> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:06:50 -0800, Fran wrote: > > On Nov 7, 7:37 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 3:04 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 7, 3:12 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Nov 5, 9:51 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > Great work from the Center for Public Integrity
> >> > > > ||||
> >> > > > Key Findings > >> > > > November 04, 2009 > >> > > > Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of > >> > > > Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of > >> > > > reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to > >> > > > influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. Relying > >> > > > on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution > >> > > > records in a half-dozen countries, and on- the-ground reporting > >> > > > from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a > >> > > > far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries > >> > > > and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on > >> > > > control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of > >> > > > lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread > >> > > > fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the > >> > > > steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming > >> > > > environmental calamity, the investigation found.
> >> > > > The project fielded reporters in eight of the major economies > >> > > > deemed essential to a successful treaty: Australia, Brazil, > >> > > > Canada, China, India, Japan, and the United States, as well as > >> > > > the European Union. Among our findings:
> >> > > > • Both developed and developing countries are under heavy > >> > > > pressure by fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive > >> > > > businesses to slow progress on negotiations and weaken government > >> > > > commitments. The clash cannot simply be framed as one between > >> > > > richer and poorer nations.
> >> > > > • China’s moves to hasten development of renewable energy, > >> > > > Brazil’s pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other steps to > >> > > > address climate change in the developing world have prompted a > >> > > > strong pushback from domestic in-country interests determined to > >> > > > maintain the status quo.
> >> > > > • Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science that > >> > > > marked the pre-Kyoto battles, lobbyists seeking to dilute the > >> > > > Copenhagen treaty have changed strategy, acknowledging there is a > >> > > > problem while focusing on slowing or easing national commitments.
> >> > > > • The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in > >> > > > developed countries, where official registers reveal that > >> > > > thousands of industry representatives have attempted to influence > >> > > > climate legislation. In the United States, there are now about > >> > > > 2,810 climate lobbyists — five lobbyists for every member of > >> > > > Congress — a 400 percent jump from six years earlier. And in > >> > > > Australia, Canada, and the European Union, hundreds more > >> > > > lobbyists are at work attempting to block or water down strict > >> > > > limits on carbon emissions.
> >> > > > • Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts to > >> > > > influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the world’s largest > >> > > > coal company, in Australia and the United States; and oil giant > >> > > > Exxon Mobil in Canada, the European Union, and the United States. > >> > > > Although largely operating at a national level, opponents of a > >> > > > strong climate change treaty are employing similar fear tactics > >> > > > worldwide, including threats of massive blackouts and job losses.
> >> > > > • The voices of scores of business advocates for stronger climate > >> > > > change policy, including alternative energy companies and > >> > > > would-be players in the carbon market, can barely be heard above > >> > > > the clamor of the older, well-capitalized, and deeply entrenched > >> > > > industries that have been lobbying on climate change for more > >> > > > than 20 years.
> >> > > > • As a result of the forces arrayed against stricter emissions > >> > > > limits, no developed nation has made a firm pledge for the kind > >> > > > of emissions cut scientists say will be needed within the next > >> > > > decade to stave off catastrophic climate change.
> >> > > > Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global > >> > > > cooling" or how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a > >> > > > Blair, think on the filth merchant sources they are channelling.
> >> > > > Fran
> >> > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > >> > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around.
> >> > Multiple fallacies/dissembling in so few words ... congrats on that > >> > at least ...
> >> So you are saying it doesn't do those things?
> > I'm saying this is a red herring when considering its status as filth.
> >> > Try this thought experiment. What is the etiology of melanoma?
> >> Evasion noted.
> > Below you say that you feel less intelligent having for having read my > > posts. The above would seem to confirm that, although I suspect you were > > already poorly equipped before reading my posts.
> > Why not prove me and yourself wrong by seeing if you can identify some > > of the fallacies in your claim above? I know I'm already bored of this > > dance as I've done the steps several times with a sequence of partners.
> >> > > It powers the > >> > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of the > >> > > globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that harvests and > >> > > transports your food. Without fossil fuels your life would likely > >> > > be far, far shittier than it already is. To call it "filth" is > >> > > pretty damn ignorant and pathetic
> >> > Nope ... above a certain level, it is apt, especially since one > >> > doesn't merely get CO2 when energy is extracted from combustion of > >> > carbon-based materials.
> >> > Fran
> >> Still, what would your life be like without these terrible, filthy > >> carbon-based fuels?
> > Possibly very good. Why don't you try answering your won implicit > > question? What would life be like if we tried making do with 50% or 25% > > of the fossil fuels in question?
> > However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of whether > > CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even something > > essential can be "filth".
> Only to the truly twisted mind. It's your view, Fran, and it tells us a > lot about you.
I call that a content-free flame. IOt does seem to suggest however that your thinking is excessively compartmentalised.
> To me, "filth" describes the tyrannical governments who have murdered > millions of innocents in the name of Marxism.
Yet you can do metaphor and are keen to wander off topic when the opportunity for a flame presents itself.
> Natural resources that > rational people have used to establish a standard of living which has > greatly benefited most Earthlings
Earthlings eh?
> cannot be regarded as "filth".
So what you're saying is that something which is disrupting the ecosystem services that nurtured human development on the cheap when we were least technologically advanced and which in addition is associated with massive systematic realeases of human toxins can't be called filth?
You're the one who is plainly struggling, cognitively, though not so much that you wouldn't prefer to talk about something else..
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:06:50 -0800, Fran wrote: > > On Nov 7, 7:37 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 3:04 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >> To me, "filth" describes the tyrannical governments who have murdered > millions of innocents in the name of Marxism.
Yet you can do metaphor and are keen to wander off topic when the opportunity for a flame presents itself.
> Natural resources that > rational people have used to establish a standard of living which has > greatly benefited most Earthlings
Earthlings eh?
> cannot be regarded as "filth".
So what you're saying is that something which is disrupting the ecosystem services that nurtured human development on the cheap when we were least technologically advanced and which in addition is associated with massive systematic realeases of human toxins can't be called filth? ======================================
So who's changing the subject now? I thought you were referring to CO2 then, suddenly you start talking about "human toxins"!!
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
> On Nov 7, 7:37 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 3:04 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 3:12 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 9:51 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Great work from the Center for Public Integrity
> > > > > ||||
> > > > > Key Findings > > > > > November 04, 2009 > > > > > Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative > > > > > Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the > > > > > special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global > > > > > climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying > > > > > and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on- > > > > > the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced > > > > > together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil > > > > > fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing > > > > > progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands > > > > > of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear > > > > > tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that > > > > > scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental > > > > > calamity, the investigation found.
> > > > > The project fielded reporters in eight of the major economies deemed > > > > > essential to a successful treaty: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, > > > > > India, Japan, and the United States, as well as the European Union. > > > > > Among our findings:
> > > > > • Both developed and developing countries are under heavy pressure by > > > > > fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive businesses to slow > > > > > progress on negotiations and weaken government commitments. The clash > > > > > cannot simply be framed as one between richer and poorer nations.
> > > > > • China’s moves to hasten development of renewable energy, Brazil’s > > > > > pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other steps to address > > > > > climate change in the developing world have prompted a strong pushback > > > > > from domestic in-country interests determined to maintain the status > > > > > quo.
> > > > > • Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science that > > > > > marked the pre-Kyoto battles, lobbyists seeking to dilute the > > > > > Copenhagen treaty have changed strategy, acknowledging there is a > > > > > problem while focusing on slowing or easing national commitments.
> > > > > • The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in developed > > > > > countries, where official registers reveal that thousands of industry > > > > > representatives have attempted to influence climate legislation. In > > > > > the United States, there are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists — five > > > > > lobbyists for every member of Congress — a 400 percent jump from six > > > > > years earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European Union, > > > > > hundreds more lobbyists are at work attempting to block or water down > > > > > strict limits on carbon emissions.
> > > > > • Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts to > > > > > influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the world’s largest coal > > > > > company, in Australia and the United States; and oil giant Exxon Mobil > > > > > in Canada, the European Union, and the United States. Although largely > > > > > operating at a national level, opponents of a strong climate change > > > > > treaty are employing similar fear tactics worldwide, including threats > > > > > of massive blackouts and job losses.
> > > > > • The voices of scores of business advocates for stronger climate > > > > > change policy, including alternative energy companies and would-be > > > > > players in the carbon market, can barely be heard above the clamor of > > > > > the older, well-capitalized, and deeply entrenched industries that > > > > > have been lobbying on climate change for more than 20 years.
> > > > > • As a result of the forces arrayed against stricter emissions limits, > > > > > no developed nation has made a firm pledge for the kind of emissions > > > > > cut scientists say will be needed within the next decade to stave off > > > > > catastrophic climate change.
> > > > > Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or > > > > > how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the > > > > > filth merchant sources they are channelling.
> > > > > Fran
> > > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > > > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around.
> > > Multiple fallacies/dissembling in so few words ... congrats on that at > > > least ...
> > So you are saying it doesn't do those things?
> I'm saying this is a red herring when considering its status as filth.
So the statement I made is correct. No fallacies there. You call it a red herring, I call it relevant. Fuel is not filth, despite your warped worldview. The term "filth merchant" is better left to describing child pornographers not people who making an honorable living extracting and producing fuels that are essential to our civilization. If you want to call substances that have been incredibly beneficial to mankind the derogatory term "filth", knock yourself out. Just be prepared to be labeled a clueless idiot.
> > > Try this thought experiment. What is the etiology of melanoma?
> > Evasion noted.
> Below you say that you feel less intelligent having for having read my > posts. The above would seem to confirm that, although I suspect you > were already poorly equipped before reading my posts.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it, honey. Are you under some delusion that I should feel an obligation to answer your stupid questions? When you post irrelevant crap, you can expect that it will be ridiculed and then ignored.
> Why not prove me and yourself wrong by seeing if you can identify some > of the fallacies in your claim above?
Wow, you are offering me the opportunity to prove myself wrong? That's tempting, but I think I will stick to just proving you wrong, a far easier task.
> I know I'm already bored of this > dance as I've done the steps several times with a sequence of > partners.
Sorry honey, but no one wants to "dance" with you and no one wants to be your "partner." Actually, you might be able get somewhere with Spamboros Rex, I'm sure his standards are pretty low.
> > > > It powers the > > > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of the > > > > globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that harvests and > > > > transports your food. Without fossil fuels your life would likely be > > > > far, far shittier than it already is. To call it "filth" is pretty > > > > damn ignorant and pathetic
> > > Nope ... above a certain level, it is apt, especially since one > > > doesn't merely get CO2 when energy is extracted from combustion of > > > carbon-based materials.
> > > Fran
> > Still, what would your life be like without these terrible, filthy > > carbon-based fuels?
> Possibly very good. Why don't you try answering your won implicit > question? What would life be like if we tried making do with 50% or > 25% of the fossil fuels in question?
With only 25% of fossil fuels, everyone's standard of living, apart from the most backwards of third world countries, would drop precipitously. There is no way current alternative energy schemes can fill in the gap without disastrous economic consequences. Without some significant technological breakthroughs, that will remain the case for decades if not centuries to come. However, I don't think that is concern for the most rabid greentards, who tend to think civilization is evil and would love to see us all brought down to the standards of sub-saharan Africa.
> However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of > whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even > something essential can be "filth".
> > Why don't you ponder that before responding?
> Been there done that. You plainly haven't.
> Fran
So tell us what is going to take up the slack for the 75% reduction in fossil fuels? Wind turbines and happy thoughts?
> > >> Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or > > >> how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the > > >> filth merchant sources they are channelling.
> > >> Fran
> > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around. It powers the > > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of the > > > globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that harvests and > > > transports your food. Without fossil fuels your life would likely be > > > far, far shittier than it already is. To call it "filth" is pretty > > > damn ignorant and pathetic.
> > The more helpless people Clumpy can kill, the better he likes it
> I don't believe he wants to kill anyone. I see him simply as some > recklessly ignorant angst-driven suburbanite whose first and last > interest is protecting his creature comforts and lifestyle at any > cost. He's waging his own little part of the culture wars because he > thinks this is in his interests, but he is of course, deluded.
> Fran
No, more like an engineer who is disgusted by the unbridled stupidity of technically illiterate fools who think we can cut carbon emissions by 50% or more in a matter of decades without hugely disastrous economic consequences. All to prevent a fraction of a degree of global warming, at best. Russia, India and China have basically said "fuck that" to CO2 emission caps, guaranteeing that cuts by others will be an entirely futile gesture . Concerned people need to speak out against this nonsense.
bo n o wrote: > "Fran" <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4e82a477-1073-42f1-b566-80ad2fa00aa3@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 7, 7:19 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:06:50 -0800, Fran wrote: >> > On Nov 7, 7:37 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 6, 3:04 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> To me, "filth" describes the tyrannical governments who have >>> murdered >> millions of innocents in the name of Marxism.
> Yet you can do metaphor and are keen to wander off topic when the > opportunity for a flame presents itself.
>> Natural resources that >> rational people have used to establish a standard of living which has >> greatly benefited most Earthlings
> Earthlings eh?
>> cannot be regarded as "filth".
> So what you're saying is that something which is disrupting the > ecosystem services that nurtured human development on the cheap when > we were least technologically advanced and which in addition is > associated with massive systematic realeases of human toxins can't be > called filth? > ======================================
> So who's changing the subject now? > I thought you were referring to CO2 then, suddenly you start talking > about "human toxins"!!
Bureaucrats do that a lot and her postings seem worded to be one bureaucrat to another. Maybe she is trying to impress with bureaucrateese. Maybe an enviro bureaucrat..
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:27:04 -0800, Fran wrote: > On Nov 7, 7:19 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:06:50 -0800, Fran wrote: >> > On Nov 7, 7:37 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 6, 3:04 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 7, 3:12 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > > On Nov 5, 9:51 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > Great work from the Center for Public Integrity
>> >> > > > ||||
>> >> > > > Key Findings >> >> > > > November 04, 2009 >> >> > > > Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of >> >> > > > Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of >> >> > > > reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to >> >> > > > influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. >> >> > > > Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign >> >> > > > contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on- >> >> > > > the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced >> >> > > > together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash >> >> > > > by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters >> >> > > > aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas >> >> > > > emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in >> >> > > > political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, >> >> > > > entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that >> >> > > > scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental >> >> > > > calamity, the investigation found.
>> >> > > > The project fielded reporters in eight of the major economies >> >> > > > deemed essential to a successful treaty: Australia, Brazil, >> >> > > > Canada, China, India, Japan, and the United States, as well as >> >> > > > the European Union. Among our findings:
>> >> > > > • Both developed and developing countries are under heavy >> >> > > > pressure by fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive >> >> > > > businesses to slow progress on negotiations and weaken >> >> > > > government commitments. The clash cannot simply be framed as >> >> > > > one between richer and poorer nations.
>> >> > > > • China’s moves to hasten development of renewable energy, >> >> > > > Brazil’s pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other steps >> >> > > > to address climate change in the developing world have >> >> > > > prompted a strong pushback from domestic in-country interests >> >> > > > determined to maintain the status quo.
>> >> > > > • Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science >> >> > > > that marked the pre-Kyoto battles, lobbyists seeking to dilute >> >> > > > the Copenhagen treaty have changed strategy, acknowledging >> >> > > > there is a problem while focusing on slowing or easing >> >> > > > national commitments.
>> >> > > > • The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in >> >> > > > developed countries, where official registers reveal that >> >> > > > thousands of industry representatives have attempted to >> >> > > > influence climate legislation. In the United States, there are >> >> > > > now about 2,810 climate lobbyists — five lobbyists for every >> >> > > > member of Congress — a 400 percent jump from six years >> >> > > > earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European Union, >> >> > > > hundreds more lobbyists are at work attempting to block or >> >> > > > water down strict limits on carbon emissions.
>> >> > > > • Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts to >> >> > > > influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the world’s >> >> > > > largest coal company, in Australia and the United States; and >> >> > > > oil giant Exxon Mobil in Canada, the European Union, and the >> >> > > > United States. Although largely operating at a national level, >> >> > > > opponents of a strong climate change treaty are employing >> >> > > > similar fear tactics worldwide, including threats of massive >> >> > > > blackouts and job losses.
