73
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 06:52 am
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
This is Blatham's response to a point made by Thomas in reference to Londborg's published opposition to the conventional environmentalist dogmatists in Europe.

Actually, a good number of the dogmatists -- probably more than the number of European ones -- teaches at Stanford and Berkeley. It's you Californians, not us Europeans, who are the left-wing loonies here. Wink


How true! It is this newly refreshed continuous association with them that accounts for my recent ill temper in these discussions, However, even here the Stanford types are moderated by their Hoover Institute neighbors, and even at Berkeley there are islands of sanity to be found. (I am discussing an appointment as an adjunct professor there now - the Business school courses may well require me to revisit all the macroeconomic material , to which you referred me, more seriously.)

Nice points about the arithmetic. Least Squares is a conventional way to model data on a presupposed functional form; linear, quadratic, etc. The deception was in the implicit, but unnoted, assumption that the trend was linear - as you said.

Haven't seen much from Lola here lately. I wonder how well Blatham is doing breaking old habits? Will I have to read his damn book?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 06:56 am
No argument about the glaciers, except that this was not the claim you made in the first place. That claim did not withstand a close reading of the BBC's text, and I suspect that's why you changed the subject.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 06:56 am
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
This is Blatham's response to a point made by Thomas in reference to Londborg's published opposition to the conventional environmentalist dogmatists in Europe.

Actually, a good number of the dogmatists -- probably more than the number of European ones -- teaches at Stanford and Berkeley. It's you Californians, not us Europeans, who are the left-wing loonies here. Wink


How true! It is this newly refreshed continuous association with them that accounts for my recent ill temper in these discussions, However, even here the Stanford types are moderated by their Hoover Institute neighbors, and even at Berkeley there are islands of sanity to be found. (I am discussing an appointment as an adjunct professor there now - the Business school courses may well require me to revisit all the macroeconomic material , to which you referred me, more seriously.)

Nice points about the arithmetic. Least Squares is a conventional way to model data on a presupposed functional form; linear, quadratic, etc. The deception was in the implicit, but unnoted, assumption that the trend was linear - as you said.

Haven't seen much from Lola here lately. I wonder how well Blatham is doing breaking old habits? Will I have to read his damn book?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 06:56 am
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
This is Blatham's response to a point made by Thomas in reference to Londborg's published opposition to the conventional environmentalist dogmatists in Europe.

Actually, a good number of the dogmatists -- probably more than the number of European ones -- teaches at Stanford and Berkeley. It's you Californians, not us Europeans, who are the left-wing loonies here. Wink


How true! It is this newly refreshed continuous association with them that accounts for my recent ill temper in these discussions, However, even here the Stanford types are moderated by their Hoover Institute neighbors, and even at Berkeley there are islands of sanity to be found. (I am discussing an appointment as an adjunct professor there now - the Business school courses may well require me to revisit all the macroeconomic material , to which you referred me, more seriously.)

Nice points about the arithmetic. Least Squares is a conventional way to model data on a presupposed functional form; linear, quadratic, etc. The deception was in the implicit, but unnoted, assumption that the trend was linear - as you said.

Haven't seen much from Lola here lately. I wonder how well Blatham is doing breaking old habits? Will I have to read his damn book?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 06:57 am
On the lively topic of "political correctness"...the following seems to be a case of that term in violation:
Quote:
Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"

Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such "far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."


Go get them niggras, Bill. After aborting all the mistakenly-colored fetuses (good christian doctors won't want to do this, but jew doctors have their uses after all) you'll want to do some organized nut-cutting too so as to prevent more of the little blighters. Round 'em up in one location (a big football stadium, perhaps) and start snipping. Keep the gene-pool clean.

Of course, Bill ought to be allowed to say all this. And say it without fear that someone might come along, tie him down, and shove a military light-stick up his ass. Even my quoting him here is a case of political correctness and liberalism gone mad. Bork would agree. And nobody wants to hear that a light-stick has been shoved up Bork's ass, that's for sure. Well, I guess I do but am I allowed to say it under the present rules of propriety in speech. Would I, for example, violate the parameters if I were to advance the notion that "If you wanted to increase intelligence...if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every christian baby in this country, and your overall intelligence scores would zoom up like an evangelist's boner when he's beating a black whore senseless."

