Discussion:
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
Add Reply
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-06 23:59:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"

"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."

I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.

Hat tip to:
http://drudgereport.com/

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2017-07-07 00:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
http://drudgereport.com/
And of course you believe the _exclusive_study_ because that's the way that science works best...
David Duffy
2017-07-07 01:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own website
"Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified in the US Senate
on a series of papers he wrote with Roy Spencer about satellite based
temperature measurements (in actual scientific journals). That work
has subsequently been shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-07 17:41:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own website
"Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified in the US Senate
on a series of papers he wrote with Roy Spencer about satellite based
temperature measurements (in actual scientific journals). That work
has subsequently been shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.

Lynn
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-07 18:24:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own
website "Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified
in the US Senate on a series of papers he wrote with Roy
Spencer about satellite based temperature measurements (in
actual scientific journals). That work has subsequently been
shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
Given how often you have demonstrated how stupid you are, that is
actually a very compelling argument that the climate alarmists are on
to something.

But, hey, agreeing with Shawn Wilson is a dirty job, but some moron's
gotta do it.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-07 19:00:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own
website "Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified
in the US Senate on a series of papers he wrote with Roy
Spencer about satellite based temperature measurements (in
actual scientific journals). That work has subsequently been
shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
Given how often you have demonstrated how stupid you are, that is
actually a very compelling argument that the climate alarmists are on
to something.
But, hey, agreeing with Shawn Wilson is a dirty job, but some moron's
gotta do it.
Thanks !

Lynn
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-07 21:10:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own
website "Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified
in the US Senate on a series of papers he wrote with Roy
Spencer about satellite based temperature measurements (in
actual scientific journals). That work has subsequently been
shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
Given how often you have demonstrated how stupid you are, that
is actually a very compelling argument that the climate
alarmists are on to something.
But, hey, agreeing with Shawn Wilson is a dirty job, but some
moron's gotta do it.
Thanks !
QED. If you were actually an agent of the Great Climate Alarmist
Conspiracy, sent to infiltreate the True Scientists to discredit
them, you really couldn't be doing a better job. (If you were
smarter, you could, but hey, conspiracies can only work with what
they have.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Cryptoengineer
2017-07-07 19:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own website
"Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified in the US Senate
on a series of papers he wrote with Roy Spencer about satellite based
temperature measurements (in actual scientific journals). That work
has subsequently been shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
Do you also carefully hold onto your Confederate money?

pt
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-07 22:44:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own website
"Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified in the US Senate
on a series of papers he wrote with Roy Spencer about satellite based
temperature measurements (in actual scientific journals). That work
has subsequently been shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
Do you also carefully hold onto your Confederate money?
pt
Nope. I've lost it all over the years.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2017-07-08 03:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own website
"Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified in the US Senate
on a series of papers he wrote with Roy Spencer about satellite based
temperature measurements (in actual scientific journals). That work
has subsequently been shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
Do you also carefully hold onto your Confederate money?
He should. It paid interest you know. And the collector value today is
about what it would have been if the interest had accumulated.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-11 19:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own website
"Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified in the US Senate
on a series of papers he wrote with Roy Spencer about satellite based
temperature measurements (in actual scientific journals). That work
has subsequently been shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
Do you also carefully hold onto your Confederate money?
He should. It paid interest you know. And the collector value today is
about what it would have been if the interest had accumulated.
They used to sell Confederate money at the state fairs when I was a kid
in the 1960s. Texas and Oklahoma.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2017-07-12 07:47:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
There's nothing wrong with being proud of holding a particular point of view.

But if you use sources to support that position that can't survive a modest amount
of skepticism directed towards them, other people won't take your position
seriously.

If you're only skeptical towards what you don't *like*, then you're showing
yourself not to be objective, and hence not worthy of being taken seriously.

John Savard
Juho Julkunen
2017-07-12 11:39:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
There's nothing wrong with being proud of holding a particular point of view.
That is not a point of view you should be proud of holding.
--
Juho Julkunen
h***@gmail.com
2017-07-14 06:09:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Duffy
Dear Lynn. The cited report was only published on their own website
"Tropical Hot Spot Research". Christie has testified in the US Senate
on a series of papers he wrote with Roy Spencer about satellite based
temperature measurements (in actual scientific journals). That work
has subsequently been shown to be incorrect eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
The problem you have is you aren't a skeptic.
You're a complete disbeliever.
Any evidence supporting AGW is dismissed and anything against it is embraced as conclusive
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-07-07 12:18:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was "peer-reviewed",
yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in any reputable
journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper some guy put up
on a website.

Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on this one,
I'm not taking it seriously.

Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-07 17:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in any
reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper some
guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on this
one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2017-07-07 18:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
We were already aware.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-07-08 03:52:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the
facts".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-08 19:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with
the facts".
Too bad you don't have any real facts. All of the numbers are faked.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2017-07-08 20:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me
with the facts".
Too bad you don't have any real facts. All of the numbers are faked.
Don't try and pull that. You've already said that you will reject any
numbers that conflict with your personal economic interests as "fake"
_because_ they conflict with your personal economic interests.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-08 21:02:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me
with the facts".
Too bad you don't have any real facts. All of the numbers are faked.
Don't try and pull that. You've already said that you will reject any
numbers that conflict with your personal economic interests as "fake"
_because_ they conflict with your personal economic interests.
Oh, more than that. This is all about bankrupting the USA and other
first world countries. Of course, the USA is bankrupting itself quite
handily by ourselves.

These so-called climate scientists have built incomplete energy and and
material balance models around the Earth. They are then trying to state
that their model results will be experienced by the planet without any
reservations. One cannot do this. The Earth is an open system that we
do not understand 100% yet. I wonder if we ever will.

Lynn
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-07-08 22:49:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me
with the facts".
Too bad you don't have any real facts. All of the numbers are faked.
Don't try and pull that. You've already said that you will reject any
numbers that conflict with your personal economic interests as "fake"
_because_ they conflict with your personal economic interests.
Oh, more than that. This is all about bankrupting the USA and other
first world countries.
Okay, Lynn, you've gone all the way past "fingers in my ears" and
straight into "Tinfoil Hat" territory. Conspiracy theories of some huge
plot to bankrupt the major countries -- who are controlled by the people
who will make the decisions as to how and when to implement any
policies, and thus aren't at all interested in bankrupting themselves --
are idiots' conspiracies, not even good enough to make fun of.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
J. Clarke
2017-07-08 23:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For
?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me
with the facts".
Too bad you don't have any real facts. All of the numbers are faked.
Don't try and pull that. You've already said that you will reject any
numbers that conflict with your personal economic interests as "fake"
_because_ they conflict with your personal economic interests.
Oh, more than that. This is all about bankrupting the USA and other
first world countries.
Okay, Lynn, you've gone all the way past "fingers in my ears" and
straight into "Tinfoil Hat" territory. Conspiracy theories of some huge
plot to bankrupt the major countries -- who are controlled by the people
who will make the decisions as to how and when to implement any
policies, and thus aren't at all interested in bankrupting themselves --
are idiots' conspiracies, not even good enough to make fun of.
Except it's not a conspiracy theory. On the international scale the idea
was that the developed nations would pay the developing nations for not
developing, under the guise of "carbon credits". Saying it was "to
bankrupt the USA" is a bit extreme, but the US in that scenario would have
been the largest payer. Now the largest emitter is a "developing nation"
though so the "developing nations" aren't quite as big on that particular
wealth-redistribution scheme as they were.
Robert Carnegie
2017-07-08 23:18:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me
with the facts".
Too bad you don't have any real facts. All of the numbers are faked.
Don't try and pull that. You've already said that you will reject any
numbers that conflict with your personal economic interests as "fake"
_because_ they conflict with your personal economic interests.
Oh, more than that. This is all about bankrupting the USA and other
first world countries.
Okay, Lynn, you've gone all the way past "fingers in my ears" and
straight into "Tinfoil Hat" territory. Conspiracy theories of some huge
plot to bankrupt the major countries -- who are controlled by the people
who will make the decisions as to how and when to implement any
policies, and thus aren't at all interested in bankrupting themselves --
are idiots' conspiracies, not even good enough to make fun of.
Actually, haven't we covered these points before?
It's ringing a bell.
Titus G
2017-07-09 01:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me
with the facts".
Too bad you don't have any real facts. All of the numbers are faked.
Don't try and pull that. You've already said that you will reject any
numbers that conflict with your personal economic interests as "fake"
_because_ they conflict with your personal economic interests.
Oh, more than that. This is all about bankrupting the USA and other
first world countries.
Okay, Lynn, you've gone all the way past "fingers in my ears" and
straight into "Tinfoil Hat" territory. Conspiracy theories of some huge
plot to bankrupt the major countries -- who are controlled by the people
who will make the decisions as to how and when to implement any
policies, and thus aren't at all interested in bankrupting themselves --
are idiots' conspiracies, not even good enough to make fun of.
Actually, haven't we covered these points before?
It's ringing a bell.
A clanger?
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-09 04:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was
"peer-reviewed", yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in
any reputable journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper
some guy put up on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on
this one, I'm not taking it seriously.
Plus, of course, if the trend IS warming and your adjustments are
derived from data to reflect that, well, it will indeed wipe out
shorter-term variations, because that's what "climate" means versus
"weather".
I am a proud AGW skeptic.
All that translates to is "my mind's made up, don't confuse me
with the facts".
Too bad you don't have any real facts. All of the numbers are faked.
Don't try and pull that. You've already said that you will reject any
numbers that conflict with your personal economic interests as "fake"
_because_ they conflict with your personal economic interests.
Oh, more than that. This is all about bankrupting the USA and other
first world countries.
Okay, Lynn, you've gone all the way past "fingers in my ears" and
straight into "Tinfoil Hat" territory. Conspiracy theories of some huge
plot to bankrupt the major countries -- who are controlled by the people
who will make the decisions as to how and when to implement any
policies, and thus aren't at all interested in bankrupting themselves --
are idiots' conspiracies, not even good enough to make fun of.
Actually, haven't we covered these points before?
It's ringing a bell.
A few hundred times.