>> >> > > > • The voices of scores of business advocates for stronger >> >> > > > climate change policy, including alternative energy companies >> >> > > > and would-be players in the carbon market, can barely be heard >> >> > > > above the clamor of the older, well-capitalized, and deeply >> >> > > > entrenched industries that have been lobbying on climate >> >> > > > change for more than 20 years.
>> >> > > > • As a result of the forces arrayed against stricter emissions >> >> > > > limits, no developed nation has made a firm pledge for the >> >> > > > kind of emissions cut scientists say will be needed within the >> >> > > > next decade to stave off catastrophic climate change.
>> >> > > > Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global >> >> > > > cooling" or how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a >> >> > > > Blair, think on the filth merchant sources they are >> >> > > > channelling.
>> >> > > > Fran
>> >> > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, >> >> > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around.
>> >> > Multiple fallacies/dissembling in so few words ... congrats on >> >> > that at least ...
>> >> So you are saying it doesn't do those things?
>> > I'm saying this is a red herring when considering its status as >> > filth.
>> >> > Try this thought experiment. What is the etiology of melanoma?
>> >> Evasion noted.
>> > Below you say that you feel less intelligent having for having read >> > my posts. The above would seem to confirm that, although I suspect >> > you were already poorly equipped before reading my posts.
>> > Why not prove me and yourself wrong by seeing if you can identify >> > some of the fallacies in your claim above? I know I'm already bored >> > of this dance as I've done the steps several times with a sequence of >> > partners.
>> >> > > It powers the >> >> > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of >> >> > > the globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that >> >> > > harvests and transports your food. Without fossil fuels your >> >> > > life would likely be far, far shittier than it already is. To >> >> > > call it "filth" is pretty damn ignorant and pathetic
>> >> > Nope ... above a certain level, it is apt, especially since one >> >> > doesn't merely get CO2 when energy is extracted from combustion of >> >> > carbon-based materials.
>> >> > Fran
>> >> Still, what would your life be like without these terrible, filthy >> >> carbon-based fuels?
>> > Possibly very good. Why don't you try answering your won implicit >> > question? What would life be like if we tried making do with 50% or >> > 25% of the fossil fuels in question?
>> > However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of >> > whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even >> > something essential can be "filth".
>> Only to the truly twisted mind. It's your view, Fran, and it tells us >> a lot about you.
> I call that a content-free flame. IOt does seem to suggest however that > your thinking is excessively compartmentalised.
It's a simple observation, Fran, not a flame. "Filth" is your word, and it quite vividly describes the content of your mind, not mine.
>> To me, "filth" describes the tyrannical governments who have murdered >> millions of innocents in the name of Marxism.
> Yet you can do metaphor and are keen to wander off topic when the > opportunity for a flame presents itself.
You need some desensitizing classes and consciousness lowering if you think my observation is a flame. When speaking of "filth", I think the results of Marxism fit the description much better than a few chemical compounds.
>> Natural resources that >> rational people have used to establish a standard of living which has >> greatly benefited most Earthlings
> Earthlings eh?
Yeah, the humanity that lives on Earth, for whom you seem to have such disdain. We're all better off from people learning how to harness energy to make life easier. Get over the Prometheus myth.
>> cannot be regarded as "filth".
> So what you're saying is that something which is disrupting the > ecosystem services that nurtured human development on the cheap when we > were least technologically advanced and which in addition is associated > with massive systematic realeases of human toxins can't be called filth?
Correct. That's not even in the same league as the suffering caused by tyrants enslaving people through Marxism.
> You're the one who is plainly struggling, cognitively, though not so > much that you wouldn't prefer to talk about something else.
You're projecting again, Fran. The struggle you feel can only be within yourself - you have no access to my inner thoughts. You perhaps realize on some level the inconsistency of your beliefs. Try exploring that and see what happens.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:27:04 -0800, Fran wrote: > > On Nov 7, 7:19 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:06:50 -0800, Fran wrote: > >> > On Nov 7, 7:37 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 6, 3:04 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 7, 3:12 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > On Nov 5, 9:51 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > Great work from the Center for Public Integrity
> >> >> > > > ||||
> >> >> > > > Key Findings > >> >> > > > November 04, 2009 > >> >> > > > Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of > >> >> > > > Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of > >> >> > > > reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to > >> >> > > > influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. > >> >> > > > Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign > >> >> > > > contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on- > >> >> > > > the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced > >> >> > > > together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash > >> >> > > > by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters > >> >> > > > aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas > >> >> > > > emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in > >> >> > > > political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, > >> >> > > > entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that > >> >> > > > scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental > >> >> > > > calamity, the investigation found.
> >> >> > > > The project fielded reporters in eight of the major economies > >> >> > > > deemed essential to a successful treaty: Australia, Brazil, > >> >> > > > Canada, China, India, Japan, and the United States, as well as > >> >> > > > the European Union. Among our findings:
> >> >> > > > • Both developed and developing countries are under heavy > >> >> > > > pressure by fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive > >> >> > > > businesses to slow progress on negotiations and weaken > >> >> > > > government commitments. The clash cannot simply be framed as > >> >> > > > one between richer and poorer nations.
> >> >> > > > • China’s moves to hasten development of renewable energy, > >> >> > > > Brazil’s pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other steps > >> >> > > > to address climate change in the developing world have > >> >> > > > prompted a strong pushback from domestic in-country interests > >> >> > > > determined to maintain the status quo.
> >> >> > > > • Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science > >> >> > > > that marked the pre-Kyoto battles, lobbyists seeking to dilute > >> >> > > > the Copenhagen treaty have changed strategy, acknowledging > >> >> > > > there is a problem while focusing on slowing or easing > >> >> > > > national commitments.
> >> >> > > > • The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in > >> >> > > > developed countries, where official registers reveal that > >> >> > > > thousands of industry representatives have attempted to > >> >> > > > influence climate legislation. In the United States, there are > >> >> > > > now about 2,810 climate lobbyists — five lobbyists for every > >> >> > > > member of Congress — a 400 percent jump from six years > >> >> > > > earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European Union, > >> >> > > > hundreds more lobbyists are at work attempting to block or > >> >> > > > water down strict limits on carbon emissions.
> >> >> > > > • Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts to > >> >> > > > influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the world’s > >> >> > > > largest coal company, in Australia and the United States; and > >> >> > > > oil giant Exxon Mobil in Canada, the European Union, and the > >> >> > > > United States. Although largely operating at a national level, > >> >> > > > opponents of a strong climate change treaty are employing > >> >> > > > similar fear tactics worldwide, including threats of massive > >> >> > > > blackouts and job losses.
> >> >> > > > • The voices of scores of business advocates for stronger > >> >> > > > climate change policy, including alternative energy companies > >> >> > > > and would-be players in the carbon market, can barely be heard > >> >> > > > above the clamor of the older, well-capitalized, and deeply > >> >> > > > entrenched industries that have been lobbying on climate > >> >> > > > change for more than 20 years.
> >> >> > > > • As a result of the forces arrayed against stricter emissions > >> >> > > > limits, no developed nation has made a firm pledge for the > >> >> > > > kind of emissions cut scientists say will be needed within the > >> >> > > > next decade to stave off catastrophic climate change.
> >> >> > > > Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global > >> >> > > > cooling" or how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a > >> >> > > > Blair, think on the filth merchant sources they are > >> >> > > > channelling.
> >> >> > > > Fran
> >> >> > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > >> >> > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around.
> >> >> > Multiple fallacies/dissembling in so few words ... congrats on > >> >> > that at least ...
> >> >> So you are saying it doesn't do those things?
> >> > I'm saying this is a red herring when considering its status as > >> > filth.
> >> >> > Try this thought experiment. What is the etiology of melanoma?
> >> >> Evasion noted.
> >> > Below you say that you feel less intelligent having for having read > >> > my posts. The above would seem to confirm that, although I suspect > >> > you were already poorly equipped before reading my posts.
> >> > Why not prove me and yourself wrong by seeing if you can identify > >> > some of the fallacies in your claim above? I know I'm already bored > >> > of this dance as I've done the steps several times with a sequence of > >> > partners.
> >> >> > > It powers the > >> >> > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of > >> >> > > the globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that > >> >> > > harvests and transports your food. Without fossil fuels your > >> >> > > life would likely be far, far shittier than it already is. To > >> >> > > call it "filth" is pretty damn ignorant and pathetic
> >> >> > Nope ... above a certain level, it is apt, especially since one > >> >> > doesn't merely get CO2 when energy is extracted from combustion of > >> >> > carbon-based materials.
> >> >> > Fran
> >> >> Still, what would your life be like without these terrible, filthy > >> >> carbon-based fuels?
> >> > Possibly very good. Why don't you try answering your won implicit > >> > question? What would life be like if we tried making do with 50% or > >> > 25% of the fossil fuels in question?
> >> > However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of > >> > whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even > >> > something essential can be "filth".
> >> Only to the truly twisted mind. It's your view, Fran, and it tells us > >> a lot about you.
> > I call that a content-free flame. It does seem to suggest however that > > your thinking is excessively compartmentalised.
> It's a simple observation, Fran, not a flame.
That you claim that saying someone has a "twisted mind" is not a flame is simply disingenuous, unless I believe that you are socially inept.
> "Filth" is your word, and > it quite vividly describes the content of your mind, not mine.
As I said, you are au fait with the metaphoric usage but seerm reluctant ot apply it in its more literal senses.
> >> To me, "filth" describes the tyrannical governments who have murdered > >> millions of innocents in the name of Marxism.
> > Yet you can do metaphor and are keen to wander off topic when the > > opportunity for a flame presents itself.
> You need some desensitizing classes and consciousness lowering if you > think my observation is a flame.
Again, unless you are socially inept, you are being disingenuous here. Implying that I solidarise with the murder of "millions of innocents" via my attachment to Marxism clearly is a flame.
> When speaking of "filth", I think the > results of Marxism fit the description much better than a few chemical > compounds.
So you prefer the metaphoric usage to more literal descriptions of neurotoxins like mercury, which are released from coal burning plants, or PM5 and PM10 or CO, or carcionogenic actinides. You're happy that benzene, CO and near tropospheric ozone released from motor vehicles, don't qualify as filth, but you're really keen to talk about regimes that passed into oblivion 50 years ago, when this group's focus is global-warming.
I know why you'd like to divert discussion, but there are other groups set up to debate the ethics of the Stalinist-led regimes.
> >> Natural resources that > >> rational people have used to establish a standard of living which has > >> greatly benefited most Earthlings
> > Earthlings eh?
> Yeah, the humanity that lives on Earth, for whom you seem to have such > disdain.
Cynical, since my regard for humanity's wellbeing amounts to more than the pure lipservice you offer. Your policy is to leave humanity to suffer whatever injury "the market" imposes upon them as it seeks the most cost-effective way to convert resources into privileges for the ruling elites. You put a value on human wellbeing of zero, whereas I insist that the humans should be indemnified.
Mine is to compel the elites to account for the damage they do or will do in the
> > > > > > Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or > > > > > > how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the > > > > > > filth merchant sources they are channelling.
> > > > > > Fran
> > > > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > > > > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around.
> > > > Multiple fallacies/dissembling in so few words ... congrats on that at > > > > least ...
> > > So you are saying it doesn't do those things?
> > I'm saying this is a red herring when considering its status as filth.
> So the statement I made is correct. No fallacies there.
It's entirely fallacious *and* includes a red herring.
> You call it > a red herring, I call it relevant. Fuel is not filth, despite your > warped worldview.
The inevitable combustion products of fossil fuels are filth.
> The term "filth merchant" is better left to > describing child pornographers not people who making an honorable > living extracting and producing fuels that are essential to our > civilization.
As appalling as are child pornographers, the scale of their harm is trivial compared with the injury to life on Earth in general and human life in particular flowing from the world's industrial scale filth merchants.
> If you want to call substances that have been incredibly > beneficial to mankind the derogatory term "filth", knock yourself out.
Your problem is your black and white view of things. In relative terms, resort to coal fired power to make electricity makes sense compared with burning cow dung for heat in a house, and that may well compare well with freezing to death. That doesn't mean that either burning cow dung or as now burning coal on the scale it is now conducted it is better than every other suite of technologies that could produce similar utility.
We could burn coal to run motor vehicles, but we don't because iot would be far worse. So we chose to burn refined crude oil instead. Of coruse, that too had its problems because we used to emit a lot of lead, which was toxic, esepcially to children. So we took lead out of petrol and designed cat converters to facilitate this. This was good, but the process of making cat converters has its their own toxic footprint, and if we could avoid using them while getting the utility of petroleum fuels this would be better, unless the alternative had its own nasty footprint.
And so it goes. What does enormous good may still come at a high cost, and rational people try to increase the good and reduce the cost. You however are just stuck on looking at only one side of the balance sheet.
> Just be prepared to be labeled a clueless idiot.
You're the one who is at risk here Mr Monkey Clumps.
> > > > Try this thought experiment. What is the etiology of melanoma?
> > > Evasion noted.
It was an attempt to get you to come back on topic.
> > Below you say that you feel less intelligent having for having read my > > posts. The above would seem to confirm that, although I suspect you > > were already poorly equipped before reading my posts.
> Intelligence has nothing to do with it, honey. Are you under some > delusion that I should feel an obligation to answer your stupid > questions?
I harbour no delusions that you can answer any serious question, but the best way to make that point was to challenge you to do so, and in the process support the inference making of those sharper than you who may be reading this.
> When you post irrelevant crap, you can expect that it will > be ridiculed and then ignored.
Amusing, since you are the one seeking to take the conversation into irrelevance.
> > Why not prove me and yourself wrong by seeing if you can identify some > > of the fallacies in your claim above?
> Wow, you are offering me the opportunity to prove myself wrong?
Well you did say you felt less intelligent reading my posts.
> That's tempting, but I think I will stick to just proving you wrong, a > far easier task.
So why haven't you started then?
> > I know I'm already bored of this > > dance as I've done the steps several times with a sequence of > > partners.
> Sorry honey, but no one wants to "dance" with you and no one wants to > be your "partner."
So you were only joshing with your red herring waving activity?
<snip>
> > > Still, what would your life be like without these terrible, filthy > > > carbon-based fuels?
> > Possibly very good. Why don't you try answering your won implicit > > question? What would life be like if we tried making do with 50% or > > 25% of the fossil fuels in question?
> With only 25% of fossil fuels, everyone's standard of living, apart > from the most backwards of third world countries, would drop > precipitously.
> > > >> Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or > > > >> how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the > > > >> filth merchant sources they are channelling.
> > > >> Fran
> > > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > > > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around. It powers the > > > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of the > > > > globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that harvests and > > > > transports your food. Without fossil fuels your life would likely be > > > > far, far shittier than it already is. To call it "filth" is pretty > > > > damn ignorant and pathetic.
> > > The more helpless people Clumpy can kill, the better he likes it
> > I don't believe he wants to kill anyone. I see him simply as some > > recklessly ignorant angst-driven suburbanite whose first and last > > interest is protecting his creature comforts and lifestyle at any > > cost. He's waging his own little part of the culture wars because he > > thinks this is in his interests, but he is of course, deluded.
> > Fran
> No, more like an engineer who is disgusted by the unbridled stupidity > of technically illiterate fools who think we can cut carbon emissions > by 50% or more in a matter of decades without hugely disastrous > economic consequences.
Of course we can do it without such consequences. Sure it won't be cost free, but it will be less costly by orders of magnitude than doing nothing. Andf there are other offisets since as we saw above, cutting fossil fuel usage cuts oher sources of health harm, loss of working days etc ...
Then there's the cost of all those oil wars -- gone. They cost a fortune.