Can you fill me in on the rules of 'political correctness', george?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 07:31 am
blathers-

There you go.It is a status badge as I suspected and is dependent on low intelligence for its successful deployment.Only morons would buy into the idea that because it is asserted that Christians have low intelligence and rootless,alienated,urban aetheists have high intelligence it follows that a rootless,alienated,urban aetheist is more intelligent than a Christian.It is more like having oneself filmed in sepia-tone and watching it wearing rose-tinted spectacles with a Barry Manilow soundtrack.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 07:37 am
blathers-

Are the SDers going into court with all their teeth pulled out?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 07:41 am
blatham wrote:
Would I, for example, violate the parameters if I were to advance the notion that "If you wanted to increase intelligence...if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every christian baby in this country, and your overall intelligence scores would zoom up like an evangelist's boner when he's beating a black whore senseless."

You would sound like an idiot because you have no reason to believe that christians are less intelligent than atheists in the aggregate. (In contrast, blacks are more likely than whites to be convicted criminals, which is what the crime rate measures. (Source: PDF) So technically Bennet is probably correct, even if his remark was tasteless and made him sound like an idiot anyway.) Other than that, no, you would not violate any parameters that I know of.

(Mediamatters.org has the background on the Bennett remark.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 08:24 am
spendius wrote:
blathers-

There you go.It is a status badge as I suspected and is dependent on low intelligence for its successful deployment.Only morons would buy into the idea that because it is asserted that Christians have low intelligence and rootless,alienated,urban aetheists have high intelligence it follows that a rootless,alienated,urban aetheist is more intelligent than a Christian.It is more like having oneself filmed in sepia-tone and watching it wearing rose-tinted spectacles with a Barry Manilow soundtrack.


There someone else goes. High dumbitude falls down on whoever is unlucky enough to be lounging innocently in the womb below regardless of the womb-owner's church membership, or lack. You don't have to go taking the bible literally to take it seriously, as the fellow said. And george likes Bennett and Manilow anyway and he doesn't much like Dylan and that's all pretty predictable as george would swap eight fresh thoughts for any cliche, particularly if it has a 'made in america' tag.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 10:18 am
blathers-

That's odd.Dylan has tapped into root America goodstyle whereas the other two seem to me to just pander to the sentimentality of lonely people.

We got a new truck this week and it has in it a real ghetto blaster.I just spent an hour in the cab with a tape of the first half of the 1984 Wembley Stadium gig which rumour stated 120,000 people attended and I can vouch for it because I was there.To even mention Manilow and Bennett in the same sentence as Dylan after hearing that at full bore seems incongruous.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 10:29 am
Isn't Wembley that famous stadium where thousands rioted and many fans were killed?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 10:51 am
no
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 11:24 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
no

It's the one, where Germany got sheated, after that Russian-Albion conspiracy ... :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 11:29 am
Walt-

Is that meant to be sheeted or cheated or both.

4-2 is pretty conclusive.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 11:36 am
Germany cheated out of winning the world cup at Wembley in 1966 by a Russian linesman???

no never heard of it
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 11:39 am
As I said: compote.


Eh, yes, spendius, complot is is.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 11:50 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Who care one whit about Mars? I live on the planet earth.

You are among the chattering claque declaring that the earth's global warming is caused by human activity on earth. In particular, your claque declares that human caused emission of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere is causing earth's global warming.

Has it not already occurred to you that the causes of earth warming and Mars warming are probably similar!

On Mars there are no humans and therefore no human activities causing CO2 emissions. Nonetheless, Mars is in a long term warming trend like the earth's. The frozen CO2 on Mars is melting, liquidizing, and evaporating!

What's the primary cause? Increase in the sun's radiation? The natural progression of changes in the orbit of Mars (like those similar progressions of earth) around the sun? The tilt of Mars's spin axis (like the similar tilt of earth's orbit)?

Mars's mean distance from the sun is 141 million miles versus the earth's 93 million miles. That implies that the increasing trend in the sun's radiation is the primary cause of both Earth and Mars global warming.

This may help you decide:
Quote:
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660
The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service

Mars is undergoing global warming that could profoundly change the planet's climate in a few thousand years, new data suggests.

High-resolution images taken by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor show that the permanent south polar "ice" cap shrank significantly between two successive Martian summers - a period roughly corresponding to two Earth years. If the trend continues at the same rate and the polar cap is entirely frozen carbon dioxide, "the whole cap would be evaporated in a few thousand years," Mike Caplinger of Malin Space Science Systems told New Scientist.

This would release enough carbon dioxide to give Mars an atmosphere one-tenth the density of the Earth's. "That takes us from a situation of working in a near vacuum with a space suit to being able to run around on the surface with an oxygen mask and a heavy coat. It's what the terraforming people were always talking about," says Caplinger.

However, Caplinger warns it is hard to make long-term predictions using observations over such a short period.