Yes, that is an exaggeration !

Lynn
nuny@bid.nes
2017-07-08 19:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was "peer-reviewed",
yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in any reputable
journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper some guy put up
on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on this one,
I'm not taking it seriously.
Except since the "science is settled", no "peer" will review it.

One does not take heretics' arguments seriously. Not and keep one's job.


Mark L. Fergerson
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-07-08 19:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was "peer-reviewed",
yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in any reputable
journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper some guy put up
on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on this one,
I'm not taking it seriously.
Except since the "science is settled", no "peer" will review it.
One does not take heretics' arguments seriously. Not and keep one's job.
Mark L. Fergerson
Oh, twaddle.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-12 01:01:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was "peer-reviewed",
yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in any reputable
journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper some guy put up
on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on this one,
I'm not taking it seriously.
Except since the "science is settled", no "peer" will review it.
One does not take heretics' arguments seriously. Not and keep one's job.
Mark L. Fergerson
Oh, twaddle.
I am fairly sure that we cannot change each others mind. I did find
this interesting article over the weekend that illustrates my concerns
with the junk science known as climate science, "Josh takes on XKCD’s
‘climate timeline’":

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/comment-page-1/

Lynn
David Mitchell
2017-07-12 05:50:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was "peer-reviewed",
yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in any reputable
journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper some guy put up
on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on this one,
I'm not taking it seriously.
Except since the "science is settled", no "peer" will review it.
One does not take heretics' arguments seriously. Not and keep one's job.
Mark L. Fergerson
Oh, twaddle.
I am fairly sure that we cannot change each others mind.
You can't change ours, because we all know you're an idiot.
We can't change yours, because, well, you're an idiot.
h***@gmail.com
2017-07-10 00:00:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes, yes. Someone posted that on FB and said it was "peer-reviewed",
yet it's not actually peer-reviewed or published in any reputable
journal anywhere that I can tell. It's just some paper some guy put up
on a website.
Until I get a citation for an actual peer-reviewed journal on this one,
I'm not taking it seriously.
Except since the "science is settled", no "peer" will review it.
One does not take heretics' arguments seriously. Not and keep one's job.
You really aren't up with how science has advanced are you?
Quadibloc
2017-07-12 07:45:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bid.nes
Except since the "science is settled", no "peer" will review it.
One does not take heretics' arguments seriously. Not and keep one's job.
You do have a point. However, in general, positions don't get that "settled"
among scientists unless they really are settled.

The actual impact of higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is not
settled. A lot of complex and poorly-understood factors, like carbon dioxide
dissolving in seawater, will affect the outcome.

But that a higher level of carbon dioxide will promote warming by the greenhouse
effect, and even the rough order of magnitude of how much warming that will
cause: those things are known.

The "climate skeptic" arguments which are attempted as "scientific" rebuttals to
it often come from maverick scientists... who are getting paid by oil companies.
And they generally hold about as much water as Creation Science.

Any reviewer for a peer-reviewed journal who tried to let such junk in *would
not be doing his job*. It's not about orthodoxy, although _of course_ that claim
will be asserted. It can be asserted by people who want to convince us the Earth
is flat too.

however ...

While one side is right about the climate science, the other side *is* right
about certain other stuff.

It happens to be very important, both for the well-being of the people who live
in the Western industrialized world, and for the survival of liberty on the
Earth, that the United States and other Western industrialized nations have
access to abundant supplies of cheap energy.

Generally speaking, the measures proposed for dealing with global warming are
not consistent with that.

Conservation, through more careful use of energy with better technology, so we can use less energy to support the same level of prosperity... will reduce our
fossil fuel use by a modest percentage. Not as much as is needed to address
global warming effectively.

Wind power and solar energy are proposed as alternate methods for obtaining
electrical power. The wind does not always blow, and it isn't always daytime.
Unproven methods of energy storage, and enormously expensive long-distance power
distribution systems are proposed as the ways to deal with that.

Given, therefore, the obvious consequences of following the recommendations of
the most visible elements of global warming concern... it is easiest to just
dismiss the whole thing.

however ...

as I've noted, the _real_ situation isn't that bleak and hopeless.

I don't have a good replacement for gasoline in cars.

But when it comes to home heating - well, houses can be heated with electricity,
and are in places where electricity comes from hydroelectric dams.

And when it comes to electricity... hydroelectric dams are a proven source of
reliable electrical power in abundance. So they're used already where it is
possible to do so.