> All to prevent a fraction of a degree of > global warming, at best. Russia, India and China have basically said > "fuck that" to CO2 emission caps, guaranteeing that cuts by others > will be an entirely futile gesture . Concerned people need to speak > out against this nonsense\
Let's see. China and India have been talking bigger numbers than the west of late. They obviously want the best deal they can get out of the west but in the end, climate change will hurt them very greatly too, as does airborne pollution already. Going to much more intensive use of nuclear (especially IFR) at the expense of coal would make a huge improvement in air quality and putting their cars on the electric grid in those circumstances would also help. Would they like a payout by the west? You betcha, and they are entitled since the bulk of the problem is down to what our forefathers did.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:26:31 -0800, Fran wrote: > On Nov 8, 5:44 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:27:04 -0800, Fran wrote: >> > On Nov 7, 7:19 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:06:50 -0800, Fran wrote: >> >> > On Nov 7, 7:37 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 6, 3:04 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Nov 7, 3:12 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Nov 5, 9:51 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > Great work from the Center for Public Integrity
>> >> >> > > > ||||
>> >> >> > > > Key Findings >> >> >> > > > November 04, 2009 >> >> >> > > > Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of >> >> >> > > > Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of >> >> >> > > > reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to >> >> >> > > > influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. >> >> >> > > > Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign >> >> >> > > > contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on- >> >> >> > > > the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team >> >> >> > > > pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational >> >> >> > > > backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon >> >> >> > > > emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse >> >> >> > > > gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions >> >> >> > > > in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, >> >> >> > > > entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that >> >> >> > > > scientists say are needed to stave off a looming >> >> >> > > > environmental calamity, the investigation found.
>> >> >> > > > The project fielded reporters in eight of the major >> >> >> > > > economies deemed essential to a successful treaty: >> >> >> > > > Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, and the >> >> >> > > > United States, as well as the European Union. Among our >> >> >> > > > findings:
>> >> >> > > > • Both developed and developing countries are under heavy >> >> >> > > > pressure by fossil fuel industries and other >> >> >> > > > carbon-intensive businesses to slow progress on >> >> >> > > > negotiations and weaken government commitments. The clash >> >> >> > > > cannot simply be framed as one between richer and poorer >> >> >> > > > nations.
>> >> >> > > > • China’s moves to hasten development of renewable energy, >> >> >> > > > Brazil’s pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other >> >> >> > > > steps to address climate change in the developing world >> >> >> > > > have prompted a strong pushback from domestic in-country >> >> >> > > > interests determined to maintain the status quo.
>> >> >> > > > • Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science >> >> >> > > > that marked the pre-Kyoto battles, lobbyists seeking to >> >> >> > > > dilute the Copenhagen treaty have changed strategy, >> >> >> > > > acknowledging there is a problem while focusing on slowing >> >> >> > > > or easing national commitments.
>> >> >> > > > • The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in >> >> >> > > > developed countries, where official registers reveal that >> >> >> > > > thousands of industry representatives have attempted to >> >> >> > > > influence climate legislation. In the United States, there >> >> >> > > > are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists — five lobbyists for >> >> >> > > > every member of Congress — a 400 percent jump from six >> >> >> > > > years earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European >> >> >> > > > Union, hundreds more lobbyists are at work attempting to >> >> >> > > > block or water down strict limits on carbon emissions.
>> >> >> > > > • Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts >> >> >> > > > to influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the world’s >> >> >> > > > largest coal company, in Australia and the United States; >> >> >> > > > and oil giant Exxon Mobil in Canada, the European Union, >> >> >> > > > and the United States. Although largely operating at a >> >> >> > > > national level, opponents of a strong climate change treaty >> >> >> > > > are employing similar fear tactics worldwide, including >> >> >> > > > threats of massive blackouts and job losses.
>> >> >> > > > • The voices of scores of business advocates for stronger >> >> >> > > > climate change policy, including alternative energy >> >> >> > > > companies and would-be players in the carbon market, can >> >> >> > > > barely be heard above the clamor of the older, >> >> >> > > > well-capitalized, and deeply entrenched industries that >> >> >> > > > have been lobbying on climate change for more than 20 >> >> >> > > > years.
>> >> >> > > > • As a result of the forces arrayed against stricter >> >> >> > > > emissions limits, no developed nation has made a firm >> >> >> > > > pledge for the kind of emissions cut scientists say will be >> >> >> > > > needed within the next decade to stave off catastrophic >> >> >> > > > climate change.
>> >> >> > > > Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global >> >> >> > > > cooling" or how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or >> >> >> > > > a Blair, think on the filth merchant sources they are >> >> >> > > > channelling.
>> >> >> > > > Fran
>> >> >> > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the >> >> >> > > cars, buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around.
>> >> >> > Multiple fallacies/dissembling in so few words ... congrats on >> >> >> > that at least ...
>> >> >> So you are saying it doesn't do those things?
>> >> > I'm saying this is a red herring when considering its status as >> >> > filth.
>> >> >> > Try this thought experiment. What is the etiology of melanoma?
>> >> >> Evasion noted.
>> >> > Below you say that you feel less intelligent having for having >> >> > read my posts. The above would seem to confirm that, although I >> >> > suspect you were already poorly equipped before reading my posts.
>> >> > Why not prove me and yourself wrong by seeing if you can identify >> >> > some of the fallacies in your claim above? I know I'm already >> >> > bored of this dance as I've done the steps several times with a >> >> > sequence of partners.
>> >> >> > > It powers the >> >> >> > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of >> >> >> > > the globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that >> >> >> > > harvests and transports your food. Without fossil fuels your >> >> >> > > life would likely be far, far shittier than it already is. To >> >> >> > > call it "filth" is pretty damn ignorant and pathetic
>> >> >> > Nope ... above a certain level, it is apt, especially since one >> >> >> > doesn't merely get CO2 when energy is extracted from combustion >> >> >> > of carbon-based materials.
>> >> >> > Fran
>> >> >> Still, what would your life be like without these terrible, >> >> >> filthy carbon-based fuels?
>> >> > Possibly very good. Why don't you try answering your won implicit >> >> > question? What would life be like if we tried making do with 50% >> >> > or 25% of the fossil fuels in question?
>> >> > However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of >> >> > whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even >> >> > something essential can be "filth".
>> >> Only to the truly twisted mind. It's your view, Fran, and it tells >> >> us a lot about you.
>> > I call that a content-free flame. It does seem to suggest however >> > that your thinking is excessively compartmentalised.
>> It's a simple observation, Fran, not a flame.
> That you claim that saying someone has a "twisted mind" is not a flame > is simply disingenuous, unless I believe that you are socially inept.
>> "Filth" is your word, and >> it quite vividly describes the content of your mind, not mine.
> As I said, you are au fait with the metaphoric usage but seerm reluctant > ot apply it in its more literal senses.
>> >> To me, "filth" describes the tyrannical governments who have >> >> murdered millions of innocents in the name of Marxism.
>> > Yet you can do metaphor and are keen to wander off topic when the >> > opportunity for a flame presents itself.
>> You need some desensitizing classes and consciousness lowering if you >> think my observation is a flame.
> Again, unless you are socially inept, you are being disingenuous here. > Implying that I solidarise with the murder of "millions of innocents" > via my attachment to Marxism clearly is a flame.
>> When speaking of "filth", I think the results of Marxism fit the >> description much better than a few chemical compounds.
> So you prefer the metaphoric usage to more literal descriptions of > neurotoxins like mercury, which are released from coal burning plants, > or PM5 and PM10 or CO, or carcionogenic actinides. You're happy that > benzene, CO and near tropospheric ozone released from motor vehicles, > don't qualify as filth, but you're really keen to talk about regimes > that passed into oblivion 50 years ago, when this group's focus is > global-warming.
You are now trying to change the subject away from CO2 and pretend you were referring to actually harmful emissions. It didn't work. The red herrings you raise are indeed problems that are being solved. CO2 is not a problem, and does not need to be solved. Spending resources on phony problems slows the work on real problems. Even a Marxist should understand that,
Here's what I responded to:
"However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of whether CO2 and its related break down products are
Discussion subject changed to "THE ALLEGED SPANISH FLU OF 1918-1921 & ASIAN FLU OF 1958 PANDEMIES WERE IN FACT THE BLACK PLAGUE !" by Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
25 to 40 millions death in the world demonstrating that the Jenner / Pasteurian Criminals theories were & are complete fraud... and so the alleged preventive Vaccinations orchestrated by the WHO criminal organisation in Switzerland ...leading to immediate Guillain-Barré Syndrome in the quickest response of the organism ( an acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), an autoimmune disorder affecting the peripheral nervous system. GBS is a side- effect of influenza vaccines ) ... and in slower responses Myopathies of Duchêne, Alzheimer, Parkinson, M.Sclerosis & of course paralytic death
Of course the French & British Government did everything to hide the frauds of the most outstanding Holocaust Criminals in all History of Mankind : The Jenner / Pasteur antibiotic clueless fools , the first credited with the worse Tuberculosis Pandemy thanks to his Vaccine Turberculinis strain found in infected cow pustules pus & the other fool with the Lung Cancer & other types of cancers thanks to his abominable vaccine poisons ! Hence although millions were buried in both countries by Tumbrels fulls at night in common graves, nothing transpired except in Spain, which has not vested interest in supporting a most fraudulent science of alleged Medecine ! Of course the clueless Pollies are just doing what told to them by the greedy vaccine producing labs living out of Humanity beliefs that the causes of dizeazezz are germz, viruzez & eugenezzz ! Of course the Black Plagues of 1918 & 1958 demonstrate the fallacies of such Jenner / Pasteur theories, and this is why the real symptoms of the alleged Spanish & Asian Flu were carefully hidden. André Malraux, Minister of the French Republic died of the Black Plague indeed, a few weeks after being vaccinated with an alleged harmless Flu shot.
At the time of writing, only POLAND OF ALL NATIONS HAS THE COURAGE TO REFUSE TO BE PARTY IN THE MASSACRE OF HIS OWN POPULATION BY THE SEASONAL FLU SHOT WHICH UNKNOWN TO ALL CONTAINS THE 3 STRAINS : AVIAN SWINE& BLACK PLAGUE FLU RECOVERED IN CORPSES OF 1918 ABOVE THE POLAR CIRCLE !
HONOUR TO POLAND AN TO THE GREAT POLISH PEOPLE !!!
Q : What are the symptoms of the Black Plague ? A : Overwhelming cyanosis
Q : What happens when the victims die in terrible suffering A: The body become immediately black due to the hemorrhagic blood present under the whole body derm
Q : What is the immediate cure in less than 10 minutes, unknown by the Dizeaze Industry (DI) and tis lecherous bed-side mannered Quacks supporting that criminal Pharmacist/Chemist business ! A : Just find it out ! Note As a clue, as easy as the discovery of the Great Sandy Desert immense deposits... surely the noted Australian Mining & Political Criminals, especially that parliamentary filth sitting on the West Australia Parliament on their fucking arses will find out that answer in no time at all .. Just ask them or their official mining heroes for immediate answer !
With kindest regards to all
Note as a bonus under my signature will appears all the goodies the Criminals ' run Labs are putting in their shot, just to be sure the expected results are obtained
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud Australia Mining Pioneer Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper & Gold Mine) Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
CONNAISSEZ-VOUS LA SOUPE DU DIABLE ACTUELLEMENT ASSOCIEE AUX VACCINS ?
Ce qui suit est tellement gros qu’on a du mal à y croire.
- ALUMINIUM (adjuvant) : Responsable de dommages cérébraux, suspecté d'être la cause de la maladie d'Alzheimer, de certaines démences, de comas et d'attaques. Responsable également d'allergies cutanées. Lourdement impliqué dans la myofasciite à macrophages. - SULFATE D'AMMONIUM : Suspecté d'attaquer le foie, le système nerveux, le système gastro-intestinal et respiratoire. - BÊTA- PROPIOLACTONE : Connu pour ses propriétés cancérigènes, suspecté d'attaquer le foie, le système respiratoire et gastro- intestinal ainsi que la peau et les organes des sens. - LEVURES GENETIQUEMENT MODIFIEES (OGM !!!), - ADN BACTERIEN OU VIRAL D'ANIMAUX : Substances qui peuvent se combiner à l'ADN des vaccinés et entraîner des mutations génétiques inconnues. - LATEX : qui peut produire des réactions allergiques mettant en péril le pronostic vital - GLUTAMATE DE SODIUM : neurotoxique connu pour ses effets mutagènes, tératogènes, entraînant des malformations et monstruosités et des effets sur la descendance. Responsable d’allergies. - FORMALDEHYDE (formol) : Carcinogène, impliqué dans les leucémies, les cancers du cerveau, du colon, des organes lymphatiques; suspecté d'occasionner des problèmes gastro-intestinaux; poison violent pour le foie, le système immunitaire, le système nerveux, les organes de reproduction. - POLYSORBATE 80 : Connu pour causer des cancers chez les animaux. - TRI(N)BUTYLPHOSPHATE : Suspecté d'être un poison pour les reins et les nerfs. - GLUTARALDEHYDE : Poison, s'il est ingéré; responsable de malformations néonatales chez les animaux d'expérimentation - GELATINE : Produite à partir de certaines parties de la peau des veaux ainsi que des os de bovins déminéralisés et de peau de porcs. Responsable d'allergies. - GENTAMYCINE ET POLYMYXINE B : Antibiotiques toxiques pour les reins et le système nerveux; responsables d'allergies pouvant être mortelles. - MERCURE (conservateur) : Une substance des plus dangereuses, qui a une affinité pour le cerveau, le foie, l'intestin, la mœlle osseuse et les reins. D'infimes quantités peuvent causer des dommages graves au cerveau. Les multiples symptômes de l'intoxication au mercure sont connus y compris l’autisme. - NEOMYCINE : Antibiotique qui perturbe l'absorption de la vitamine B6. Réactions allergiques pouvant être mortelles. Toxique pour les reins et le système nerveux. - PHENOL / PHENOXYETHANOL : Utilisé comme antigel. Toxique capable de dérégler les réponses du système immunitaire. - BORATE DE SODIUM (Borax) : Mort aux rats ( !) contenu dans le très a la mode Gardasil.
CELLULES HUMAINES ET ANIMALES : tissus de foetus; albumine humaine, sang de porc, de cheval, de mouton; cervelle de lapin, de cobaye; reins de chien, coeur de boeuf, reins de singe, embryons de poulets, oeufs de poules et de canards, sérum de veau, etc.
Et puis il y a maintenant la cerise sur le gâteau avec la nanotechnologie « top secret » pouvant être utilisée pour programmer le cerveau…ou le déprogrammer. Surtout, soyez prudents ! N’en privez pas vos enfants !
Ref Michel Dogna avec d’autres informations d’importances sur un génocide vaccinal planifié. http://www.infomicheldogna.net/
> >> You need some desensitizing classes and consciousness lowering if you > >> think my observation is a flame.
> > Again, unless you are socially inept, you are being disingenuous here. > > Implying that I solidarise with the murder of "millions of innocents" > > via my attachment to Marxism clearly is a flame.
> >> When speaking of "filth", I think the results of Marxism fit the > >> description much better than a few chemical compounds.
> > So you prefer the metaphoric usage to more literal descriptions of > > neurotoxins like mercury, which are released from coal burning plants, > > or PM5 and PM10 or CO, or carcionogenic actinides. You're happy that > > benzene, CO and near tropospheric ozone released from motor vehicles, > > don't qualify as filth, but you're really keen to talk about regimes > > that passed into oblivion 50 years ago, when this group's focus is > > global-warming.
> You are now trying to change the subject away from CO2 and pretend you > were referring to actually harmful emissions.
Again you are dissembling. It was your implication and that of MC that my description of filth merchants relates purely to CO2.
> It didn't work. The red > herrings you raise are indeed problems that are being solved. CO2 is not > a problem, and does not need to be solved.
The qualified scientific community says otherwise and there account makes sense.
> Spending resources on phony > problems slows the work on real problems. Even a Marxist should > understand that,
Especially a Marxist pays homage to science.
> Here's what I responded to:
> "However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of > whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even > something essential can be "filth"."
> CO2 breaks down into C and O2. Diamonds are carbon, and O2 is what is > keeping you alive. It's only your twisted mind that's filthy.
The breakdown products that are related are the PM and other efluent from the combustion of carbon fuels.
> > I know why you'd like to divert discussion, but there are other groups > > set up to debate the ethics of the Stalinist-led regimes.
> >> >> Natural resources that > >> >> rational people have used to establish a standard of living which > >> >> has greatly benefited most Earthlings
> >> > Earthlings eh?
> >> Yeah, the humanity that lives on Earth, for whom you seem to have such > >> disdain.
