"His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations."
> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment > says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged > resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief > and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief > regulations."
Once again, Ravinghorde doesn't understand the evidence he is presenting. AGW is being protected as a philosophical belief, rather than as a religion.
Since the philosophy underpinning the idea is modern physical science, what the law has done is to recognise that the protection available to people's religious delusions also protects people who have widely- shared realistic evidence-based beliefs.
This is necessary, because people who are too dumb - like Ravinghorde - or too ignorant - like the management at Grainger plc - can be remarkably confident about their irrational delusions.
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 3, 2:00 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote: >> It's offical. AGW is protected as a religious belief.
>> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment >> says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged >> resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief >> and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief >> regulations."
>Once again, Ravinghorde doesn't understand the evidence he is >presenting. AGW is being protected as a philosophical belief, rather >than as a religion.
>Since the philosophy underpinning the idea is modern physical science, >what the law has done is to recognise that the protection available >to people's religious delusions also protects people who have widely- >shared realistic evidence-based beliefs.
>This is necessary, because people who are too dumb - like Ravinghorde >- or too ignorant - like the management at Grainger plc - can be >remarkably confident about their irrational delusions.
If he was dismissed because of his knowledge he would not have had to resort to these regulations.
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
Pointing out that Ravinghorde can't do joined up logic isn't really anthropology, and who needs a diatribe when you can point out that the conclusion being drawn isn't supported by the evidence adduced.
But ChrisQ not only reads the Daily Telegraph, but also takes Christopher Monckton seriously, so he isn't all that sensitive to logic that doesn't add up.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:39:24 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 3, 2:00 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote: > >> It's offical. AGW is protected as a religious belief.
> >> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment > >> says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged > >> resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief > >> and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief > >> regulations."
> >Once again, Ravinghorde doesn't understand the evidence he is > >presenting. AGW is being protected as a philosophical belief, rather > >than as a religion.
> >Since the philosophy underpinning the idea is modern physical science, > >what the law has done is to recognise that the protection available > >to people's religious delusions also protects people who have widely- > >shared realistic evidence-based beliefs.
> >This is necessary, because people who are too dumb - like Ravinghorde > >- or too ignorant - like the management at Grainger plc - can be > >remarkably confident about their irrational delusions.
> If he was dismissed because of his knowledge he would not have had to > resort to these regulations.
Why do you think that? What alternative plan of action might he have followed?
> The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
> "In these Regulations, "religion or belief" means any religion, > religious belief, or similar philosophical belief."
> Which makes it clear that philosophical is equivelent to religious in > the context of these regulations.
True, but that doesn't make anthropogenic global warming a religion.
You really do need to learn how to construct logical arguments.
The man sued on the basis that even if his scientifically soundly based belief in anthropogenic global warming had - in fact - been some kind of irrational conviction (like your denialism), his employers weren't allowed to fire him for it.
That he won his case doesn't have any bearing on the nature of his belief, and doesn't constitue any kind of legal endorsement of the dim- witted view - that you share with Rich Grise - that anthropogenic global warming is some kind of religious dogma. Granting your repeatedly demonstrated incapacity to draw logical conclusions from straightforward evidence, it is easy enough to see why you can't follow the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming, but there are quite a few people around who can do better.
>> "In these Regulations, "religion or belief" means any religion, >> religious belief, or similar philosophical belief."
>> Which makes it clear that philisphical is equivelent to religious in >> the context of these regulations.
>He was on C4 news this evening with some minister of the church as a >comparison and he's obviously got a bee up his whatsit.
>I guess it's an original angle to try to get back at an employer who >most likely fired him because of his one man crusade...
>Regards,
>Chris
I notice our pet alarmist has crawled out from under his rock.
Not only is he a self proclaimed expert in AGW but now as a unemployed whatever living in the Netherlands he reckons he knows more about English employment law than an English employer. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.