What about everywhere else?

Well, there's another proven way to generate electrical power without carbon
dioxide emissions. The fission of Uranium-235 is a source of large amounts of
energy.

It takes a little political will, of course, to address the waste disposal
problem, and the proliferation security problem. But those things can be
addressed, and the situation is important enough that excuses of this sort, as
opposed to issues connected with real problems, like physical impossibility or
the required technology not being available, cannot be accepted as anything but
excuses which are not valid reasons for not doing what is needed.

Minor lifestyle changes that don't impact the ability of the nation to produce
what is needed for defense, though, may indeed happen. Thus, people living in
cities may face gasoline rationing - if they can't afford to get an electric
car, they'll have to take the trolley bus to work. That would not be a disaster.
(It would have to be phased in, since it would take time to improve public
transit in some cities - and switching from buses using fossil fuel to trolleys
will also take time.) It would not stop the United States from being militarily
strong, or from being a wealthy nation.

China? They can get with the program, or lose all foreign markets for their
goods.

John Savard
m***@sky.com
2017-07-07 19:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
http://drudgereport.com/
Lynn
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for daring to question the consensus. (e.g. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/). I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until 95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-07 22:55:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for daring to question the consensus. (e.g. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/). I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until 95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked. The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.

Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries. If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.

Lynn
Robert Bannister
2017-07-08 00:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their
conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage
I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for
daring to question the consensus. (e.g.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/).
I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the
consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to
open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would
backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been
arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until
95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked. The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries. If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.
Lynn
Join the rest of the world that has been paying that much for a long time.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
J. Clarke
2017-07-08 03:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by m***@sky.com
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their
conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage
I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for
daring to question the consensus. (e.g.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/).
I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the
consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to
open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would
backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been
arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until
95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked. The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries. If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.
Lynn
Join the rest of the world that has been paying that much for a long time.
It's not our fault that your government taxes you to death.
Robert Bannister
2017-07-09 01:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by m***@sky.com
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their
conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage
I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for
daring to question the consensus. (e.g.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/).
I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the
consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to
open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would
backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been
arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until
95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked. The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries. If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.
Lynn
Join the rest of the world that has been paying that much for a long time.
It's not our fault that your government taxes you to death.
We're not dead yet.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-09 04:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by m***@sky.com
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their
conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage
I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for
daring to question the consensus. (e.g.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/).
I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the
consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to
open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would
backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been
arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until
95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked. The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries. If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.
Lynn
Join the rest of the world that has been paying that much for a long time.
It's not our fault that your government taxes you to death.
We're not dead yet.
But you, and we in the USA, are on the road. I have friends speculating
about a civil war in the USA before / during / after a financial collapse.

Many, not all, of the people living outside the metropolitan areas in
the USA are very unhappy with the state of things. That is why
President Trump was elected.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2017-07-09 04:46:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by m***@sky.com
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their
conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage
I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for
daring to question the consensus. (e.g.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/).
I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the
consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to
open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would
backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been
arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until
95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked. The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries. If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.
Lynn
Join the rest of the world that has been paying that much for a long time.
It's not our fault that your government taxes you to death.
We're not dead yet.
But you, and we in the USA, are on the road. I have friends speculating
about a civil war in the USA before / during / after a financial collapse.
Many, not all, of the people living outside the metropolitan areas in
the USA are very unhappy with the state of things. That is why
President Trump was elected.
There are _ALWAYS_ some people unhappy with the state of things. That's
no justification for everyone to ignore reality.

You've previous said you are in the oil industry. The coal industry is
currently in severe trouble because coal is not competitive against
natural gas (among other reasons). Trump has vowed to "save" the US
coal industry. How would you feel if he did so by restricting natural
gas production or taxing it to the point where it couldn't compete
against coal? Would you continue to blindly support Trump if he did so?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-10 03:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by m***@sky.com
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their
conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage
I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for
daring to question the consensus. (e.g.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/).
I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the
consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to
open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would
backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been
arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until
95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked. The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries.
If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.
Lynn
Join the rest of the world that has been paying that much for a long time.
It's not our fault that your government taxes you to death.
We're not dead yet.
But you, and we in the USA, are on the road. I have friends
speculating about a civil war in the USA before / during / after a
financial collapse.
Many, not all, of the people living outside the metropolitan areas in
the USA are very unhappy with the state of things. That is why
President Trump was elected.
There are _ALWAYS_ some people unhappy with the state of things. That's
no justification for everyone to ignore reality.
You've previous said you are in the oil industry. The coal industry is
currently in severe trouble because coal is not competitive against
natural gas (among other reasons). Trump has vowed to "save" the US
coal industry. How would you feel if he did so by restricting natural
gas production or taxing it to the point where it couldn't compete
against coal? Would you continue to blindly support Trump if he did so?
You say blindly support Trump. Trump has already made my singular goal
of nominating and confirming a SCOTUS justice who follows my thinking.
My goal of being able to carry a gun in all 50 states and DC is well on
the way. Plus, I suspect that Trump will be nominating and confirming
four more SCOTUS justices in his first term.