> > Cynical, since my regard for humanity's wellbeing amounts to more than > > the pure lipservice you offer. Your policy is to leave humanity to > > suffer whatever injury "the market" imposes upon them as it seeks the > > most cost-effective way to convert resources into privileges for the > > ruling elites. You put a value on human wellbeing of zero, whereas I > > insist that the humans should be indemnified.
> Free people take care of themselves, It's slaves that need to be taken > care of.
All you have is rhetoric
> > Mine is to compel the elites to account for the damage they do or will > > do in the costs they shift to buyers -- to internalise what is external > > so that there is an incentive to do less damage and the funds to make > > reparation and adaptation where necessary.
> Freedom through compulsion - yeah, that's the answer if you're a > Marxist...
All you have is rhetoric, in this case completely unrelated to the foregoing claim.
> >> We're all better off from people learning how to harness energy to make > >> life easier. Get over the Prometheus myth.
> > Absurd. I want to bring *clean* fire to humanity's aid, whereas you want > > to hang onto the dirty stuff.
> Fran, my bet is you couldn't even start a fire from scratch, much less > bring anything of value to anyone.
Yet sensible people don't care what you would bet on. Here you bet on filth, and that says enough.
> >> > So what you're saying is that something which is disrupting the > >> > ecosystem services that nurtured human development on the cheap when > >> > we were least technologically advanced and which in addition is > >> > associated with massive systematic realeases of human toxins can't be > >> > called filth?
> >> Correct. That's not even in the same league as the suffering caused by > >> tyrants enslaving people through Marxism.
> > Nobody has been enslaved or oppressed by Marxism, but that is a separate > > argument and thus beside the point here. The question is who is harming > > humans *now* -- and that turns out to be the world's filth merchants, > > whose interests you defend *right now*.
> Your attempt to demonize the very people you depend on for your way of > life is somewhere between pathetic and hilarious.
These people are simply gangsters who have positioned themselves to extract fealty. They have it from you.
> > Right now tens of millions are at immediate risk and this harm will > > increase sharply if we do not right now foreclose it through mitigation > > and adaptation. You advocate talking about the past and I advocate > > talking about the connection between the present and the future. You are > > either a mere shill for those who zero rate humanity's welfare or > > deluded by your irrational angst.
> Nobody's at risk from CO2, and by now you should know that.
Again, the world's qualified scientists say otherwise, and I prefer their judgement to some angst-driven reactionary posting to usenet.
> It's over.
It will not be over for several hundred years.
> Find another scary mask to scare the children with.
> >> > You're the one who is plainly struggling, cognitively, though not so > >> > much that you wouldn't prefer to talk about something else.
> >> You're projecting again, Fran. The struggle you feel can only be > >> within yourself - you have no access to my inner thoughts.
> > Your inner thoughts are what is projected here. You are undertaking your > > own tiny piece of the culture wars. You think that the way to hold the > > line is to endlessly try to reposition the subject as "the evils of > > Marxism", possibly because you've convinced yourself that that is what > > is in prospect and are terrified. Either that or you are simply a > > dissembler reading from some filth merchant talking point running sheet.
> Your fantasies are somewhat entertaining. The "evils of Marxism" > however, have been proven, repeatedly, and at great cost.
On the contrary, all that has been shown is the resilience of capitalism to challenge.
> >> You perhaps realize > >> on some level the inconsistency of your beliefs. Try exploring that > >> and see what happens
> > There's no inconsistency at all.
> Not that you can see. You're focused on reading others minds, rather > than your own.
I know my own mind, and yours too, though you disavow it.
> > > > >> Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or > > > > >> how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the > > > > >> filth merchant sources they are channelling.
> > > > >> Fran
> > > > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > > > > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around. It powers the > > > > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of the > > > > > globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that harvests and > > > > > transports your food. Without fossil fuels your life would likely be > > > > > far, far shittier than it already is. To call it "filth" is pretty > > > > > damn ignorant and pathetic.
> > > > The more helpless people Clumpy can kill, the better he likes it
> > > I don't believe he wants to kill anyone. I see him simply as some > > > recklessly ignorant angst-driven suburbanite whose first and last > > > interest is protecting his creature comforts and lifestyle at any > > > cost. He's waging his own little part of the culture wars because he > > > thinks this is in his interests, but he is of course, deluded.
> > > Fran
> > No, more like an engineer who is disgusted by the unbridled stupidity > > of technically illiterate fools who think we can cut carbon emissions > > by 50% or more in a matter of decades without hugely disastrous > > economic consequences.
> Of course we can do it without such consequences.
How is that going to work? Most renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are intermittent. If they ever made up a significant portion of the country's generating capacity, the grid would be plagued with crashes without hugely expensive spinning reserve on a massive scale.
>Sure it won't be > cost free, but it will be less costly by orders of magnitude than > doing nothing.
That's a complete load of unsubstantiated nonsense.
> Andf there are other offisets since as we saw above, > cutting fossil fuel usage cuts oher sources of health harm, loss of > working days etc ...
Yes I'm sure there are many days people don't go to work do to excessive air pollution <rolls eyes>. I live in one of the most densely populated regions of North America and that has happened...never. On the other hand, work does get stopped occasionally due to snow storms. Maybe if enough global warming happens that problem will go away.
> Then there's the cost of all those oil wars -- gone. They cost a > fortune.
No that's some wishful thinking. In the brave new carbon-free world there will be no wars. Will there be unicorns and magic rainbows too?
> > All to prevent a fraction of a degree of > > global warming, at best. Russia, India and China have basically said > > "fuck that" to CO2 emission caps, guaranteeing that cuts by others > > will be an entirely futile gesture . Concerned people need to speak > > out against this nonsense\
> Let's see. China and India have been talking bigger numbers than the > west of late.
Talk is cheap. Let me know when they sign a binding agreement.
>They obviously want the best deal they can get out of > the west but in the end, climate change will hurt them very greatly > too, as does airborne pollution already.
I am in favor of them cutting air pollution. Cutting CO2 is something else.
> Going to much more intensive > use of nuclear (especially IFR) at the expense of coal would make a > huge improvement in air quality and putting their cars on the electric > grid in those circumstances would also help.
I agree that going nuclear would be an excellent move. Unfortunately, your fellow greentards aren't really on board with that approach.
>Would they like a payout > by the west? You betcha, and they are entitled since the bulk of the > problem is down to what our forefathers did.
They aren't entitled to jack squat as far as I'm concerned. If you want to pay them off yourself, feel free.
> On Nov 8, 5:43 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > > > |||
> > > > > > > Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or > > > > > > > how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the > > > > > > > filth merchant sources they are channelling.
> > > > > > > Fran
> > > > > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > > > > > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around.
> > > > > Multiple fallacies/dissembling in so few words ... congrats on that at > > > > > least ...
> > > > So you are saying it doesn't do those things?
> > > I'm saying this is a red herring when considering its status as filth.
> > So the statement I made is correct. No fallacies there.
> It's entirely fallacious *and* includes a red herring.
Please explain how my statement is fallacious.
> > You call it > > a red herring, I call it relevant. Fuel is not filth, despite your > > warped worldview.
> The inevitable combustion products of fossil fuels are filth.
But the fuel (which is what the merchants sell) is not filth. By your logic, the farmer who sells fresh vegetables is a "filth merchant" because of the disgusting shit (filth) that comes out of your ass after eating his vegetables. Is the farmer really a filth merchant or are you just an idiot who throws around incendiary terms thoughtlessly?
> > The term "filth merchant" is better left to > > describing child pornographers not people who making an honorable > > living extracting and producing fuels that are essential to our > > civilization.
> As appalling as are child pornographers, the scale of their harm is > trivial compared with the injury to life on Earth in general and human > life in particular flowing from the world's industrial scale filth > merchants.
Yes. Think of all the food grown by farmers that results in shit (filth). I think of shit as being a far better example of filth than a harmless gas like CO2 that bubbles out of soda pop.
> > If you want to call substances that have been incredibly > > beneficial to mankind the derogatory term "filth", knock yourself out.
I will. I am seated in a heated building with electric lights thanks to those power plants. The question is whether you will take your own advice and shiver in the cold and dark?
> Your problem is your black and white view of things. In relative > terms, resort to coal fired power to make electricity makes sense > compared with burning cow dung for heat in a house, and that may well > compare well with freezing to death. That doesn't mean that either > burning cow dung or as now burning coal on the scale it is now > conducted it is better than every other suite of technologies that > could produce similar utility.
> We could burn coal to run motor vehicles, but we don't because iot > would be far worse. So we chose to burn refined crude oil instead. Of > coruse, that too had its problems because we used to emit a lot of > lead, which was toxic, esepcially to children. So we took lead out of > petrol and designed cat converters to facilitate this. This was good, > but the process of making cat converters has its their own toxic > footprint, and if we could avoid using them while getting the utility > of petroleum fuels this would be better, unless the alternative had > its own nasty footprint.
> And so it goes. What does enormous good may still come at a high cost, > and rational people try to increase the good and reduce the cost. You > however are just stuck on looking at only one side of the balance > sheet.
I don't mind paying more for cleaner fuel. I fully support replacing coal plants with nuclear plants. That is an approach that could work. I do have a problem replacing coal plants with wind mills, not because I have something against alternate energy, but simply because I know it won't work at large scales. Much like the corn ethanol debacle, it is terrible public policy to shovel public money in that direction and it will create a slew of unintended consequences.
> > Just be prepared to be labeled a clueless idiot.
> You're the one who is at risk here Mr Monkey Clumps.
With a screen name like Monkey Clumps do you think I give a damn about your labels?
> > > > > Try this thought experiment. What is the etiology of melanoma?
> > > > Evasion noted.
> It was an attempt to get you to come back on topic.
A pretty poor attempt as the question you posed has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
> > > Below you say that you feel less intelligent having for having read my > > > posts. The above would seem to confirm that, although I suspect you > > > were already poorly equipped before reading my posts.
> > Intelligence has nothing to do with it, honey. Are you under some > > delusion that I should feel an obligation to answer your stupid > > questions?
> I harbour no delusions that you can answer any serious question, but > the best way to make that point was to challenge you to do so, and in > the process support the inference making of those sharper than you who > may be reading this.
The only inference to draw is that you are one kooky broad.
> > When you post irrelevant crap, you can expect that it will > > be ridiculed and then ignored.
> Amusing, since you are the one seeking to take the conversation into > irrelevance.
I am talking about the value of fossil fuel and how things of value generally are not to be dismissed as filth, which is completely relevant to this thread and this newsgroup. You are discussing melanoma, which is not relevant.
> > > Why not prove me and yourself wrong by seeing if you can identify some > > > of the fallacies in your claim above?
> > Wow, you are offering me the opportunity to prove myself wrong?
> Well you did say you felt less intelligent reading my posts.
Yes. What does that have to do with proving myself wrong?
> > That's tempting, but I think I will stick to just proving you wrong, a > > far easier task.
> So why haven't you started then?
I've almost finished. You are just to dense to realize it.
> > > I know I'm already bored of this > > > dance as I've done the steps several times with a sequence of > > > partners.
> > Sorry honey, but no one wants to "dance" with you and no one wants to > > be your "partner."
> So you were only joshing with your red herring waving activity?
What do red herrings have to do with this. You brought up dancing and partners in a pompous way and got the put down you deserve.
> > > > Still, what would your life be like without these terrible, filthy > > > > carbon-based fuels?
> > > Possibly very good. Why don't you try answering your won implicit > > > question? What would life be like if we tried making do with 50% or > > > 25% of the fossil fuels in question?
> > With only 25% of fossil fuels, everyone's standard of living, apart > > from the most backwards of third world countries, would drop > > precipitously.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:28:54 -0800, Fran wrote: > On Nov 9, 1:30 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> >> You need some desensitizing classes and consciousness lowering if >> >> you think my observation is a flame.
>> > Again, unless you are socially inept, you are being disingenuous >> > here. Implying that I solidarise with the murder of "millions of >> > innocents" via my attachment to Marxism clearly is a flame.
>> >> When speaking of "filth", I think the results of Marxism fit the >> >> description much better than a few chemical compounds.
>> > So you prefer the metaphoric usage to more literal descriptions of >> > neurotoxins like mercury, which are released from coal burning >> > plants, or PM5 and PM10 or CO, or carcionogenic actinides. You're >> > happy that benzene, CO and near tropospheric ozone released from >> > motor vehicles, don't qualify as filth, but you're really keen to >> > talk about regimes that passed into oblivion 50 years ago, when this >> > group's focus is global-warming.
>> You are now trying to change the subject away from CO2 and pretend you >> were referring to actually harmful emissions.
> Again you are dissembling. It was your implication and that of MC that > my description of filth merchants relates purely to CO2.
I responded to your explicit statement. I implied nothing. Look down a few lines, where I've marked it more conspicuously. It's also a good example of the inconsistency you deny in yourself.
>> It didn't work. The red >> herrings you raise are indeed problems that are being solved. CO2 is >> not a problem, and does not need to be solved.
> The qualified scientific community says otherwise and there account > makes sense.
Qualified only to those who can't think for themselves.
>> Spending resources on phony >> problems slows the work on real problems. Even a Marxist should >> understand that,
> Especially a Marxist pays homage to science.
Right. You're good at paying homage, but incompetent in doing the work required to understand and explain the concepts involved. Homage is politics, science is explanation.
>> Here's what I responded to:
<This is the quote from Fran, earlier in the thread>
>> "However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of >> whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even >> something essential can be "filth"."
<end quote>
Note it's specific to CO2 and its "break down products".
>> CO2 breaks down into C and O2. Diamonds are carbon, and O2 is what is >> keeping you alive. It's only your twisted mind that's filthy.
> The breakdown products that are related are the PM and other efluent > from the combustion of carbon fuels.
Those are problems having nothing to do with CO2 that are well understood and have been technically largely solved. Economics is now the issue, and we all know how well Marxism handles that.
>> > I know why you'd like to divert discussion, but there are other >> > groups set up to debate the ethics of the Stalinist-led regimes.
>> >> >> Natural resources that >> >> >> rational people have used to establish a standard of living which >> >> >> has greatly benefited most Earthlings
>> >> > Earthlings eh?
>> >> Yeah, the humanity that lives on Earth, for whom you seem to have >> >> such disdain.
>> > Cynical, since my regard for humanity's wellbeing amounts to more >> > than the pure lipservice you offer. Your policy is to leave humanity >> > to suffer whatever injury "the market" imposes upon them as it seeks >> > the most cost-effective way to convert resources into privileges for >> > the ruling elites. You put a value on human wellbeing of zero, >> > whereas I insist that the humans should be indemnified.
>> Free people take care of themselves, It's slaves that need to be taken >> care of.
> All you have is rhetoric
Freedom has a long record of success. Marxism has a long record of unspeakable horrors. Rhetoric is your thing, not mine.
>> > Mine is to compel the elites to account for the damage they do or >> > will do in the costs they shift to buyers -- to internalise what is >> > external so that there is an incentive to do less damage and the >> > funds to make reparation and adaptation where necessary.
>> Freedom through compulsion - yeah, that's the answer if you're a >> Marxist...
> All you have is rhetoric, in this case completely unrelated to the > foregoing claim.
Compelling citizens to pay taxes because they are emitting harmless CO2 is on topic in AGW. I'm dealing with facts, which you see through your Marxist filter as "rhetoric". Apparently you think that means you can ignore the facts and no one will notice.
>> >> We're all better off from people learning how to harness energy to >> >> make life easier. Get over the Prometheus myth.
>> > Absurd. I want to bring *clean* fire to humanity's aid, whereas you >> > want to hang onto the dirty stuff.
>> Fran, my bet is you couldn't even start a fire from scratch, much less >> bring anything of value to anyone.
> Yet sensible people don't care what you would bet on. Here you bet on > filth, and that says enough.
The only filth I see is apparently in your mind, as you keep bringing it up. I'm certainly not betting on your mind, or your competence, for that matter.
>> >> > So what you're saying is that something which is disrupting the >> >> > ecosystem services that nurtured human development on the cheap >> >> > when we were least technologically advanced and which in addition >> >> > is associated with massive systematic realeases of human toxins >> >> > can't be called filth?
>> >> Correct. That's not even in the same league as the suffering caused >> >> by tyrants enslaving people through Marxism.
