. The responsibilities of his
office clash with his agenda, that's the problem. He follows his agenda
and it's usually not right in the current case.

On 1/27/2016 12:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:07:03 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/27/2016 10:22 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2016 9:17 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 5:53 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2016 4:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:07:58 -0500, PAS wrote:

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

I have no interest in joining in this discussion, but I do have a
strong interest in the use of language.

Out of curiosity, is your "dog in the water" wordplay on rising ocean
temperatures or levels, or is it just an error? The idiomatic phrase
is "a dog in this fight".



I will answer, since I first used the expression. Here on the Isle of
Long, we have used the expression as I have stated. I have heard other
variations on the theme. I deliberately did not use the word "fight"
because it is not a fight. We were having a discussion. Unlike
discussions with others, PAS and I do not take our differences
personally. We have met several times, and I consider him a friend, so
there is no fight.
The Internet service here prohibits me from sites which may have
further documentation.

Like other regions, we have our sayings and, Lord knows, our accents. I
don't pronounce "R" when it's at the end of a word, like car. That's
just the way I tawk.

Good thing actually. Around here people pronounce 'r's where they
aren't like in Warshington. If a few people didn't drop an 'r' now
and then we would run out!

Hah! I went to school with a fellow from Washington. Not only did he
add an "r" but changed the "a" to an "e" - Wershington.

I grew up in Indianapolis, Indiana. Some of my friends said "warsh"
for "wash" and "orl" for "oil". Not me.


In Greenpoint, which is a part of Brooklyn, (pronounced by the locals:
"greenpernt," an English nobleman is an oil, and you put earl in your
car. Best you fergedditaboudit.


--
PeterN

On 1/27/2016 12:08 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 7:26 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2016 6:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:38:11 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per PAS:
You can try these but only you can decide what you think is
appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html


As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136


This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect that no
opinions will be changed.

Seems easy to hung up on precise numbers.

How about we reduce this to the ridiculous....

Would anybody grant that at least twenty percent of climate scientists
agree ?

If so, consider that Russian roulette is 16-17%. (1/6 = 16.66666...)

Would a rational person play Russian roulette?

Suppose you weren't rich and you had the inside scoop that the chances
of your house burning to the ground were 16-17% ? Would you forgo
homeowner's insurance to save a buck?

No I wouldn't forego the insurance. But neither would I pay attention
to the person who advised me to protect the house by burning the
entrails of a goat on a fire made of oak chips on a day when the wind
would carry the smoke onto the house.

The question is, have those umpteen% of scientists correctly
identified the problem?


there are none so blind, as those who will not see.
(not original)

But some are claiming to see something that is not much more than a
figment of their imaginations.

Assuming arguendo, that hydrocarbon emissions have no effect on climate
change, would you also say they have no effect on human health?


--
PeterN

Per rickman:
People say a lot of crap most of the time. I'm not sure why that would
surprise anyone. The world is full of crap. But I can't see how any of
this makes AGW any less real.

I remember back at the beginning of all this, the disinformation experts
were claiming that global warming just was not happening - period.

Then all those inconvenient time-lapse photos of glaciers and other
arctic/Antarctic scenes started making it into the media.

Then is seems like they morphed the message into something like "Well,
yeah, stuff's happening - but it is part of the earth's normal change
cycles.".

I haven't been following it lately, so I don't know to what stage the BS
has progressed by now... but I get the impression that is beeeeeeg money
behind some extremely proficient PR people pushing the denial side of
things.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/27/2016 1:48 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rickman:
People say a lot of crap most of the time. I'm not sure why that would
surprise anyone. The world is full of crap. But I can't see how any of
this makes AGW any less real.

I remember back at the beginning of all this, the disinformation experts
were claiming that global warming just was not happening - period.

Then all those inconvenient time-lapse photos of glaciers and other
arctic/Antarctic scenes started making it into the media.

Then is seems like they morphed the message into something like "Well,
yeah, stuff's happening - but it is part of the earth's normal change
cycles.".

I haven't been following it lately, so I don't know to what stage the BS
has progressed by now... but I get the impression that is beeeeeeg money
behind some extremely proficient PR people pushing the denial side of
things.


Yep!
And the strange thing is that some people believe it. I do not need time
lapse photography. I went to Alaska and could see for myself. The
evidence of glacier recession is indisputable.

--
PeterN

On 1/27/2016 1:25 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/27/2016 12:08 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 7:26 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2016 6:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:38:11 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per PAS:
You can try these but only you can decide what you think is
appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html



As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136



This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect
that no
opinions will be changed.