Actually, Trump has said that he wants the USA to be energy independent.
In fact, he wants the USA to be the number one energy exporter in the
world. We are well on the way to achieve that goal.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2017-07-10 03:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by m***@sky.com
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their
conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage
I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for
daring to question the consensus. (e.g.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/).
I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the
consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to
open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would
backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been
arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until
95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked.
The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries.
If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.
Lynn
Join the rest of the world that has been paying that much for a long time.
It's not our fault that your government taxes you to death.
We're not dead yet.
But you, and we in the USA, are on the road. I have friends
speculating about a civil war in the USA before / during / after a
financial collapse.
Many, not all, of the people living outside the metropolitan areas in
the USA are very unhappy with the state of things. That is why
President Trump was elected.
There are _ALWAYS_ some people unhappy with the state of things.
That's no justification for everyone to ignore reality.
You've previous said you are in the oil industry. The coal industry
is currently in severe trouble because coal is not competitive against
natural gas (among other reasons). Trump has vowed to "save" the US
coal industry. How would you feel if he did so by restricting natural
gas production or taxing it to the point where it couldn't compete
against coal? Would you continue to blindly support Trump if he did so?
You say blindly support Trump. Trump has already made my singular goal
of nominating and confirming a SCOTUS justice who follows my thinking.
My goal of being able to carry a gun in all 50 states and DC is well on
the way. Plus, I suspect that Trump will be nominating and confirming
four more SCOTUS justices in his first term.
Actually, Trump has said that he wants the USA to be energy independent.
In fact, he wants the USA to be the number one energy exporter in the
world. We are well on the way to achieve that goal.
Care to try actually answering the question?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-10 05:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by m***@sky.com
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
...
Post by m***@sky.com
Any comments on the EPA "Red Team" process? Would you accept their
conclusions as at least made in good faith? Almost all of the coverage
I have seen suggests that the new EPA leadership are heretics for
daring to question the consensus. (e.g.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/).
I think that there is a decent chance of the process finding that the
consensus science isn't far off the mark, because they didn't need to
open this can of worms and I think trying to fix the outcome would
backfire on them. (All I've seen from Trump &co up to now has been
arguments on the economic side, which I guess they can drag out until
95% of the economists in the world are singing the same tune)
Nope. The engineer in me is screaming that AGW is all faked.
The Earth
is warming, so what ? The Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Nope, this is just an excuse to loot the first world countries.
If the
CO2 taxes ever come into play, I can hardly wait to pay $10/gal for
gasoline. Or a $1.00/kwh.
Lynn
Join the rest of the world that has been paying that much for a long time.
It's not our fault that your government taxes you to death.
We're not dead yet.
But you, and we in the USA, are on the road. I have friends
speculating about a civil war in the USA before / during / after a
financial collapse.
Many, not all, of the people living outside the metropolitan areas
in the USA are very unhappy with the state of things. That is why
President Trump was elected.
There are _ALWAYS_ some people unhappy with the state of things.
That's no justification for everyone to ignore reality.
You've previous said you are in the oil industry. The coal industry
is currently in severe trouble because coal is not competitive
against natural gas (among other reasons). Trump has vowed to "save"
the US coal industry. How would you feel if he did so by restricting
natural gas production or taxing it to the point where it couldn't
compete against coal? Would you continue to blindly support Trump if
he did so?
You say blindly support Trump. Trump has already made my singular
goal of nominating and confirming a SCOTUS justice who follows my
thinking. My goal of being able to carry a gun in all 50 states and DC
is well on the way. Plus, I suspect that Trump will be nominating and
confirming four more SCOTUS justices in his first term.
Actually, Trump has said that he wants the USA to be energy
independent. In fact, he wants the USA to be the number one energy
exporter in the world. We are well on the way to achieve that goal.
Care to try actually answering the question?
Sure, I will be unhappy if Trump favored the coal industry over the
natural gas industry. But, I will still vote for Trump in 2020.

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2017-07-13 12:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-07-13 23:13:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it says
what it manifestly DOES.

So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-14 02:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it says
what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?

And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2017-07-14 03:19:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it says
what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
can you afford to pay for clean water in Flint?
If not obviously links from lead in water supplies to health issues are fraudulent...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-07-14 11:41:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has literally
absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to happen" and
"which side seems to understand science".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Quadibloc
2017-07-14 12:28:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has literally
absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to happen" and
"which side seems to understand science".
You are absolutely correct. Nature is completely indifferent to our hopes,
desires, and wishes. Thus, considering those while attempting to determine what
the facts are about Nature interferes with objectivity for no good reason.