>> > Nobody has been enslaved or oppressed by Marxism, but that is a >> > separate argument and thus beside the point here. The question is who >> > is harming humans *now* -- and that turns out to be the world's filth >> > merchants, whose interests you defend *right now*.
>> Your attempt to demonize the very people you depend on for your way of >> life is somewhere between pathetic and hilarious.
> These people are simply gangsters who have positioned themselves to > extract fealty. They have it from you.
No, they provide a useful service by selling me (and you) energy. If you think you can do it better, you are free to do so. But you can't.
You're apparently incompetent to do anything but whine and complain, hoping you can nag or force someone else to do it for you in the way you want. I can understand why you'd rather be in denial, demonizing those who won't obey you, but it won't work.
>> > Right now tens of millions are at immediate risk and this harm will >> > increase sharply if we do not right now foreclose it through >> > mitigation and adaptation. You advocate talking about the past and I >> > advocate talking about the connection between the present and the >> > future. You are either a mere shill for those who zero rate >> > humanity's welfare or deluded by your irrational angst.
>> Nobody's at risk from CO2, and by now you should know that.
> Again, the world's qualified scientists say otherwise, and I prefer > their judgement to some angst-driven reactionary posting to usenet.
Selected, not qualified. To be qualified, a scientist has to be able to clearly explain and defend his work. When skeptics can repeatedly duplicate the work, then it's accepted science. Until then, it's politics.
>> It's over.
> It will not be over for several hundred years.
Yet you can't even explain why you think it's here now.
>> Find another scary mask to scare the children with.
> Your persistence in denial simply sounds lame.
I know the reasons behind my opinions. Your inability to explain why you believe as you do, combined with utter confidence you're right, seems inconsistent to me.
>> >> > You're the one who is plainly struggling, cognitively, though not >> >> > so much that you wouldn't prefer to talk about something else.
>> >> You're projecting again, Fran. The struggle you feel can only be >> >> within yourself - you have no access to my inner thoughts.
>> > Your inner thoughts are what is projected here. You are undertaking >> > your own tiny piece of the culture wars. You think that the way to >> > hold the line is to endlessly try to reposition the subject as "the >> > evils of Marxism", possibly because you've convinced yourself that >> > that is what is in prospect and are terrified. Either that or you are >> > simply a dissembler reading from some filth merchant talking point >> > running sheet.
>> Your fantasies are somewhat entertaining. The "evils of Marxism" >> however, have been proven, repeatedly, and at great cost.
> On the contrary, all that has been shown is the resilience of capitalism > to challenge.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et al were not Marxists? And you accuse me of being in denial?
>> >> You perhaps realize >> >> on some level the inconsistency of your beliefs. Try exploring that >> >> and see what happens
>> > There's no inconsistency at all.
>> Not that you can see. You're focused on reading others minds, rather >> than your own.
> I know my own mind, and yours too, though you disavow it.
Delusions are a bad sign, Fran. You can't read my mind, or anyone else's, and I'm doubting you know your own as well as you think.
I suspect you're experiencing projection, where we see our own unflattering characteristics reflected in others, rather than face them in ourselves.
But I'm not qualified in that area - I'd recommend asking a
On Nov 10, 4:50 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:28:54 -0800, Fran wrote: > > On Nov 9, 1:30 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
\
<snip>
> >> You are now trying to change the subject away from CO2 and pretend you > >> were referring to actually harmful emissions.
> > Again you are dissembling. It was your implication and that of MC that > > my description of filth merchants relates purely to CO2.
> I responded to your explicit statement. I implied nothing. Look down a > few lines, where I've marked it more conspicuously. It's also a good > example of the inconsistency you deny in yourself.
The portion you quote gives the lie to your claim.
> >> It didn't work. The red > >> herrings you raise are indeed problems that are being solved. CO2 is > >> not a problem, and does not need to be solved.
> > The qualified scientific community says otherwise and their account > > makes sense.
> Qualified only to those who can't think for themselves.
In matters where high level expertise is required, anyone without adequate pertinent expertise is wise to be guided by those who do.
> >> Spending resources on phony > >> problems slows the work on real problems. Even a Marxist should > >> understand that,
> > Especially a Marxist pays homage to science.
> Right. You're good at paying homage, but incompetent in doing the work > required to understand and explain the concepts involved. Homage is > politics, science is explanation.
All the explanation is the world is moot to those like you who are determined to ignore it.
> >> Here's what I responded to:
> <This is the quote from Fran, earlier in the thread>
> >> "However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of > >> whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even > >> something essential can be "filth"."
> <end quote>
> Note it's specific to CO2 and its "break down products".
Almost exactly correct ... its *related* break-down products. i.e. all of the effluent that is co-extensive with the production of the CO2 in fossil thermal energy conversion.
> >> CO2 breaks down into C and O2. Diamonds are carbon, and O2 is what is > >> keeping you alive. It's only your twisted mind that's filthy.
> > The breakdown products that are related are the PM and other effluent > > from the combustion of carbon fuels.
> Those are problems having nothing to do with CO2 that are well understood > and have been technically largely solved.
Whether they have been largely technically solved is moot if there is no way to delvier a solution embracing that technological fix. (And I doubt that it has)
> Economics is now the issue, > and we all know how well Marxism handles that.
No, "we" don't because as yet Marxism has not been applied to problems of state.
> >> > I know why you'd like to divert discussion, but there are other > >> > groups set up to debate the ethics of the Stalinist-led regimes.
> >> >> >> Natural resources that > >> >> >> rational people have used to establish a standard of living which > >> >> >> has greatly benefited most Earthlings
> >> >> > Earthlings eh?
> >> >> Yeah, the humanity that lives on Earth, for whom you seem to have > >> >> such disdain.
> >> > Cynical, since my regard for humanity's wellbeing amounts to more > >> > than the pure lipservice you offer. Your policy is to leave humanity > >> > to suffer whatever injury "the market" imposes upon them as it seeks > >> > the most cost-effective way to convert resources into privileges for > >> > the ruling elites. You put a value on human wellbeing of zero, > >> > whereas I insist that the humans should be indemnified.
> >> Free people take care of themselves, It's slaves that need to be taken > >> care of.
> > All you have is rhetoric
> Freedom has a long record of success.
Like Marxism, it has never been tried. What he have had is 250 years of capitalist misery.
> Marxism has a long record
Marxism has no record at all in affairs of state.
<snip>
> >> > Mine is to compel the elites to account for the damage they do or > >> > will do in the costs they shift to buyers -- to internalise what is > >> > external so that there is an incentive to do less damage and the > >> > funds to make reparation and adaptation where necessary.
> >> Freedom through compulsion - yeah, that's the answer if you're a > >> Marxist...
> > All you have is rhetoric, in this case completely unrelated to the > > foregoing claim.
> Compelling citizens to pay taxes because they are emitting harmless CO2 > is on topic in AGW.
1. I'm not compelling citizens to pay taxes. I am asking them to pay an apt cost for the system services they are converting 2. I'd never ask anyone to pay for something harmless that cost nothing to deliver. I am asking them to pay for the harmful CO2 (as opposed to the non-harmful CO2). There are two tranches, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
> I'm dealing with facts, which you see through your > Marxist filter as "rhetoric".
Nope. Talking about enslavement and fictitious claims of Marxist government is mere rhetoric
> Apparently you think that means you can > ignore the facts and no one will notice.
Pot-kettle--black You are desp[erately trying to ignore reality, or to induce others to do so.
> >> >> We're all better off from people learning how to harness energy to > >> >> make life easier. Get over the Prometheus myth.
> >> > Absurd. I want to bring *clean* fire to humanity's aid, whereas you > >> > want to hang onto the dirty stuff.
> >> Fran, my bet is you couldn't even start a fire from scratch, much less > >> bring anything of value to anyone.
> > Yet sensible people don't care what you would bet on. Here you bet on > > filth, and that says enough.
> The only filth I see is apparently in your mind,
More rhetoric and delusion
<snip>
> >> > Right now tens of millions are at immediate risk and this harm will > >> > increase sharply if we do not right now foreclose it through > >> > mitigation and adaptation. You advocate talking about the past and I > >> > advocate talking about the connection between the present and the > >> > future. You are either a mere shill for those who zero rate > >> > humanity's welfare or deluded by your irrational angst.
> >> Nobody's at risk from CO2, and by now you should know that.
> > Again, the world's qualified scientists say otherwise, and I prefer > > their judgement to some angst-driven reactionary posting to usenet.
> Selected, not qualified. To be qualified, a scientist has to be able to > clearly explain and defend his work.
That's true, and as the relevant peer-reviewed literature attests, the climate scientists have done that.
> When skeptics can repeatedly > duplicate the work, then it's accepted science. Until then, it's > politics.
The "skeptics" have never been up to producing a counter-thesis. They can snipe from the blogosphere and the popular press but that's their high tide. It's scandalous that they dare steal the honourable title, "skeptic", from those who deserve it.
> >> It's over.
> > It will not be over for several hundred years.
> Yet you can't even explain why you think it's here now.
That observation comes from studied ignorance.
> >> Find another scary mask to scare the children with.
> > Your persistence in denial simply sounds lame.
> I know the reasons behind my opinions. Your inability to explain why you > believe as you do, combined with utter confidence you're right, seems > inconsistent to me.
False premise, as along with people far better qualified than I, I have outlined why I take the view I do.
> >> >> > You're the one who is plainly struggling, cognitively, though not > >> >> > so much that you wouldn't prefer to talk about something else.
> >> >> You're projecting again, Fran. The struggle you feel can only be > >> >> within yourself - you have no access to my inner thoughts.
> >> > Your inner thoughts are what is projected here. You are undertaking > >> > your own tiny piece of the culture wars. You think that the way to > >> > hold the line is to endlessly try to reposition the subject as "the > >> > evils of Marxism", possibly because you've convinced yourself that > >> > that is what is in prospect and are terrified. Either that or you are > >> > simply a dissembler reading from some filth merchant talking point > >> > running sheet.
> >> Your fantasies are somewhat entertaining. The "evils of Marxism" > >> however, have been proven, repeatedly, and at great cost.
> > On the contrary, all that has been shown is the resilience of capitalism > > to challenge.
> Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et al were not Marxists? And you accuse me > of being in denial?
Weren't you saying that I ought not to bring this up? Briefly for the record ...
Marxism has as a foundational idea, the idea that *after* capitalism has created the forces of production in the process creating a working class, the working class, after acquiring the technique to run production and the coordination needed to implement planned production, ejects the capitalist class from control and and insitutes a planned economy.
It is clearly implicit in this schema that there be
a) industrial society (with its "means of production, distribution & exchange") b) a skilled working class
These are sine qua non conditions. If a) and b) are absent, no Marxist reconstruction is possible. The necessary conditions for working class society are missing. It doesn't matter what the party or leader says they are doing or why. Whatever they are doing, THEY ARE NOT DOING MARXISM.
This is especially evident in the case of Pol Pot whose ambition was to return Cambodia to a rural agrarian society based on communal rice production. He actively de-urbanised, taking the microcosmic working
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:02:43 -0800, Fran wrote: > On Nov 10, 4:50 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:28:54 -0800, Fran wrote: >> > On Nov 9, 1:30 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> \
> <snip> >> >> You are now trying to change the subject away from CO2 and pretend >> >> you were referring to actually harmful emissions.
>> > Again you are dissembling. It was your implication and that of MC >> > that my description of filth merchants relates purely to CO2.
>> I responded to your explicit statement. I implied nothing. Look down >> a few lines, where I've marked it more conspicuously. It's also a good >> example of the inconsistency you deny in yourself.
> The portion you quote gives the lie to your claim.
>> >> It didn't work. The red >> >> herrings you raise are indeed problems that are being solved. CO2 >> >> is not a problem, and does not need to be solved.
>> > The qualified scientific community says otherwise and their account >> > makes sense.
>> Qualified only to those who can't think for themselves.
> In matters where high level expertise is required, anyone without > adequate pertinent expertise is wise to be guided by those who do.
>> >> Spending resources on phony >> >> problems slows the work on real problems. Even a Marxist should >> >> understand that,
>> > Especially a Marxist pays homage to science.
>> Right. You're good at paying homage, but incompetent in doing the work >> required to understand and explain the concepts involved. Homage is >> politics, science is explanation.
> All the explanation is the world is moot to those like you who are > determined to ignore it.
Where did you explain the mechanism by which CO2 affects temperature?
>> <This is the quote from Fran, earlier in the thread>
>> >> "However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of >> >> whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even >> >> something essential can be "filth"."
>> <end quote>
>> Note it's specific to CO2 and its "break down products".
> Almost exactly correct ... its *related* break-down products. i.e. all > of the effluent that is co-extensive with the production of the CO2 in > fossil thermal energy conversion.
Apparently you are using the term "breakdown products" in a new and creative way. You seem to be talking about the other combustion emissions, but calling them CO2 breakdown products. They're not.
The AGW scam involves a supposed catastrophic warming effect from CO2, which has now been shown to be under a degree C per doubling of CO2.
Your power grab is now baseless, and you're apparently falling back on ordinary emission reduction issues to cover that fact.
>> >> CO2 breaks down into C and O2. Diamonds are carbon, and O2 is what >> >> is keeping you alive. It's only your twisted mind that's filthy.
>> > The breakdown products that are related are the PM and other effluent >> > from the combustion of carbon fuels.
>> Those are problems having nothing to do with CO2 that are well >> understood and have been technically largely solved.
> Whether they have been largely technically solved is moot if there is no > way to delvier a solution embracing that technological fix. (And I doubt > that it has)
>> Economics is now the issue, >> and we all know how well Marxism handles that.
> No, "we" don't because as yet Marxism has not been applied to problems > of state.
Pull the other one - it whistles.
>> >> > I know why you'd like to divert discussion, but there are other >> >> > groups set up to debate the ethics of the Stalinist-led regimes.
>> Then don't try to sell them in a.g-w.
> You're the one raising it.
And you're the one that keeps trying to apply Marxist politics to science. They're inherently incompatible.
>> >> >> >> Natural resources that >> >> >> >> rational people have used to establish a standard of living >> >> >> >> which has greatly benefited most Earthlings
>> >> >> > Earthlings eh?
>> >> >> Yeah, the humanity that lives on Earth, for whom you seem to have >> >> >> such disdain.
>> >> > Cynical, since my regard for humanity's wellbeing amounts to more >> >> > than the pure lipservice you offer. Your policy is to leave >> >> > humanity to suffer whatever injury "the market" imposes upon them >> >> > as it seeks the most cost-effective way to convert resources into >> >> > privileges for the ruling elites. You put a value on human >> >> > wellbeing of zero, whereas I insist that the humans should be >> >> > indemnified.
>> >> Free people take care of themselves, It's slaves that need to be >> >> taken care of.
>> > All you have is rhetoric
>> Freedom has a long record of success.
> Like Marxism, it has never been tried. What he have had is 250 years of > capitalist misery.
>> Marxism has a long record
> Marxism has no record at all in affairs of state.
>> >> > Mine is to compel the elites to account for the damage they do or >> >> > will do in the costs they shift to buyers -- to internalise what >> >> > is external so that there is an incentive to do less damage and >> >> > the funds to make reparation and adaptation where necessary.
>> >> Freedom through compulsion - yeah, that's the answer if you're a >> >> Marxist...
>> > All you have is rhetoric, in this case completely unrelated to the >> > foregoing claim.
>> Compelling citizens to pay taxes because they are emitting harmless CO2 >> is on topic in AGW.
> 1. I'm not compelling citizens to pay taxes. I am asking them to pay an > apt cost for the system services they are converting
To whom? Voluntarily? You did use the word "compel" above, you know.
2. I'd never ask
> anyone to pay for something harmless that cost nothing to deliver. I am > asking them to pay for the harmful CO2 (as opposed to the non-harmful > CO2). There are two tranches, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
How do you tell the difference between "good" CO2 and "bad" CO2?
>> I'm dealing with facts, which you see through your Marxist filter as >> "rhetoric".
> Nope. Talking about enslavement and fictitious claims of Marxist > government is mere rhetoric.
Not fiction, Fran. You're only fooling yourself.
>> Apparently you think that means you can ignore the facts and no one >> will notice.