> >> "In these Regulations, "religion or belief" means any religion, > >> religious belief, or similar philosophical belief."
> >> Which makes it clear that philisphical is equivelent to religious in > >> the context of these regulations.
> >He was on C4 news this evening with some minister of the church as a > >comparison and he's obviously got a bee up his whatsit.
> >I guess it's an original angle to try to get back at an employer who > >most likely fired him because of his one man crusade...
> >Regards,
> >Chris
> I notice our pet alarmist has crawled out from under his rock.
> Not only is he a self proclaimed expert in AGW but now as a unemployed > whatever living in the Netherlands he reckons he knows more about > English employment law than an English employer. If it wasn't so sad > it would be funny.
Ravinghorde is priceless. He thinks that because the legislation that protects someone's right to believe in anthropogenic global warming would also cover their right to hold a religious belief, it follows that anthropogenic global warming is thus a religious belief.
Having made a fool of himself by drawing this fatuous conclusion, he now wants to claim that his bogus expertise in English employment law gives him some unique right to his illogical conclusion.
I've spent enough time working in the UK to know quite enough about UK employment law to be aware that Ravinghorde is clutching at a broken straw. The man would have to be terminally stupid to think that he could get away with this pathetic excuse for an argument, so I guess that he has to be suffering from some kind of strange distortion of his reasoning process.
** Unlike BS who is way over the top on his own value.
> He thinks that because the legislation that > protects someone's right to believe in anthropogenic global warming
** The UK legislation was designed to protect folk of various religious faiths & philosophical positions from being unfairly dismissed by their employers solely or mainly on grounds of them holding those beliefs.
Makes it an offence for employers of one faith or philosophy to give the boot to someone of another cos they cannot abide them or prefer to have a one faith work place.
OTOH, an obvious conflict of belief with one's job would not be so protected - ie, a devout fatalist would not make an effective safety officer nor an anarchist a good magistrate.
> would also cover their right to hold a religious belief, it follows > that anthropogenic global warming is thus a religious belief.
** It has put belief in AGW into the same category as other protected beliefs - makes following the dictums of AGW look like it is the same as following Scientology.
Problem with the case in question was that the guy tried to force his rabid AGW beliefs onto his employer, causing constant conflict with management and making him an ineffective and disruptive employee.
So they had every right to sack him.
> I've spent enough time working in the UK to know quite enough about UK > employment law to be aware that Ravinghorde is clutching at a broken > straw.
> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment > says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged > resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief > and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief > regulations."
Of course this says nothing about whether AGW is actually *real*. But it is difficult to see it as anything but an own goal for AGW proponents (with whom, on balance, I would include myself). I bet they are cursing this guy right now.
> ** Unlike BS who is way over the top on his own value.
> > He thinks that because the legislation that > > protects someone's right to believe in anthropogenic global warming
> ** The UK legislation was designed to protect folk of various religious > faiths & philosophical positions from being unfairly dismissed by their > employers solely or mainly on grounds of them holding those beliefs.
> Makes it an offence for employers of one faith or philosophy to give the > boot to someone of another cos they cannot abide them or prefer to have a > one faith work place.
> OTOH, an obvious conflict of belief with one's job would not be so > protected - ie, a devout fatalist would not make an effective safety > officer nor an anarchist a good magistrate.
> > would also cover their right to hold a religious belief, it follows > > that anthropogenic global warming is thus a religious belief.
> ** It has put belief in AGW into the same category as other protected > beliefs - makes following the dictums of AGW look like it is the same as > following Scientology.
This is Ravinghorde's fallacy. The legislation protects all kinds of opinions - "any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief" - and while people who believe in anthropogenic global warming can claim the same protection as people who follow Scientology, it doesn't follow that every belief protected by the legisatlion is as silly as Scientology, or as irrational as many of the religions.
> Problem with the case in question was that the guy tried to force his rabid > AGW beliefs onto his employer, causing > constant conflict with management and making him an ineffective and > disruptive employee.