Thus, if I am looking at a thermometer, or an ice core from Greenland, or tree
rings, I need to concentrate on what those things tell me, and put my worries
about my electrical bill right out of my mind.

That is a very basic fact about how science is done.

But let's suppose I *don't* have tree rings in my hands. Instead of being a
practicing climate scientist, I am a concerned private citizen. And so my task
is to draw conclusions about the truth of what people are saying, with limited
access to the primary evidence, and limited means to sift through what it
genuinely implies.

Then the reasoning process involved is a very different one. Instead of being
about facts or figures, it's about *who can I trust*.

That, in itself, isn't much of an excuse for being a "climate skeptic".
Scientists - as opposed to ecology activists - are about as trustworthy a bunch
as you can get, and oil and coal companies have an obvious vested interest.

But when it comes to the next step - what sort of _public policy decisions_ need
to be taken in response to the threat of global warming... $10.00 a gallon
gasoline and 50 cent per kwh electricity do indeed merit consideration.

The basic problem, of course, is that _if_ drastic sacrifices are needed to
forestall a climate change disaster, unmistakable proof, intelligible to the
general public, will be required for them to authorize their political
representatives to take such action.

How does the greenhouse effect work? When the carbon dioxide level in the
atmosphere is higher, long-wave infrared emitted by the Earth at night warms the
atmosphere instead of escaping into space. So any given location cools off at
night just a tiny bit less than it heats up by day... and that will remain true
until it heats up enough so that the heat escaping to space equals the
insolation once again.

So it may be that with a given carbon dioxide level, it may take many years
before the ultimate equilibrium temperature is reached. So the time when we must
stop letting the carbon dioxide level increase may come long before the amount
of warming is even noticeable.

So _if_ major sacrifices are needed to stop global warming, the most likely
result is that they won't be politically acceptable until it is *far too late*.

One way to avoid such a disaster is to educate the public, so that nearly
everyone will understand that science is a trustworthy instrument for obtaining
the valuable facility of foresight in such matters.

This is being tried, but it isn't working quite as well as might be hoped.

Another thing might be to address the actual source of the obstruction.

If the alternative to fossil fuel use wasn't a drastic change in our lifestyles
- but a switch to using clean sources of reliable, abundant, and cheap energy -
then the public would presumably let their politicians get on with the job
without worrying about whether or not this global warming thing was overblown.

Well, fusion power is still an indeterminate number of years away, but we *do*
have nuclear power, and even breeder reactors. And thorium breeder reactors
_are_ just an engineering problem, unlike fusion power.

While there isn't as much granite as there is seawater, there is enough. And
half the thorium in granite can be leached from it easily, so it is written.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-14 18:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA to
rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2017-07-14 19:44:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA to
rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our gasoline
consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Peter Trei
2017-07-14 20:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA to
rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our gasoline
consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one weighted by
punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking America to raise money to give to
3rd world layabouts.

pt
Juho Julkunen
2017-07-14 20:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA to
rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our gasoline
consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one weighted by
punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking America to raise money to give to
3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment to be
at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.

Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a methodology
that puts things in the best possible light, so the official estimate
probably is on the optimistic side.

Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears to have
completely decoupled from the official numbers since 2009, to the point
where it shows basically no improvement in employment until this last
year. Which is remarkable.
--
Juho Julkunen
Robert Carnegie
2017-07-14 20:30:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA to
rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our gasoline
consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one weighted by
punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking America to raise money to give to
3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment to be
at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a methodology
that puts things in the best possible light, so the official estimate
probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears to have
completely decoupled from the official numbers since 2009, to the point
where it shows basically no improvement in employment until this last
year. Which is remarkable.
The official employment numbers in the U.S.
may have decoupled from reality first, and
while making politicians look better may not
have been the point of it, I suppose they
didn't mind it. And if they changed it
back, they'd get numbers looking bad.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-14 20:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the
real unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the
current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get
desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment
-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh
alternatives or reduce our gasoline consumption by
supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment
to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so the
official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears
to have completely decoupled from the official numbers since
2009, to the point where it shows basically no improvement in
employment until this last year. Which is remarkable.
The official employment numbers in the U.S.
may have decoupled from reality first, and
while making politicians look better may not
have been the point of it, I suppose they
didn't mind it. And if they changed it
back, they'd get numbers looking bad.
It is not entirely clear that the official unemploye rate ever was
coupled to reality. It's quite plausible that the only real change
is that the disconnect has suddently caused the result of the
formula to *look* disconnected, where before it coinicdentally
looked plausible.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-14 20:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real
unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the current
22%. That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause
even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-c
harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives
or reduce our gasoline consumption by supplementing with
alternative fuels enough to reduce demand to keep it below
$10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment
to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so the
official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears
to have completely decoupled from the official numbers since
2009, to the point where it shows basically no improvement in
employment until this last year. Which is remarkable.
While 22% does seem to be ridiculous, there are quite credible
reasons to believe the official rate is just as disconnected from
the real world. For instance, in the past, when unemployment has
been this low, wages have gone up, guickly, and sharply. Now, with
near record low unemployment, wages are still stagnent. Perhaps
there are plausible explanations for this that do not involve the
official unemployment rate being fictional propaganda. If there
are, perhaps the people generating those numbers should try
explaining those reasons. Or at least acknowledging the discrepency
exists.