> Pot-kettle--black You are desp[erately trying to ignore reality, or to > induce others to do so.
Funny, that coming from one who denies Stalin, Mao, and Lenin were Marxists.
>> >> >> We're all better off from people learning how to harness energy >> >> >> to make life easier. Get over the Prometheus myth.
>> >> > Absurd. I want to bring *clean* fire to humanity's aid, whereas >> >> > you want to hang onto the dirty stuff.
>> >> Fran, my bet is you couldn't even start a fire from scratch, much >> >> less bring anything of value to anyone.
>> > Yet sensible people don't care what you would bet on. Here you bet on >> > filth, and that says enough.
>> The only filth I see is apparently in your mind,
> More rhetoric and delusion
> <snip>
>> >> > Right now tens of millions are at immediate risk and this harm >> >> > will increase sharply if we do not right now foreclose it through >> >> > mitigation and adaptation. You advocate talking about the past and >> >> > I advocate talking about the connection between the present and >> >> > the future. You are either a mere shill for those who zero rate >> >> > humanity's welfare or deluded by your irrational angst.
>> >> Nobody's at risk from CO2, and by now you should know that.
>> > Again, the world's qualified scientists say otherwise, and I prefer >> > their judgement to some angst-driven reactionary posting to usenet.
>> Selected, not qualified. To be qualified, a scientist has to be able >> to clearly explain and defend his work.
> That's true, and as the relevant peer-reviewed literature attests, the > climate scientists have done that.
But you don't actually understand it. You only believe. Marxism is your religion.
>> When skeptics can repeatedly >> duplicate the work, then it's accepted science. Until then, it's >> politics.
> The "skeptics" have never been up to producing a counter-thesis. They > can snipe from the blogosphere and the popular press but that's their > high tide. It's scandalous that they dare steal the honourable title, > "skeptic", from those who deserve it.
Skeptics don't need to produce a counter-thesis. Proponents have to make the case for their thesis, and they have failed. The null hypothesis is all that's left. CO2 is not a threat to humanity.
>> >> It's over.
>> > It will not be over for several hundred years.
>> Yet you can't even explain why you think it's here now.
> That observation comes from studied ignorance.
I thought so, but I'm surprised you so readily admit it.
>> >> Find another scary mask to scare the children with.
>> > Your persistence in denial simply sounds lame.
>> I know the reasons behind my opinions. Your inability to explain why >> you believe as you do, combined with utter confidence you're right, >> seems inconsistent to me.
> False premise, as along with people far better qualified than I, I have > outlined why I take the view I do.
The only thing I've seen from you is appeal to authority.
>> >> >> > You're the one who is plainly struggling, cognitively, though >> >> >> > not so much that you wouldn't prefer to talk about something >> >> >> > else.
>> >> >> You're projecting again, Fran. The struggle you feel can only be >> >> >> within yourself - you have no access to my inner thoughts.
>> >> > Your inner thoughts are what is projected here. You are >> >> > undertaking your own tiny piece of the culture wars. You think >> >> > that
On Nov 10, 3:45 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:58 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 8, 5:43 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > So the statement I made is correct. No fallacies there.
> > It's entirely fallacious *and* includes a red herring.
> Please explain how my statement is fallacious.
You assume that because the first 150ppmv of CO2 is probably useful and the next 130 perhaps at worst, innocuous that the next 100 are also. That's what is called a composition fallacy.
You also said:
||| This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around. |||
That's fallacious because the effluent -- in this case CO2, PM, and other aerosols released post combustion do not heat my house, power my car or the bus or any planes.The aerosols i.e. the filth ... are an incidental but economically inevitable consequence of this energy strategy.
Of course, if there were no better alternative to this strategy, you'd have the beginnings of a valid objection. It would still be filth but less filthy than everything else, but this isn't so.
Somewhat different organisation could lead to a radical reduction in the release of this filth.
> > > You call it > > > a red herring, I call it relevant. Fuel is not filth, despite your > > > warped worldview.
> > The inevitable combustion products of fossil fuels are filth.
> But the fuel (which is what the merchants sell) is not filth. By your > logic, the farmer who sells fresh vegetables is a "filth merchant" > because of the disgusting shit (filth) that comes out of your ass > after eating his vegetables.
The analogy is not quite right here. Certainly agricultural run off, and the effluent associated with Bosch-Haber operations and pesticide production counts but not at the end you're talking about.
> Is the farmer really a filth merchant or > are you just an idiot who throws around incendiary terms > thoughtlessly?
> > > The term "filth merchant" is better left to > > > describing child pornographers not people who making an honorable > > > living extracting and producing fuels that are essential to our > > > civilization.
> > As appalling as are child pornographers, the scale of their harm is > > trivial compared with the injury to life on Earth in general and human > > life in particular flowing from the world's industrial scale filth > > merchants.
> Yes. Think of all the food grown by farmers that results in shit > (filth). I think of shit as being a far better example of filth than > a harmless gas like CO2 that bubbles out of soda pop.
Again, see "composition error". Oxygen is harmless until you get too much of it. Sunshine on your skin for 20 minutes twice per day is great for maintaining Vitamin D. Between that and about 2 hours per day it's probably harmless (especially if you wear UV50 dark glasses and suitable protection). Above that and your chance of contracting lethal melanoma increases. A friend of mine died of this just the other day despite never being unhealthy until 6 months ago. He was 55.
> > > If you want to call substances that have been incredibly > > > beneficial to mankind the derogatory term "filth", knock yourself out.
> I will. I am seated in a heated building with electric lights thanks > to those power plants. The question is whether you will take your own > advice and shiver in the cold and dark?
> > Your problem is your black and white view of things. In relative > > terms, resort to coal fired power to make electricity makes sense > > compared with burning cow dung for heat in a house, and that may well > > compare well with freezing to death. That doesn't mean that either > > burning cow dung or as now burning coal on the scale it is now > > conducted it is better than every other suite of technologies that > > could produce similar utility.
> > We could burn coal to run motor vehicles, but we don't because iot > > would be far worse. So we chose to burn refined crude oil instead. Of > > coruse, that too had its problems because we used to emit a lot of > > lead, which was toxic, esepcially to children. So we took lead out of > > petrol and designed cat converters to facilitate this. This was good, > > but the process of making cat converters has its their own toxic > > footprint, and if we could avoid using them while getting the utility > > of petroleum fuels this would be better, unless the alternative had > > its own nasty footprint.
> > And so it goes. What does enormous good may still come at a high cost, > > and rational people try to increase the good and reduce the cost. You > > however are just stuck on looking at only one side of the balance > > sheet.
> I don't mind paying more for cleaner fuel. I fully support replacing > coal plants with nuclear plants.
Well there you go. We agree on something.
> That is an approach that could work. > I do have a problem replacing coal plants with wind mills, not because > I have something against alternate energy, but simply because I know > it won't work at large scales.
That's true. Except perhaps in a few niche settings, wind will not be useful or cost effective.
> Much like the corn ethanol debacle, it > is terrible public policy to shovel public money in that direction and > it will create a slew of unintended consequences.
I have always opposed subsidies to or protection of corn for biofuels. Indeed, I'm against all agricultural protection though I can see a role for governments to act as a kind of broker along the Ever Normal Granary model.
> > > Just be prepared to be labeled a clueless idiot.
> > You're the one who is at risk here Mr Monkey Clumps.
> With a screen name like Monkey Clumps do you think I give a damn about > your labels?
I don't much care
> > > > > > Try this thought experiment. What is the etiology of melanoma?
> > > > > Evasion noted.
> > It was an attempt to get you to come back on topic.
> A pretty poor attempt as the question you posed has nothing to do with > the topic at hand.
> > > > Below you say that you feel less intelligent having for having read my > > > > posts. The above would seem to confirm that, although I suspect you > > > > were already poorly equipped before reading my posts.
> > > Intelligence has nothing to do with it, honey. Are you under some > > > delusion that I should feel an obligation to answer your stupid > > > questions?
> > I harbour no delusions that you can answer any serious question, but > > the best way to make that point was to challenge you to do so, and in > > the process support the inference making of those sharper than you who > > may be reading this.
> The only inference to draw is that you are one kooky broad.
Either that or you are ill-equipped to make a judgement.
> > > When you post irrelevant crap, you can expect that it will > > > be ridiculed and then ignored.
> > Amusing, since you are the one seeking to take the conversation into > > irrelevance.
> I am talking about the value of fossil fuel and how things of value > generally are not to be dismissed as filth, which is completely > relevant to this thread and this newsgroup. You are discussing > melanoma, which is not relevant.
It is relevant to your reasoning about how a thing good in one quantity or part is ood in all quantities and parts.
> > > > Why not prove me and yourself wrong by seeing if you can identify some > > > > of the fallacies in your claim above?
> > > Wow, you are offering me the opportunity to prove myself wrong?
> > Well you did say you felt less intelligent reading my posts.
> Yes. What does that have to do with proving myself wrong?
Proving that you weren't as unintelligent as you claimed.
> > > That's tempting, but I think I will stick to just proving you wrong, a > > > far easier task.
> > So why haven't you started then?
> I've almost finished. You are just to dense to realize it.
Nonsense. You are doing infantile trolling. You've made no salient point and what you have presented has been specious and at times spurious.
> > > I know I'm already bored of this
> > > > dance as I've done the steps several times with a sequence of > > > > partners.
> > > Sorry honey, but no one wants to "dance" with you and no one wants to > > > be your "partner."
> > So you were only joshing with your red herring waving activity?
> What do red herrings have to do with this. You brought up dancing and > partners in a pompous way and got the put down you deserve.
I merely make the point that the ground you offered has been refuted many times.
> On Nov 8, 9:14 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 6:01 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 11:11 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 7:13 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
> > > > > Monkey Clumps wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:51 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Great work from the Center for Public Integrity
> > > > > >> Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or > > > > > >> how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the > > > > > >> filth merchant sources they are channelling.
> > > > > >> Fran
> > > > > > This is the same "filth" that heats your house, powers the cars, > > > > > > buses, trains and planes that haul your ass around. It powers the > > > > > > ships that bring various goods to you from the far reaches of the > > > > > > globe. It power the tractors and farm equipment that harvests and > > > > > > transports your food. Without fossil fuels your life would likely be > > > > > > far, far shittier than it already is. To call it "filth" is pretty > > > > > > damn ignorant and pathetic.
> > > > > The more helpless people Clumpy can kill, the better he likes it
> > > > I don't believe he wants to kill anyone. I see him simply as some > > > > recklessly ignorant angst-driven suburbanite whose first and last > > > > interest is protecting his creature comforts and lifestyle at any > > > > cost. He's waging his own little part of the culture wars because he > > > > thinks this is in his interests, but he is of course, deluded.
> > > > Fran
> > > No, more like an engineer who is disgusted by the unbridled stupidity > > > of technically illiterate fools who think we can cut carbon emissions > > > by 50% or more in a matter of decades without hugely disastrous > > > economic consequences.
> > Of course we can do it without such consequences.
> How is that going to work? Most renewable energy sources such as > solar and wind are intermittent. If they ever made up a significant > portion of the country's generating capacity, the grid would be > plagued with crashes without hugely expensive spinning reserve on a > massive scale.
I'd favour most of the stationary energy being replaced with third and fourth gen nuclear -- IFR, Thorium, PBMRs, UH3 for smaller apps ...
I'd also favour a focus on getting people onto mass transit and shifting long haul freight off roads so that we could have them on grid. EVs would cover much of the rest. You could have nuclear powered cargo ships. Far better than bunker oil, especially if they sink.
The aircraft are a little trickier, but here we use waste biomass to produce aircraft fuel via FT processes. We aim to do a lot less flying though and where possible to move people by train.
We lose most of the ruminant raising stuff and therefore don't need to use lands that could raise grains for us to be used for cattle. That saves us lots of fertiliser and pesticide.
> >Sure it won't be > > cost free, but it will be less costly by orders of magnitude than > > doing nothing.
> That's a complete load of unsubstantiated nonsense.
> > Andf there are other offisets since as we saw above, > > cutting fossil fuel usage cuts oher sources of health harm, loss of > > working days etc ...
> Yes I'm sure there are many days people don't go to work do to > excessive air pollution <rolls eyes>.
Now I know that you didn't read the link because time lost through illness as a result of exposure to air pollution was listed as a line item.
> I live in one of the most > densely populated regions of North America and that has > happened...never.
Ah ... so you're an epidemiologist who has doen recent populations studies?
> On the other hand, work does get stopped > occasionally due to snow storms. Maybe if enough global warming > happens that problem will go away.
Gotta laugh ...
> > Then there's the cost of all those oil wars -- gone. They cost a > > fortune.
> No that's some wishful thinking. In the brave new carbon-free world > there will be no wars. Will there be unicorns and magic rainbows too?
Only if people want them. As almost everyone knows and Nixon declared all those years ago, access to large volumes of cheap oil is a strategic interest of the US because nothing gets governments more worried than escalating oil prices. They are willing to go to war over it. The US presence in the middle east overwhelmingly reflects this reality. Would Iraq have been invaded if the US merely got most of its broccoli from there? Unlikely, though in Bush's case one can never tell. But the reality, since 1973 especially is that nothing can get between a US president and a barrel of Middle East crude. The US invaded Iraq dreaming of oil at $20 per barrell.
Radically reducing the role of fossil oil in contemporary society won't mean there won't be wars. There will be other reasons for people to fight them but it knocks out one of ther major drivers. A world in which oil is largely used for plastics and polymers rather than energy will be a much less globally unequal world and that too subverts one of the major drivers of conflict.
Wouldn't it be good if, before the next surge in oil prices, western societies cut their oil usage per capita in half? Maybe there would be no such surge? If we can get down to maybe 20% of what we are using now per capita and stabilise population at 9 billion before slowly edging back a significant number of the dollars funding wars and criminal activity would dry up.
Even if you don't accept AGW, that has to be a good thing. Do you really want places like Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Iraq, Saudi, Mexico and Venezuela awash with petro dollars? Maybe you do.
> > > All to prevent a fraction of a degree of > > > global warming, at best. Russia, India and China have basically said > > > "fuck that" to CO2 emission caps, guaranteeing that cuts by others > > > will be an entirely futile gesture . Concerned people need to speak > > > out against this nonsense\
> > Let's see. China and India have been talking bigger numbers than the > > west of late.
> Talk is cheap. Let me know when they sign a binding agreement.
Let's see what happens at Copenhagen, but I'd remind you that you were the one insisting above that they'd said no.
> >They obviously want the best deal they can get out of > > the west but in the end, climate change will hurt them very greatly > > too, as does airborne pollution already.
> I am in favor of them cutting air pollution. Cutting CO2 is something > else.
And how can they do that cost-effectively at industrial scale, do you suppose, while continuing to burn fossil fuels? How can anyone do that?
> > Going to much more intensive > > use of nuclear (especially IFR) at the expense of coal would make a > > huge improvement in air quality and putting their cars on the electric > > grid in those circumstances would also help.
> I agree that going nuclear would be an excellent move. Unfortunately, > your fellow greentards aren't really on board with that approach.
Irrelevant. The green movement gets its way almost never and certainly not on any issue of substance, except in alliance with other major sectors of society. If you look at Europe, Sweden is returning to nuclear. Britain is back in the game. China is ramping up its capacity.
Even here in Australia, it's the latest talking point.
> >Would they like a payout > > by the west? You betcha, and they are entitled since the bulk of the > > problem is down to what our forefathers did.
> They aren't entitled to jack squat as far as I'm concerned. If you > want to pay them off yourself, feel free
The fact is that the bulk of the urgent problem we face now is a result not of China's and India's emissions, but of western emissions. Our states made the problem, benefited from it and are richest as a result. Fair exchange suggests we should cough up. This is a firm legal principle
> On Nov 8, 9:14 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
The green movement gets its way almost never and certainly not on any issue of substance, except in alliance with other major sectors of society. ======================================
Oh really??
They certainly got their way in Australia by blocking hazard reduction burnoffs and fire trail maintenance, thus causing the bush fire tragedies we have had recently!
And what about the blocking of urgently needed dam building, especially in Victoria and NSW, and instead, building energy guzzling, hugely expensive desal plants!