You may be right. Since Tim Nicholson was allowed to take them to court for wrongful dismissal, it doesn't look as if his employers made this obvious when they made him redundant.
> So they had every right to sack him.
Only if he was an ineffective and disruptive employee - and they should have made that explicit when they made him redundant. If they had, he wouldn't have been able to take them to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
> ** Unlike BS who is way over the top on his own value.
> > He thinks that because the legislation that > > protects someone's right to believe in anthropogenic global warming
> ** The UK legislation was designed to protect folk of various religious > faiths & philosophical positions from being unfairly dismissed by their > employers solely or mainly on grounds of them holding those beliefs.
> Makes it an offence for employers of one faith or philosophy to give the > boot to someone of another cos they cannot abide them or prefer to have a > one faith work place.
> OTOH, an obvious conflict of belief with one's job would not be so > protected - ie, a devout fatalist would not make an effective safety > officer nor an anarchist a good magistrate.
> > would also cover their right to hold a religious belief, it follows > > that anthropogenic global warming is thus a religious belief.
> ** It has put belief in AGW into the same category as other protected > beliefs - makes following the dictums of AGW look like it is the same as > following Scientology.
This is Ravinghorde's fallacy. The legislation protects all kinds of opinions - "any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief" - and while people who believe in anthropogenic global warming can claim the same protection as people who follow Scientology, it doesn't follow that every belief protected by the legislation is as silly as Scientology, or as irrational as many of the religions.
** It puts it in the exact same category.
In the minds of the public.
> Problem with the case in question was that the guy tried to force his > rabid > AGW beliefs onto his employer, causing > constant conflict with management and making him an ineffective and > disruptive employee.
You may be right. Since Tim Nicholson was allowed to take them to court for wrongful dismissal, it doesn't look as if his employers made this obvious when they made him redundant.
** Totally unsupported assertion.
> So they had every right to sack him.
Only if he was an ineffective and disruptive employee - and they should have made that explicit when they made him redundant. If they had, he wouldn't have been able to take them to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
** Bollocks.
No matter what kind of reason were to be proffered for a person's smissal - that person is still able to dispute the assertion in a court or tribunal and say that another and illegal motive was the actual one.
> Of course this says nothing about whether AGW is actually *real*. But it > is difficult to see it as anything but an own goal for AGW proponents > (with whom, on balance, I would include myself). I bet they are cursing > this guy right now.
** Absoblominglutely !!!
Taken to its logical conclusion, such a judgement raises the spectre of making current, international government plans to FINANCE the goals and ideals spouted by AGW theorists ILLEGAL !!!
Cos in all secular democracies - taxpayer fund cannot be allocated to directly support a religion or philosophy.
> > ** Unlike BS who is way over the top on his own value.
> > > He thinks that because the legislation that > > > protects someone's right to believe in anthropogenic global warming
> > ** The UK legislation was designed to protect folk of various religious > > faiths & philosophical positions from being unfairly dismissed by their > > employers solely or mainly on grounds of them holding those beliefs.
> > Makes it an offence for employers of one faith or philosophy to give the > > boot to someone of another cos they cannot abide them or prefer to have a > > one faith work place.
> > OTOH, an obvious conflict of belief with one's job would not be so > > protected - ie, a devout fatalist would not make an effective safety > > officer nor an anarchist a good magistrate.
> > > would also cover their right to hold a religious belief, it follows > > > that anthropogenic global warming is thus a religious belief.
> > ** It has put belief in AGW into the same category as other protected > > beliefs - makes following the dictums of AGW look like it is the same as > > following Scientology.
> This is Ravinghorde's fallacy. The legislation protects all kinds of > opinions - "any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief" - > and while people who believe in anthropogenic global warming can claim > the same protection as people who follow Scientology, it doesn't > follow that every belief protected by the legislation is as silly as > Scientology, or as irrational as many of the religions.