David Smith of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center thinks the shrinkage may be part of a multi-year climate cycle, like the terrestrial El Nino/Southern Oscillation. Recent dust storms might also have aided the melting of the cap.

Seasonal cycle
Planetary scientists have long recognized a seasonal cycle of growth and shrinkage of the frozen cap on Mars.

Separate new observations with the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter show up to two meters of fresh CO2 ice freezes out of the atmosphere each winter onto the polar caps, then evaporates in the spring and summer.

The high-resolution photographs allowed scientists to examine the permanent southern polar cap after the seasonal ice had evaporated. They pictures show a scattering of broad flat pits 30 to 100 meters wide with steep walls several meters high, like holes in a slice of swiss cheese on a flat surface.

The walls of many pits retreated one to three meters during the Martian year, but Caplinger could find no evidence the ice was being redeposited elsewhere.

No fluffy snow
Both sets of observations confirm that the upper layers of the ice caps are frozen carbon dioxide, as had been expected. One surprise was that the density of the seasonal "ice" - about 0.9 grams per cubic centimetre - is much higher than the density of snow on Earth, but not as high as that of solid blocks of frozen carbon dioxide.

This indicates the carbon dioxide "ice" froze on the surface, rather than falling as fluffy snow, which would have been lighter due to spaces between the crystals.

Planetary scientists hope the new data will help them understand past Martian climate. It also shows "there's really some interesting stuff yet to be discovered" about Martian seasons and climate, says David Paige of the University of California at Los Angeles. Plans call for a continuation of the high-resolution imaging for at least another Martian year to see if the trends continue.

Journal reference: Science (vol 294, p 2141, 2146)

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 12:21 pm
spendie

I envy you the being there. The bits of film in Scorses' documentary from the early 70s when Bob teamed up with the Hawks to tour were my favorite musical bits. I hated that Martin chopped them so badly for his own understandable purposes and time constraints. Freight train rock n roll blasting through town where there weren't even any tracks before. Nothing is the same after. And ****, he was young. How does anybody get that smart?

A week or two ago, I read a wonderful bit on Harold Arlen. Not sure your response to the tin pan alley tradition in American songwriting, but I thrive on it. The bit of revelation I came away with (why didn't I think of this before?) was that that musical and lyric genius (Berlin, Porter, Carmichael, Gershwin, etc) was as deeply informed by Jewish cantor and literary traditions as by the black jazz influence. What a wonderful stewpot this place (America and New York) can be.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 12:35 pm
I agree.

But Dylan is out the other side of everything.Irony is good fun but wisdom is better.If you have a competitive system somebody is going to win and you can lionise them as winners.But had they never been born somebody else would be in their place.Not so with Dylan.Nobody could ever replace Dylan.Before he got going the pedestal didn't exist.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Oct, 2005 09:29 pm
blatham wrote:
On the lively topic of "political correctness"...the following seems to be a case of that term in violation:
Quote:
Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"

Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such "far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."


Go get them niggras, Bill. After aborting all the mistakenly-colored fetuses (good christian doctors won't want to do this, but jew doctors have their uses after all) you'll want to do some organized nut-cutting too so as to prevent more of the little blighters. Round 'em up in one location (a big football stadium, perhaps) and start snipping. Keep the gene-pool clean.

Of course, Bill ought to be allowed to say all this. And say it without fear that someone might come along, tie him down, and shove a military light-stick up his ass. Even my quoting him here is a case of political correctness and liberalism gone mad. Bork would agree. And nobody wants to hear that a light-stick has been shoved up Bork's ass, that's for sure. Well, I guess I do but am I allowed to say it under the present rules of propriety in speech. Would I, for example, violate the parameters if I were to advance the notion that "If you wanted to increase intelligence...if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every christian baby in this country, and your overall intelligence scores would zoom up like an evangelist's boner when he's beating a black whore senseless."

Can you fill me in on the rules of 'political correctness', george?


Blatham,

You have, perhaps inadvertantly, misrepresenteed Bennetts obvious meaning and intent in his statement, in part by omitting his words immediately preceeding and those following the piece you quoted. He was referring to "scientific" claims published by supporters of abortion on demand that there is a correlation between the increased incidence of abortion and a concurrent decrease in crime rates. The referenced paper claimed that the increrased use of aboprtion to eliminate unwanted children by women unable to support or rear them properly was a profoundly beneficial phemomenon in our society. Bennett merely pointed to the unstated racism implicit in this analysis. In his words immediately following those you quoted he expresed his strong opposition to this view and his distaste for the hypocricy andf immorality of those who advocate it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 03:08:55