Bushfire Tragedy Was Due To "Green Doctrine"
The Victorian government wilfully ignored the advice of a previous inquiry because it did not want to "offend the sensitivities of the Greens".
July 19 2009
QUOTE: At the core of Green doctrine is the belief that trees are sacred and that mankind is a pest or a virus on the planet.
QUOTE: The Brumby government ignored the 2008 report for reasons which were wholly political and which go to the heart of the problems we face not only on the bushfire front, but also on water supply issues and on any major development in Victoria which offends the sensitivities of the Greens.
QUOTE: The Communist Party of Australia and its fellow-travelling socialists in the ALP were having doctrinal and morale problems. In a brilliant strategic move, it was decided that the environmentalist movement was a new and promising vehicle for obtaining political influence and power.
QUOTE: The takeover by the socialist Left of the environmentalist movement in Australia can be dated from the early seventies, culminating in the 1973 AGM of the Australian Conservation Foundation, an organisation founded by Sir Garfield Barwick and Sir Maurice Mawby, funded in part by the McMahon government, and which had as its aim increasing the public awareness of the importance of environmental matters.
QUOTE: "The appeal of Environmentalism, in its more extreme manifestations at least, becomes irresistible to that permanent cadre of political and social radicals Western society has nurtured ever since the French Revolution. This cadre has never been primarily interested in the protection of nature, but if such a movement carries with it even the possibility of political and social revolution, it is well that the cadre join it; which, starting with the late 1960s, it did."
QUOTE: staffed at senior levels by officials who believe that trees are sacred, and are there to be worshipped rather than exploited for the use of mankind, cannot manage the forests.
Because an explicit avowal of such beliefs would, at this stage of the Green Revolution, be premature, the sacred nature of forests is euphemised by words and phrases such as "old-growth forests", the incommensurability of "wilderness", and by appeals to the over-arching importance of biodiversity and the necessity, therefore, of leaving forests untouched and dead trees on the roadside undisturbed. Biodiversity is a magic word which is used to legitimise the expropriation of private property (amongst many other uses).
QUOTE: I have quoted from this essay at length to illustrate the current state of the Green justification of their stewardship of the forests, and also to illustrate the revolutionary ambitions of the Greens in combining the bushfire tragedies with their faith in anthropogenic global warming, in order to justify "retooling the economy from top to bottom."
IN 1994, Ray Evans bought a cottage at Marysville (Victoria, Australia) which he and his wife subsequently renovated and extended. The cottage and its extensive garden were destroyed by fire on the night of Saturday February 7 - now known as Black Saturday.
In the following provocative and political article Mr Evans blames the fire "on green doctrine" and the Victorian government wilfully ignoring the advice of a previous inquiry because it did not want to "offend the sensitivities of the Greens".
"IN 1966 the Victorian government published a booklet entitled Summer Peril. On the cover was a terrifying photo of the 1964 Lorne bushfire. The foreword was by the Premier, Sir Henry Bolte, who began: "Over the years our state of Victoria has been plagued by bushfires leading to tragic loss of life and devastation of natural resources, public and private property."
The booklet offers practical advice to farmers and rural landholders about the precautions they should take to minimise the risk to their property and what to do if bushfires should engulf them. One noteworthy sentence declares: "Anyone who ignores warnings about the fire risk during acute danger periods must be a fool, and a selfish, ignorant and stubborn one at that."
The report by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the Victorian Parliament Inquiry into the Impact of Public Land Management Practices on Bushfires in Victoria, July 2008, lists twenty-three bushfires from 1965 until 2008, resulting in the deaths of 102 people. On February 7, 2009, Black Saturday, 173 people died. Those words from 1966 now have a prophetic ring to them.
On February 9 the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, announced the establishment of a Royal Commission with wide-ranging terms of reference to inquire into the causes of the firestorm and to recommend policies which would mitigate against future disasters.
The Premier would have been aware that the appointment of such a body would forestall criticism of his government for failure to act on the recommendations of the parliamentary committee that had reported in July 2008. This committee made very specific recommendations, particularly about the need for fuel reduction activity, which had either been rejected by the government or accepted in principle only. The committee, chaired by former Labor minister John Pandazopoulos, comprised members from both houses and both parties with an independent, Craig Ingram, as deputy chair. Its report is an example of the great benefits that federalism provides. Canberra could not match this document. It is comprehensive in its scope, witnesses of all shades of opinion are quoted at length, there is much historical material woven into the narrative, and much detailed local knowledge is laid out for the reader; but its recommendations, made without dissent, were ignored by the Brumby government.
The Royal Commission has now been established. My deep interest in the proceedings and outcome of this Royal Commission is a consequence of the decision my wife and I made in 1994 to buy a cottage at Marysville. We renovated and extended the cottage, which we rented out to tourists; we constructed two outbuildings, and developed a magnificent garden on three-quarters of an acre. The house and the garden were destroyed on the night of Saturday February 7. The workshop survived.
Paragraph 2 of the Royal Commission's terms of reference refers inter alia to the "prevention . of bushfire threats and risks". As far as I am aware no submission or comment following the tragedy of Black Saturday has raised arguments concerning the prevention of bushfires in the future. All the attention so far has focused on what went wrong. The Royal Commission would be doing a much greater service if it inquired into ways in which bushfires in Victoria were to be eradicated.
The Brumby government ignored the 2008 report for reasons which were wholly political and which go to the heart of the problems we face not only on the bushfire front, but also on water supply issues and on any major development in Victoria which offends the sensitivities of the Greens. The Brumby government, to its credit, stared down the Greens on the Port Phillip channel deepening issue, but that is the only attempt it has made to win a serious confrontation with the political-cum-religious forces which seek to stop economic development in Victoria or, as in the case of the Latrobe Valley brown coal power stations, simply shut them down and thus leave Victoria without electricity.
The takeover by the socialist Left of the environmentalist movement in Australia can be dated from the early seventies, culminating in the 1973 AGM of the Australian Conservation Foundation, an organisation founded by Sir Garfield Barwick and Sir Maurice Mawby, funded in part by the McMahon government, and which had as its aim increasing the public awareness of the importance of environmental matters.
By the late 1960s the communist Left was suffering from defections over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, but more significantly from the brutal repression of the Dubcek regime in Prague in 1968. The Communist Party of Australia and its fellow-travelling socialists in the ALP were having doctrinal and morale problems. In a brilliant strategic move, it was decided that the environmentalist movement was a new and promising vehicle for obtaining political influence and power.
The American sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote in a review article in the American Spectator in 1983:
"As an historian, I am obliged by the record of the Western past to see Environmentalism-of the kind espoused by the Barry Commoners and the Paul Ehrlichs-as the third great wave of redemptive struggle in Western history; the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.
"The appeal of Environmentalism, in its more extreme manifestations at least, becomes irresistible to that permanent cadre of political and social radicals Western society has nurtured ever since the French Revolution. This cadre has never been primarily interested in the protection of nature, but if such a movement carries with it even the possibility
> On Nov 8, 9:14 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
The green movement gets its way almost never and certainly not on any issue of substance, except in alliance with other major sectors of society. ======================================
Oh really??
They certainly got their way in Australia by blocking hazard reduction burnoffs and fire trail maintenance, thus causing the bush fire tragedies we have had recently!
And what about the blocking of urgently needed dam building, especially in Victoria and NSW, and instead, building energy guzzling, hugely expensive desal plants!
Bushfire Tragedy Was Due To "Green Doctrine"
The Victorian government wilfully ignored the advice of a previous inquiry because it did not want to "offend the sensitivities of the Greens".
July 19 2009
QUOTE: At the core of Green doctrine is the belief that trees are sacred and that mankind is a pest or a virus on the planet.
QUOTE: The Brumby government ignored the 2008 report for reasons which were wholly political and which go to the heart of the problems we face not only on the bushfire front, but also on water supply issues and on any major development in Victoria which offends the sensitivities of the Greens.
QUOTE: The Communist Party of Australia and its fellow-travelling socialists in the ALP were having doctrinal and morale problems. In a brilliant strategic move, it was decided that the environmentalist movement was a new and promising vehicle for obtaining political influence and power.
QUOTE: The takeover by the socialist Left of the environmentalist movement in Australia can be dated from the early seventies, culminating in the 1973 AGM of the Australian Conservation Foundation, an organisation founded by Sir Garfield Barwick and Sir Maurice Mawby, funded in part by the McMahon government, and which had as its aim increasing the public awareness of the importance of environmental matters.
QUOTE: "The appeal of Environmentalism, in its more extreme manifestations at least, becomes irresistible to that permanent cadre of political and social radicals Western society has nurtured ever since the French Revolution. This cadre has never been primarily interested in the protection of nature, but if such a movement carries with it even the possibility of political and social revolution, it is well that the cadre join it; which, starting with the late 1960s, it did."
QUOTE: staffed at senior levels by officials who believe that trees are sacred, and are there to be worshipped rather than exploited for the use of mankind, cannot manage the forests.
Because an explicit avowal of such beliefs would, at this stage of the Green Revolution, be premature, the sacred nature of forests is euphemised by words and phrases such as "old-growth forests", the incommensurability of "wilderness", and by appeals to the over-arching importance of biodiversity and the necessity, therefore, of leaving forests untouched and dead trees on the roadside undisturbed. Biodiversity is a magic word which is used to legitimise the expropriation of private property (amongst many other uses).
QUOTE: I have quoted from this essay at length to illustrate the current state of the Green justification of their stewardship of the forests, and also to illustrate the revolutionary ambitions of the Greens in combining the bushfire tragedies with their faith in anthropogenic global warming, in order to justify "retooling the economy from top to bottom."
IN 1994, Ray Evans bought a cottage at Marysville (Victoria, Australia) which he and his wife subsequently renovated and extended. The cottage and its extensive garden were destroyed by fire on the night of Saturday February 7 - now known as Black Saturday.
In the following provocative and political article Mr Evans blames the fire "on green doctrine" and the Victorian government wilfully ignoring the advice of a previous inquiry because it did not want to "offend the sensitivities of the Greens".
"IN 1966 the Victorian government published a booklet entitled Summer Peril. On the cover was a terrifying photo of the 1964 Lorne bushfire. The foreword was by the Premier, Sir Henry Bolte, who began: "Over the years our state of Victoria has been plagued by bushfires leading to tragic loss of life and devastation of natural resources, public and private property."
The booklet offers practical advice to farmers and rural landholders about the precautions they should take to minimise the risk to their property and what to do if bushfires should engulf them. One noteworthy sentence declares: "Anyone who ignores warnings about the fire risk during acute danger periods must be a fool, and a selfish, ignorant and stubborn one at that."
The report by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the Victorian Parliament Inquiry into the Impact of Public Land Management Practices on Bushfires in Victoria, July 2008, lists twenty-three bushfires from 1965 until 2008, resulting in the deaths of 102 people. On February 7, 2009, Black Saturday, 173 people died. Those words from 1966 now have a prophetic ring to them.
On February 9 the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, announced the establishment of a Royal Commission with wide-ranging terms of reference to inquire into the causes of the firestorm and to recommend policies which would mitigate against future disasters.
The Premier would have been aware that the appointment of such a body would forestall criticism of his government for failure to act on the recommendations of the parliamentary committee that had reported in July 2008. This committee made very specific recommendations, particularly about the need for fuel reduction activity, which had either been rejected by the government or accepted in principle only. The committee, chaired by former Labor minister John Pandazopoulos, comprised members from both houses and both parties with an independent, Craig Ingram, as deputy chair. Its report is an example of the great benefits that federalism provides. Canberra could not match this document. It is comprehensive in its scope, witnesses of all shades of opinion are quoted at length, there is much historical material woven into the narrative, and much detailed local knowledge is laid out for the reader; but its recommendations, made without dissent, were ignored by the Brumby government.
The Royal Commission has now been established. My deep interest in the proceedings and outcome of this Royal Commission is a consequence of the decision my wife and I made in 1994 to buy a cottage at Marysville. We renovated and extended the cottage, which we rented out to tourists; we constructed two outbuildings, and developed a magnificent garden on three-quarters of an acre. The house and the garden were destroyed on the night of Saturday February 7. The workshop survived.
Paragraph 2 of the Royal Commission's terms of reference refers inter alia to the "prevention . of bushfire threats and risks". As far as I am aware no submission or comment following the tragedy of Black Saturday has raised arguments concerning the prevention of bushfires in the future. All the attention so far has focused on what went wrong. The Royal Commission would be doing a much greater service if it inquired into ways in which bushfires in Victoria were to be eradicated.
The Brumby government ignored the 2008 report for reasons which were wholly political and which go to the heart of the problems we face not only on the bushfire front, but also on water supply issues and on any major development in Victoria which offends the sensitivities of the Greens. The Brumby government, to its credit, stared down the Greens on the Port Phillip channel deepening issue, but that is the only attempt it has made to win a serious confrontation with the political-cum-religious forces which seek to stop economic development in Victoria or, as in the case of the Latrobe Valley brown coal power stations, simply shut them down and thus leave Victoria without electricity.
The takeover by the socialist Left of the environmentalist movement in Australia can be dated from the early seventies, culminating in the 1973 AGM of the Australian Conservation Foundation, an organisation founded by Sir Garfield Barwick and Sir Maurice Mawby, funded in part by the McMahon government, and which had as its aim increasing the public awareness of the importance of environmental matters.
By the late 1960s the communist Left was suffering from defections over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, but more significantly from the brutal repression of the Dubcek regime in Prague in 1968. The Communist Party of Australia and its fellow-travelling socialists in the ALP were having doctrinal and morale problems. In a brilliant strategic move, it was decided that the environmentalist movement was a new and promising vehicle for obtaining political influence and power.
The American sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote in a review article in the American Spectator in 1983:
"As an historian, I am obliged by the record of the Western past to see Environmentalism-of the kind espoused by the Barry Commoners and the Paul Ehrlichs-as the third great wave of redemptive struggle in Western history; the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.
"The appeal of Environmentalism, in its more extreme manifestations at least, becomes irresistible to that permanent cadre of political and social radicals Western society has nurtured ever since the French Revolution. This cadre has never been primarily interested in the protection of nature, but if such a movement carries with it even the possibility
On Nov 10, 1:33 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:02:43 -0800, Fran wrote: > > On Nov 10, 4:50 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:28:54 -0800, Fran wrote: > >> > On Nov 9, 1:30 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> > \
<snip>
> >> > Especially a Marxist pays homage to science.
> >> Right. You're good at paying homage, but incompetent in doing the work > >> required to understand and explain the concepts involved. Homage is > >> politics, science is explanation.
> > All the explanation is the world is moot to those like you who are > > determined to ignore it.
> Where did you explain the mechanism by which CO2 affects temperature?
Lots of times. Look up radiative forcing and CO2 sensitivity. It's not hard.
Here's a quick summary:
1.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859). 2.Carbon dioxide is rising (Keeling 1958, 1960, etc.). 3.Therefore (1, 2) the Earth's temperature should be rising. 4.The Earth's temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, RSS, UAH, etc., etc.). 5.Therefore (1, 2, 3) the increased temperatures should relate closely to the carbon dioxide level. 6.The correlation between NASA GISS temperature anomalies and ln CO2 is r = 0.87 for 1880-2007 (http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/ Correlation.html). 7.The new carbon dioxide is primarily from fossil fuel burning (Suess 1955, Revelle and Suess 1957). 8.Therefore the global warming taking place is anthropogenic.
> >> <This is the quote from Fran, earlier in the thread>
> >> >> "However you answer that however, it won't alter the question of > >> >> whether CO2 and its related break down products are "filth". Even > >> >> something essential can be "filth"."
> >> <end quote>
> >> Note it's specific to CO2 and its "break down products".
> > Almost exactly correct ... its *related* break-down products. i.e. all > > of the effluent that is co-extensive with the production of the CO2 in > > fossil thermal energy conversion.
> Apparently you are using the term "breakdown products" in a new and > creative way. You seem to be talking about the other combustion > emissions, but calling them CO2 breakdown products. They're not.
You cropped the word "related" ... i.e products related to the releases of CO2 as a result of combustion.
> The AGW scam involves a supposed catastrophic warming effect from CO2, > which has now been shown to be under a degree C per doubling of CO2.
> Your power grab is now baseless, and you're apparently falling back on > ordinary emission reduction issues to cover that fact.