> ** It puts it in the exact same category.
The catagory of "things that people believe in", which is all- inclusive
> In the minds of the public.
In the minds of the dim and undiscriminating public, who can read the "Sun" and other Murdoch papers without noticing that they are being treated as a bunch of gullible suckers.
> > Problem with the case in question was that the guy tried to force his > > rabid > > AGW beliefs onto his employer, causing > > constant conflict with management and making him an ineffective and > > disruptive employee.
> You may be right. Since Tim Nicholson was allowed to take them to > court for wrongful dismissal, it doesn't look as if his employers made > this obvious when they made him redundant.
> ** Totally unsupported assertion.
> > So they had every right to sack him.
> Only if he was an ineffective and disruptive employee - and they > should have made that explicit when they made him redundant. If they > had, he wouldn't have been able to take them to the Employment Appeal > Tribunal.
> ** Bollocks.
> No matter what kind of reason were to be proffered for a person's > dismissal - that person is still able to dispute the assertion in a court > or tribunal and say that another and illegal motive was the actual one.
> Happens every single day.
> Happening in this case too.
You'd like to think so, but to make that claim you'd need more evidence than Ravinghorde adduced. Your masculine intuition doesn't cut the mustard.
> > Of course this says nothing about whether AGW is actually *real*. But it > > is difficult to see it as anything but an own goal for AGW proponents > > (with whom, on balance, I would include myself). I bet they are cursing > > this guy right now.
> ** Absoblominglutely !!!
> Taken to its logical conclusion, such a judgement raises the spectre of > making current, international government plans to FINANCE the goals and > ideals spouted by AGW theorists ILLEGAL !!!
> Cos in all secular democracies - taxpayer fund cannot be allocated to > directly support a religion or philosophy.
> Think about it......
And the Australian governments investment in vacines and anti-viral medications to protect the populaton against the Mexican flu is equally illegal? It is - after all - motivated by a philosophy that says that we can predict and manipulate the future on the basis of current scientific observations and theories.
There don't seem to be any flu denialists around at the moment, but AIDS denialists managed to recruit enough of the South African government a few years ago to save that government from spending money on effective treatments for AIDS.
Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> writes: > On Nov 4, 7:14 am, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote: >> "Bill Slowman"
>> > Ravinghorde is priceless.
>> ** Unlike BS who is way over the top on his own value.
>> > He thinks that because the legislation that >> > protects someone's right to believe in anthropogenic global warming
>> ** The UK legislation was designed to protect folk of various religious >> faiths & philosophical positions from being unfairly dismissed by their >> employers solely or mainly on grounds of them holding those beliefs.
>> Makes it an offence for employers of one faith or philosophy to give the >> boot to someone of another cos they cannot abide them or prefer to have a >> one faith work place.
>> OTOH, an obvious conflict of belief with one's job would not be so >> protected - ie, a devout fatalist would not make an effective safety >> officer nor an anarchist a good magistrate.
>> > would also cover their right to hold a religious belief, it follows >> > that anthropogenic global warming is thus a religious belief.
>> ** It has put belief in AGW into the same category as other protected >> beliefs - makes following the dictums of AGW look like it is the same as >> following Scientology.
> This is Ravinghorde's fallacy. The legislation protects all kinds of > opinions - "any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief" - > and while people who believe in anthropogenic global warming can claim > the same protection as people who follow Scientology, it doesn't > follow that every belief protected by the legisatlion is as silly as > Scientology, or as irrational as many of the religions.
I don't think it applies to *all* kinds of opinions:
"In these Regulations, 'religion or belief' means any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief."
So indeed by definition the only way it can be applied to AGW is to assert that belief in AGW is a "religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief".
I don't agree that it is at all similar to a religious belief, but that is what the guy himself seems to be trying to claim. He is doing massive damage to his own cause.
>> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment >> says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged >> resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief >> and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief >> regulations."