When you act like everything you say is propaganda so stupid that
only an idiot would believe it, only an idiot believes anything you
say.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-14 20:54:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA to
rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our gasoline
consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one weighted by
punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking America to raise money to give to
3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment to be
at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a methodology
that puts things in the best possible light, so the official estimate
probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears to have
completely decoupled from the official numbers since 2009, to the point
where it shows basically no improvement in employment until this last
year. Which is remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes people who are
getting an unemployment check. It does not include people who took a
part time job to replace their full time job (the underemployed). Nor
does it include people who retired and took social security early (62 to
66) since they could not find a job (I know several of these). It is
very tough to get a new job if you are over the age of 50. I said
tough, not impossible.

Lynn
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-14 21:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real
unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-c
harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives
or reduce our gasoline consumption by supplementing with
alternative fuels enough to reduce demand to keep it below
$10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment
to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so the
official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears
to have completely decoupled from the official numbers since
2009, to the point where it shows basically no improvement in
employment until this last year. Which is remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes people
who are getting an unemployment check. It does not include
people who took a part time job to replace their full time job
(the underemployed). Nor does it include people who retired and
took social security early (62 to 66) since they could not find
a job (I know several of these). It is very tough to get a new
job if you are over the age of 50. I said tough, not
impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of Labor
Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually calculate the
unemployment rate):

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have
actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently
available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of
the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center

Submitting resumes or filling out applications

Placing or answering job advertisements

Checking union or professional registers

Some other means of active job search

-----

Note the complete absence of any mention of collecting an
unemployment check. There are good reasons to believe the official
rate is not accurate, and less good, but entirely plausible reasons
to believe is it disconnected from reality. Your statement is none
of them, and is, itself, disconnected from reality. You spouted
bullshit that was trivially easy to demonstrate is, in fact,
bullshit.

When you do that, you seriously damage the argument you're making,
and actively assist the propagandists who claim that the economy is
all rainbow flavored unicorn farts. Is that you goal? To actively
assist the liberal propaganda machine?
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-14 22:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real
unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-c
harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives
or reduce our gasoline consumption by supplementing with
alternative fuels enough to reduce demand to keep it below
$10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment
to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so the
official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears
to have completely decoupled from the official numbers since
2009, to the point where it shows basically no improvement in
employment until this last year. Which is remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes people
who are getting an unemployment check. It does not include
people who took a part time job to replace their full time job
(the underemployed). Nor does it include people who retired and
took social security early (62 to 66) since they could not find
a job (I know several of these). It is very tough to get a new
job if you are over the age of 50. I said tough, not
impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of Labor
Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually calculate the
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have
actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently
available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
-----
Note the complete absence of any mention of collecting an
unemployment check. There are good reasons to believe the official
rate is not accurate, and less good, but entirely plausible reasons
to believe is it disconnected from reality. Your statement is none
of them, and is, itself, disconnected from reality. You spouted
bullshit that was trivially easy to demonstrate is, in fact,
bullshit.
When you do that, you seriously damage the argument you're making,
and actively assist the propagandists who claim that the economy is
all rainbow flavored unicorn farts. Is that you goal? To actively
assist the liberal propaganda machine?
I stand by my statement. Any other number is much more difficult to
get. BTW, to get an unemployment check in Texas you must be actively
performing a look for employment. One of my friends was just unemployed
and collected an unemployment check for 3 ??? months. He had to contact
three potential employers each week and forward the results of that to
his case worker or she canceled his check. He finally got a job by
going to a body shop (temporary employment) where he got a one year
contract.

Lynn
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-14 22:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real
unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the current
22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying
jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemploymen
t-c harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh
alternatives or reduce our gasoline consumption by
supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US
uneployment to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so
the official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked
appears to have completely decoupled from the official
numbers since 2009, to the point where it shows basically no
improvement in employment until this last year. Which is
remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes
people who are getting an unemployment check. It does not
include people who took a part time job to replace their full
time job (the underemployed). Nor does it include people who
retired and took social security early (62 to 66) since they
could not find a job (I know several of these). It is very
tough to get a new job if you are over the age of 50. I said
tough, not impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of
Labor Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job,
have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are
currently available for work. Actively looking for work may
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
-----
Note the complete absence of any mention of collecting an
unemployment check. There are good reasons to believe the
official rate is not accurate, and less good, but entirely
plausible reasons to believe is it disconnected from reality.
Your statement is none of them, and is, itself, disconnected
from reality. You spouted bullshit that was trivially easy to
demonstrate is, in fact, bullshit.
When you do that, you seriously damage the argument you're
making, and actively assist the propagandists who claim that
the economy is all rainbow flavored unicorn farts. Is that you
goal? To actively assist the liberal propaganda machine?
I stand by my statement.
You would. You're stupid that way.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Any other number is much more
difficult to get.
If you wish to dispute the official unemployement rate, you need to
start by explaining the errors in the way it is calculated. Not by
redefining the term. You made a specific statement about the
*official* unemployment rate, and that statement was factually
wrong in ways to trivially easy to demonstrate that you look like a
retard for making it.