Seems easy to hung up on precise numbers.

How about we reduce this to the ridiculous....

Would anybody grant that at least twenty percent of climate
scientists
agree ?

If so, consider that Russian roulette is 16-17%. (1/6 = 16.66666...)

Would a rational person play Russian roulette?

Suppose you weren't rich and you had the inside scoop that the
chances
of your house burning to the ground were 16-17% ? Would you forgo
homeowner's insurance to save a buck?

No I wouldn't forego the insurance. But neither would I pay attention
to the person who advised me to protect the house by burning the
entrails of a goat on a fire made of oak chips on a day when the wind
would carry the smoke onto the house.

The question is, have those umpteen% of scientists correctly
identified the problem?


there are none so blind, as those who will not see.
(not original)

But some are claiming to see something that is not much more than a
figment of their imaginations.

Assuming arguendo, that hydrocarbon emissions have no effect on
climate change, would you also say they have no effect on human health?


No.

On 1/27/2016 12:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:07:03 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/27/2016 10:22 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2016 9:17 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 5:53 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2016 4:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:07:58 -0500, PAS wrote:

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.
I have no interest in joining in this discussion, but I do have a
strong interest in the use of language.

Out of curiosity, is your "dog in the water" wordplay on rising ocean
temperatures or levels, or is it just an error? The idiomatic phrase
is "a dog in this fight".


I will answer, since I first used the expression. Here on the Isle of
Long, we have used the expression as I have stated. I have heard other
variations on the theme. I deliberately did not use the word "fight"
because it is not a fight. We were having a discussion. Unlike
discussions with others, PAS and I do not take our differences
personally. We have met several times, and I consider him a friend, so
there is no fight.
The Internet service here prohibits me from sites which may have
further documentation.

Like other regions, we have our sayings and, Lord knows, our accents. I
don't pronounce "R" when it's at the end of a word, like car. That's
just the way I tawk.
Good thing actually. Around here people pronounce 'r's where they
aren't like in Warshington. If a few people didn't drop an 'r' now
and then we would run out!

Hah! I went to school with a fellow from Washington. Not only did he
add an "r" but changed the "a" to an "e" - Wershington.
I grew up in Indianapolis, Indiana. Some of my friends said "warsh"
for "wash" and "orl" for "oil". Not me.

I've heard people say "earl" for oil. Then there are things that have
different meanings in different parts of the country. We vacationed in
New Hampshire and Massachusetts more than a few times when I was a kid.
In Massachusetts, I ordered a milk shake. The person at the ice cream
shop could tell by my accent that I was not a local. She old me what I
wanted was a frappe, not a milk shake. A milk shake to us NYers is milk
and ice cream blended. In Mass, a milk shake was milk with flavored
syrup. A frappe was ice cream and milk.

On 1/27/2016 1:17 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/27/2016 12:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:07:03 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/27/2016 10:22 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2016 9:17 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 5:53 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2016 4:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:07:58 -0500, PAS wrote:

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with
their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

I have no interest in joining in this discussion, but I do have a
strong interest in the use of language.

Out of curiosity, is your "dog in the water" wordplay on rising
ocean
temperatures or levels, or is it just an error? The idiomatic
phrase
is "a dog in this fight".



I will answer, since I first used the expression. Here on the
Isle of
Long, we have used the expression as I have stated. I have heard
other
variations on the theme. I deliberately did not use the word "fight"
because it is not a fight. We were having a discussion. Unlike
discussions with others, PAS and I do not take our differences
personally. We have met several times, and I consider him a
friend, so
there is no fight.
The Internet service here prohibits me from sites which may have
further documentation.

Like other regions, we have our sayings and, Lord knows, our
accents. I
don't pronounce "R" when it's at the end of a word, like car. That's
just the way I tawk.

Good thing actually. Around here people pronounce 'r's where they
aren't like in Warshington. If a few people didn't drop an 'r' now
and then we would run out!

Hah! I went to school with a fellow from Washington. Not only did he
add an "r" but changed the "a" to an "e" - Wershington.

I grew up in Indianapolis, Indiana. Some of my friends said "warsh"
for "wash" and "orl" for "oil". Not me.


In Greenpoint, which is a part of Brooklyn, (pronounced by the locals:
"greenpernt," an English nobleman is an oil, and you put earl in your
car. Best you fergedditaboudit.


Or is it "fuhgeddaboudit"?

http://www.rimage.com/blog/2012/08/0...ommunications/