>Of course this says nothing about whether AGW is actually *real*. But it >is difficult to see it as anything but an own goal for AGW proponents >(with whom, on balance, I would include myself). I bet they are cursing >this guy right now.
Just finished reading the book "Superfreakonomics" and it has a great section on AGW. It includes a way to fix it! Seems some geniuses up in Seattle got together, and looked at the Mount Pinatabo (sp?) data, and figured out how to duplicate the effects for $60M! You need to inject a small, steady stream of SO2 into the statosphere, and you can reverse any and all of man-made global warming. They worked out where and how to do it. However the warmingists are having a major hissy fit about it, because it is too cheap, simple and easy, and doesn't give them any leverage on controlling people! Plus, it means that we are geo-engineering the planet, which is a sacriledge!
He also says the same guys have a way to reduce hurricanes cheaply, with the same folks having the same objections. You float a big ring, say of old tires, with a plastic collar that goes down about 600 feet. When a wave washes over the top of the ring, it forces warm water down the collar below the thermocline, where it mixes with the cooler water down there. Remove heat energy from the surface, and you reduce the energy available to create hurricanes!
>>> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment >>> says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged >>> resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief >>> and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief >>> regulations."
>>Of course this says nothing about whether AGW is actually *real*. But it >>is difficult to see it as anything but an own goal for AGW proponents >>(with whom, on balance, I would include myself). I bet they are cursing >>this guy right now.
>Just finished reading the book "Superfreakonomics" and it has a great >section on AGW. It includes a way to fix it! Seems some geniuses up >in Seattle got together, and looked at the Mount Pinatabo (sp?) data, >and figured out how to duplicate the effects for $60M! You need to >inject a small, steady stream of SO2 into the statosphere, and you can >reverse any and all of man-made global warming. They worked out where >and how to do it. However the warmingists are having a major hissy >fit about it, because it is too cheap, simple and easy, and doesn't >give them any leverage on controlling people! Plus, it means that we >are geo-engineering the planet, which is a sacriledge!
>He also says the same guys have a way to reduce hurricanes cheaply, >with the same folks having the same objections. You float a big ring, >say of old tires, with a plastic collar that goes down about 600 feet. >When a wave washes over the top of the ring, it forces warm water down >the collar below the thermocline, where it mixes with the cooler water >down there. Remove heat energy from the surface, and you reduce the >energy available to create hurricanes!
>Charlie
Now, Charlie! You must be careful. The black helicopters will be visiting you ;-)
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like Calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> >> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment > >> says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged > >> resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief > >> and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief > >> regulations."
> >Of course this says nothing about whether AGW is actually *real*. But it > >is difficult to see it as anything but an own goal for AGW proponents > >(with whom, on balance, I would include myself). I bet they are cursing > >this guy right now.
> Just finished reading the book "Superfreakonomics" and it has a great > section on AGW. It includes a way to fix it! Seems some geniuses up > in Seattle got together, and looked at the Mount Pinatabo (sp?) data, > and figured out how to duplicate the effects for $60M! You need to > inject a small, steady stream of SO2 into the statosphere, and you can > reverse any and all of man-made global warming. They worked out where > and how to do it. However the warmingists are having a major hissy > fit about it, because it is too cheap, simple and easy, and doesn't > give them any leverage on controlling people! Plus, it means that we > are geo-engineering the planet, which is a sacriledge!
> He also says the same guys have a way to reduce hurricanes cheaply, > with the same folks having the same objections. You float a big ring, > say of old tires, with a plastic collar that goes down about 600 feet. > When a wave washes over the top of the ring, it forces warm water down > the collar below the thermocline, where it mixes with the cooler water > down there. Remove heat energy from the surface, and you reduce the > energy available to create hurricanes!