Not at all. That dealing with CO2 effectively will also have ancillary benefits that cannot be obtained any other way is just a lovely bonus and makes CO2 miotiagtion a no regrets measure.
> >> >> CO2 breaks down into C and O2. Diamonds are carbon, and O2 is what > >> >> is keeping you alive. It's only your twisted mind that's filthy.
> >> > The breakdown products that are related are the PM and other effluent > >> > from the combustion of carbon fuels.
> >> Those are problems having nothing to do with CO2 that are well > >> understood and have been technically largely solved.
> > Whether they have been largely technically solved is moot if there is no > > way to delvier a solution embracing that technological fix. (And I doubt > > that it has)
> >> Economics is now the issue, > >> and we all know how well Marxism handles that.
> > No, "we" don't because as yet Marxism has not been applied to problems > > of state.
> Pull the other one - it whistles.
Does it now? I hear no whistle. To any reasonable person reading this your line of argument sucks and blows at the same time.
> >> >> > I know why you'd like to divert discussion, but there are other > >> >> > groups set up to debate the ethics of the Stalinist-led regimes.
> >> Then don't try to sell them in a.g-w.
> > You're the one raising it.
> And you're the one that keeps trying to apply Marxist politics to > science. They're inherently incompatible.
I do no such thing. It is you who throughout this discussion has tried to make this about Marxism. Let me say as I did to John Fernbach some time ago, Marxism has nothing to say about the hard sciences. We Marxists have no better hard science to appeal to than anyone else.
This is just your strawman.
<snip>
> >> Freedom has a long record of success.
> > Like Marxism, it has never been tried. What he have had is 250 years of > > capitalist misery.
> >> Marxism has a long record
> > Marxism has no record at all in affairs of state.
> >> >> > Mine is to compel the elites to account for the damage they do or > >> >> > will do in the costs they shift to buyers -- to internalise what > >> >> > is external so that there is an incentive to do less damage and > >> >> > the funds to make reparation and adaptation where necessary.
> >> >> Freedom through compulsion - yeah, that's the answer if you're a > >> >> Marxist...
> >> > All you have is rhetoric, in this case completely unrelated to the > >> > foregoing claim.
> >> Compelling citizens to pay taxes because they are emitting harmless CO2 > >> is on topic in AGW.
> > 1. I'm not compelling citizens to pay taxes. I am asking them to pay an > > apt cost for the system services they are converting
> To whom? Voluntarily? You did use the word "compel" above, you know.
Almost nobody pays for services "voluntarily". Ever seen those "entry by donation" exhibitions? Typically, if 100 people pass through, about five donate out of guilt and you might find $20 in the tin.
If the service is a valuable one, buyers expect that a price roughly matching its cost of provision will be levied. Whether they grizzle or not, they pay up or do without. Clean air is not something you can put on a meter. Neither is a climate pattern. So you have to charge people at large for it on the assumption that if you asked them they'd prefer a suitable climate and clean air.
That's not a tax though. It is a charge for service -- a fee which in this case discourages people from contaminating the air, and ensures that funds for remediation, compensation, adaptation and auditing will be available.
> 2. I'd never ask
> > anyone to pay for something harmless that cost nothing to deliver. I am > > asking them to pay for the harmful CO2 (as opposed to the non-harmful > > CO2). There are two tranches, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
> How do you tell the difference between "good" CO2 and "bad" CO2?
Very simple. For all of the last 13,000 years, when humans were most at whim of the vicissitudes of the climate and the biosphere more generally, the climate was stable and CO2 no more than 280 ppmv. Indeed, it seems possible that this level has not been breached (until now of course) in 15 million years. Given that the shorter timeline spans a time when humans had only the most primitive technologies and were tiny in number and had to cling by their fingernails to survival, I'd say the concentrations applying then were pretty good and at worst innocuous. If the longer time frame applies then the prevailing levels of CO2 ushered in humanity's earliest hominid ancestors and then cro- Magnon and then homo sapiens.
So that would be the good CO2 where good is defined as "not inconsistent with the success of our species". Of course, unwittingly, since 1880, we have smashed previous CO2 concentration records and provoked the most rapid warming in at least 400Kya and possibly in all of the last 600 million years. We don't know precisely what the result of that will be but we are entitled to infer that it will hurt us quite a bit, given that we now have 6.8 billion going on 9 billion by 2050 to feed and clothe and house and disrupting human coastal habitats and patterns of climate will disrupt services essential to industrial-scale feeding.
Now if there had only been about 1 million of us, all living as hunter gatherers, no problem. We just move someplace nicer if it warms up. Even if we were technologically advanced and just one million in number, again, we can probably adapt. Plenty of arable land and potable water per person so no serious bother. Of course, in those circumstances, there would not have been a problem with climate change.
> >> I'm dealing with facts, which you see through your Marxist filter as > >> "rhetoric".
> > Nope. Talking about enslavement and fictitious claims of Marxist > > government is mere rhetoric.
> Not fiction, Fran. You're only fooling yourself.
You are trying to fool others.
> >> Apparently you think that means you can ignore the facts and no one > >> will notice.
> > Pot-kettle--black You are desp[erately trying to ignore reality, or to > > induce others to do so.
> Funny, that coming from one who denies Stalin, Mao, and Lenin were > Marxists.
Coming from someone who showed that they didn't and couldn't operate Marxist regimes.
> >> >> >> We're all better off from people learning how to harness energy > >> >> >> to make life easier. Get over the Prometheus myth.
> >> >> > Absurd. I want to bring *clean* fire to humanity's aid, whereas > >> >> > you want to hang onto the dirty stuff.
> >> >> Fran, my bet is you couldn't even start a fire from scratch, much > >> >> less bring anything of value to anyone.
> >> > Yet sensible people don't care what you would bet on. Here you bet on > >> > filth, and that says enough.
> >> The only filth I see is apparently in your mind,
> > More rhetoric and delusion
> > <snip>
> >> >> > Right now tens of millions are at immediate risk and this harm > >> >> > will increase sharply if we do not right now foreclose it through > >> >> > mitigation and adaptation. You advocate talking about the past and > >> >> > I advocate talking about the
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:02:43 -0800, Fran wrote: > > On Nov 10, 4:50 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:28:54 -0800, Fran wrote: > >> > On Nov 9, 1:30 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> > \
<snip>
> >> > Especially a Marxist pays homage to science.
> >> Right. You're good at paying homage, but incompetent in doing the work > >> required to understand and explain the concepts involved. Homage is > >> politics, science is explanation.
> > All the explanation is the world is moot to those like you who are > > determined to ignore it.
> Where did you explain the mechanism by which CO2 affects temperature?
Lots of times. Look up radiative forcing and CO2 sensitivity. It's not hard.
Here's a quick summary:
1.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859). 2.Carbon dioxide is rising (Keeling 1958, 1960, etc.). 3.Therefore (1, 2) the Earth's temperature should be rising. 4.The Earth's temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, RSS, UAH, etc., etc.). 5.Therefore (1, 2, 3) the increased temperatures should relate closely to the carbon dioxide level. 6.The correlation between NASA GISS temperature anomalies and ln CO2 is r = 0.87 for 1880-2007 (http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/ Correlation.html). ======================================
So what is the correlation for the last ten years then baby? Nowhere near 0.87 methinks!
BBC Admits To Global Cooling. Koppkock And Other Warmie Whackos Still In Denial
Sceptics welcome BBC report on 'global cooling'
12 Oct 2009
Climate change sceptics have welcomed a "surprise" BBC decision to give prominence to evidence from leading scientists that there could be 30 years of "global cooling".
Under the headline `Whatever happened to Global Warming?', the BBC has reported that the warmest year recorded globally was 1998, and for the last 11 years no increase in global temperatures has been observed.
The report by the BBC climate correspondent, Paul Hudson, which provoked a strong debate on the Corporation's website, quotes a climatologist as saying there could be 30 years of cooling due to the falling temperatures of the oceans.
Last night, one solar scientist, Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, said: "It is interesting the BBC is prepared to tolerate Hudson writing these things.
"It is a surprise - a welcome one - that the BBC has put it as bluntly as they have. More often than not the BBC put forward the brainwashing views of CO2-driven, man-made climate change.
"Possibly some people in the BBC have worked out that the whole shooting match will collapse and they had better be ahead of the game."
Mr Corbyn is due to put forward his view that solar charged particles "impact us far more than is currently accepted" to the international scientific community at a conference in London later this month.
He said climate change was a "weapon of mass taxation."
"All the political parties want to use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes," he added. "Also it is a tactic for the Western powers to control the world energy supply."
The BBC report quotes Prof Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University as saying the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), he added.
He said in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
"The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling," Prof Easterbrook was quoted as saying.
Some reader comments on the BBC's website said the broadcaster had made a "U-turn" over its readiness to acknowledge the views of scientists who believe cooling is here to stay.
However the BBC said: "We have always reported a range of views and this article is no different.
"The point the article is making is that views about climate change are hotly contested. To characterise this as some sort of change in position is simply wrong."
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
> "Fran" <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7d514af7-6db4-4581-8150-8843b5c94a68@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 10, 1:33 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:02:43 -0800, Fran wrote: >> > On Nov 10, 4:50 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:28:54 -0800, Fran wrote: >> >> > On Nov 9, 1:30 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> > \
> <snip>
>> >> > Especially a Marxist pays homage to science.
>> >> Right. You're good at paying homage, but incompetent in doing the work >> >> required to understand and explain the concepts involved. Homage is >> >> politics, science is explanation.
>> > All the explanation is the world is moot to those like you who are >> > determined to ignore it.
>> Where did you explain the mechanism by which CO2 affects temperature?
> Lots of times. Look up radiative forcing and CO2 sensitivity. It's not > hard.
> Here's a quick summary:
> 1.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859). > 2.Carbon dioxide is rising (Keeling 1958, 1960, etc.). > 3.Therefore (1, 2) the Earth's temperature should be rising. > 4.The Earth's temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, > RSS, UAH, etc., etc.). > 5.Therefore (1, 2, 3) the increased temperatures should relate closely > to the carbon dioxide level. > 6.The correlation between NASA GISS temperature anomalies and ln CO2 > is r = 0.87 for 1880-2007 (http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/ > Correlation.html). > ======================================
> So what is the correlation for the last ten years then baby? > Nowhere near 0.87 methinks!
Another snippet to ponder ...
NZ Has Coldest October Since 1945 7 Nov 2009
QUOTE: Such a cold October has occurred only four times in the past 100 years, the last time in 1945.
From the weather is not climate department, it seems that the USA is not the only country experiencing an October cold snap.
Coldest October in 64 years
It will come as little surprise to most New Zealanders that the country shivered through the coldest October in 64 years.
In its climate summary for the month, the Niwa said the average temperature nationwide was 10.6ºC, 1.4ºC below average.
Such a cold October has occurred only four times in the past 100 years, the last time in 1945.
It was only fractionally warmer than August, which recorded a warmer-than-normal average temperature of 10.4ºC.
Niwa said October was shaped by a series of southerly fronts, all-time record low temperatures in many areas, and unseasonable late snowfalls.
The heaviest October snowfall since 1967 occurred in Hawke's Bay and the central North Island on Octobe 4 and 5 stranding hundreds of travellers, closing roads, and resulting in heavy lambing losses.
Not only was it cold, but it was also wet.
Rainfall was near-record (more than 200 percent of normal) in parts of Hawke's Bay, Gisborne and the Tararua district, and well above normal in the remaining east of the North Island, as well as Wellington, Marlborough and parts of Canterbury.
It was, however, dry and sunnier than usual on the West Coast of the South Island.
For those pinning their hopes on a quick thaw, Niwa is predicting temperatures over the next three months to be near average for the North Island and top of the South Island, but below average elsewhere.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
> BBC Admits To Global Cooling. Koppkock And Other Warmie Whackos Still In > Denial
> Sceptics welcome BBC report on 'global cooling'
> 12 Oct 2009
> Climate change sceptics have welcomed a "surprise" BBC decision to give > prominence to evidence from leading scientists that there could be 30 > years of "global cooling".
> Under the headline `Whatever happened to Global Warming?', the BBC has > reported that the warmest year recorded globally was 1998, and for the > last 11 years no increase in global temperatures has been observed.
> The report by the BBC climate correspondent, Paul Hudson, which provoked a > strong debate on the Corporation's website, quotes a climatologist as > saying there could be 30 years of cooling due to the falling temperatures > of the oceans.
> Last night, one solar scientist, Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a > company specialising in long range weather forecasting, said: "It is > interesting the BBC is prepared to tolerate Hudson writing these things.
> "It is a surprise - a welcome one - that the BBC has put it as bluntly as > they have. More often than not the BBC put forward the brainwashing views > of CO2-driven, man-made climate change.
> "Possibly some people in the BBC have worked out that the whole shooting > match will collapse and they had better be ahead of the game."
> Mr Corbyn is due to put forward his view that solar charged particles > "impact us far more than is currently accepted" to the international > scientific community at a conference in London later this month.
> He said climate change was a "weapon of mass taxation."
> "All the political parties want to use climate change as an excuse to > raise taxes," he added. "Also it is a tactic for the Western powers to > control the world energy supply."
> The BBC report quotes Prof Don Easterbrook from Western Washington > University as saying the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
> The oceans have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most > important is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), he added.
> He said in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has > recently started to cool down.
> "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, > virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling," Prof > Easterbrook was quoted as saying.
> Some reader comments on the BBC's website said the broadcaster had made a > "U-turn" over its readiness to acknowledge the views of scientists who > believe cooling is here to stay.
> However the BBC said: "We have always reported a range of views and this > article is no different.
> "The point the article is making is that views about climate change are > hotly contested. To characterise this as some sort of change in position > is simply wrong."
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps > US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of > scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that > is distinct from natural variation." > Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, > Townsville
Sorry, but this post has the Goggle Groups bug. I'll respond with identified [BW] comments.
On Nov 10, 1:33=A0pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:02:43 -0800, Fran wrote: > > On Nov 10, 4:50 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:28:54 -0800, Fran wrote: > >> > On Nov 9, 1:30 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> > \
<snip>
> >> > Especially a Marxist pays homage to science.
> >> Right. =A0You're good at paying homage, but incompetent in doing the
w= ork
> >> required to understand and explain the concepts involved. =A0Homage is > >> politics, science is explanation.
> > All the explanation is the world is moot to those like you who are > > determined to ignore it.
> Where did you explain the mechanism by which CO2 affects temperature?
Lots of times. Look up radiative forcing and CO2 sensitivity. It's not hard.
[BW] That's not an explanation, that's just another appeal to authority. ----------------
Here's a quick summary:
1.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859). 2.Carbon dioxide is rising (Keeling 1958, 1960, etc.). 3.Therefore (1, 2) the Earth's temperature should be rising. 4.The Earth's temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, RSS, UAH, etc., etc.). 5.Therefore (1, 2, 3) the increased temperatures should relate closely to the carbon dioxide level. 6.The correlation between NASA GISS temperature anomalies and ln CO2 is r =3D 0.87 for 1880-2007 (http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/ Correlation.html).
[BW] Correlation does not prove causation. You should know that. -------------
7.The new carbon dioxide is primarily from fossil fuel burning (Suess 1955, Revelle and Suess 1957).
[BW] Or CO2 from old marine carbonate deposits. It's in equilibrium with the ocean and is also depleted in C13 and C14. It doesn't matter, because you have shown no connection between CO2 and temperature other than a former correlation, which has become uncorrelated in the last decade. CO2 is still rising, T is not. ------------
8.Therefore the global warming taking place is anthropogenic.
[BW] Do you know the meaning of "explain the mechanism"? You have merely dusted off old correlations without showing how CO2 could be a cause. You ignored the ice core data that shows CO2 lags temperature, so cannot be a cause. You ignored the recent Lindzen paper showing the lack of positive feedback. You ignored the now well accepted figure of less than 1C climate sensitivity in the absence of WV feedback.
[BW] In short, you simply parroted the list you've been given without checking anything for yourself. Do you have any clue at all how CO2 could be warming the surface, or have you just been using the group for politics?
[BW] At any rate, your record of never explaining a mechanism remains unbroken. I'm getting rather bored with you. -------------------
|