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:16:37 -0800, Charlie E. wrote: > it. However the warmingists are having a major hissy fit about it, > because it is too cheap, simple and easy, and doesn't give them any > leverage on controlling people! Plus, it means that we are > geo-engineering the planet, which is a sacriledge!
Well, what do the warmingists intend, if not "geo-engineering the planet?"
>> >> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment >> >> says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged >> >> resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief >> >> and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief >> >> regulations."
>> >Of course this says nothing about whether AGW is actually *real*. But it >> >is difficult to see it as anything but an own goal for AGW proponents >> >(with whom, on balance, I would include myself). I bet they are cursing >> >this guy right now.
>> Just finished reading the book "Superfreakonomics" and it has a great >> section on AGW. It includes a way to fix it! Seems some geniuses up >> in Seattle got together, and looked at the Mount Pinatabo (sp?) data, >> and figured out how to duplicate the effects for $60M! You need to >> inject a small, steady stream of SO2 into the statosphere, and you can >> reverse any and all of man-made global warming. They worked out where >> and how to do it. However the warmingists are having a major hissy >> fit about it, because it is too cheap, simple and easy, and doesn't >> give them any leverage on controlling people! Plus, it means that we >> are geo-engineering the planet, which is a sacriledge!
>> He also says the same guys have a way to reduce hurricanes cheaply, >> with the same folks having the same objections. You float a big ring, >> say of old tires, with a plastic collar that goes down about 600 feet. >> When a wave washes over the top of the ring, it forces warm water down >> the collar below the thermocline, where it mixes with the cooler water >> down there. Remove heat energy from the surface, and you reduce the >> energy available to create hurricanes!
Yes, but not unexpected. The sacred ox has been gored, and the priests must respond immediately! In other words, we don't like your attitude and approach, so you must be wrong!
All this article does for me, is realize how right the book is!
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:12:54 -0800, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_...@example.net> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:16:37 -0800, Charlie E. wrote:
>> it. However the warmingists are having a major hissy fit about it, >> because it is too cheap, simple and easy, and doesn't give them any >> leverage on controlling people! Plus, it means that we are >> geo-engineering the planet, which is a sacriledge!
>Well, what do the warmingists intend, if not "geo-engineering the planet?"
>Thanks, >Rich
But, they want to do it in such a way as to PUNISH all those evil people (preferably by killing most of them, and enslaving the rest...) and put themselves in control over them.
The very idea of actual geo-engineering scares them silly! It has NUMBERS attached to it! ;-)
> > >> "His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment > > >> says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged > > >> resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief > > >> and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief > > >> regulations."
> > >Of course this says nothing about whether AGW is actually *real*. But it > > >is difficult to see it as anything but an own goal for AGW proponents > > >(with whom, on balance, I would include myself). I bet they are cursing > > >this guy right now.
> > Just finished reading the book "Superfreakonomics" and it has a great > > section on AGW. It includes a way to fix it! Seems some geniuses up > > in Seattle got together, and looked at the Mount Pinatabo (sp?) data, > > and figured out how to duplicate the effects for $60M! You need to > > inject a small, steady stream of SO2 into the statosphere, and you can > > reverse any and all of man-made global warming. They worked out where > > and how to do it. However the warmingists are having a major hissy > > fit about it, because it is too cheap, simple and easy, and doesn't > > give them any leverage on controlling people! Plus, it means that we > > are geo-engineering the planet, which is a sacriledge!
> > He also says the same guys have a way to reduce hurricanes cheaply, > > with the same folks having the same objections. You float a big ring, > > say of old tires, with a plastic collar that goes down about 600 feet. > > When a wave washes over the top of the ring, it forces warm water down > > the collar below the thermocline, where it mixes with the cooler water > > down there. Remove heat energy from the surface, and you reduce the > > energy available to create hurricanes!
I apologize to those of you in this newsgroup who are interested in electronics design (and who perhaps foolishly think this newsgroup is for the purpose of discussing electronics design) for posting off- topic. Won't happen again.
|