To quote the link you didn't follow, and won't - ever, read, lest
you find out how full of shit you are - read:

"So, quite clearly, UI(Unemployment Insurance) information cannot
be used as a source for complete information on the number of
unemployed."

You look like a retard when you do that.
Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, to get an unemployment check in Texas
you must be actively performing a look for employment.
Indeed, the same is true everywhere. However, looking for
employment does not automatically require you to get an
unemployment check. Nor even automatically *qualify* you for one.
One can (as noted on the link you didn't follow, and won't - ever,
lest you find out how full of shit you are - read) be looking for
work after unemployment runs out, and one is still considered
unemployed by the BLS. One can be looking for work without ever
having qualified in the first place (say, never had a job that paid
into the system), and still be considered unemployed by BLS.

Again, you look retarded when you do that.
Post by Lynn McGuire
One of
my friends was just unemployed and collected an unemployment
check for 3 ??? months. He had to contact three potential
employers each week and forward the results of that to his case
worker or she canceled his check. He finally got a job by going
to a body shop (temporary employment) where he got a one year
contract.
None of which is in any way relevant to the actual definition of
unemployment used by the BLS when computing the official
unemployment rate. The link you didn't follow and won't - ever -
lest you find how full of shit you are - read, explains how the
rate is computed, and how the data it is based on is collected. One
can question the veracity of their methodology in reasonable ways.
But you're not doing that. You're just making shit up that you wish
was true.

You look like a retard when you do that.

If you want to talk about how it *should* be calculated, you should
do so. But you made a specific, and factually incorrect, statement
about how the official unemployment rate *is* calculated, and you
got it completely, utterly wrong in every possible way, and how
pretend you didn't. If you're going to lie about what you said, you
shouldn't forget to snip out what you said.

You look like a retard when you do that.

But it's more than just looks, isn't it?
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 00:14:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@69.16.179.42>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real
unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-c
harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives
or reduce our gasoline consumption by supplementing with
alternative fuels enough to reduce demand to keep it below
$10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment
to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so the
official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears
to have completely decoupled from the official numbers since
2009, to the point where it shows basically no improvement in
employment until this last year. Which is remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes people
who are getting an unemployment check. It does not include
people who took a part time job to replace their full time job
(the underemployed). Nor does it include people who retired and
took social security early (62 to 66) since they could not find
a job (I know several of these). It is very tough to get a new
job if you are over the age of 50. I said tough, not
impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of Labor
Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually calculate the
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have
actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently
available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
How do they know that someone did these things?
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-15 00:26:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real
unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-c
harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives
or reduce our gasoline consumption by supplementing with
alternative fuels enough to reduce demand to keep it below
$10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment
to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so the
official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears
to have completely decoupled from the official numbers since
2009, to the point where it shows basically no improvement in
employment until this last year. Which is remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes people
who are getting an unemployment check. It does not include
people who took a part time job to replace their full time job
(the underemployed). Nor does it include people who retired and
took social security early (62 to 66) since they could not find
a job (I know several of these). It is very tough to get a new
job if you are over the age of 50. I said tough, not
impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of Labor
Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually calculate the
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have
actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently
available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
How do they know that someone did these things?
My friend had to call his state unemployment officer ? councilor ?
flunky ? in the TQC (Texas Workforce Commission) every week and state
what he did. Or, he did not get his next unemployment check.

I have no idea how it was verified. Or if it was verified at all. He
used me for two of his weekly interviews. It was actually legit since I
have been thinking about hiring another sales person.

Lynn
Cryptoengineer
2017-07-15 01:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real
unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-c
harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives
or reduce our gasoline consumption by supplementing with
alternative fuels enough to reduce demand to keep it below
$10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment
to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so the
official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears
to have completely decoupled from the official numbers since
2009, to the point where it shows basically no improvement in
employment until this last year. Which is remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes people
who are getting an unemployment check. It does not include
people who took a part time job to replace their full time job
(the underemployed). Nor does it include people who retired and
took social security early (62 to 66) since they could not find
a job (I know several of these). It is very tough to get a new
job if you are over the age of 50. I said tough, not
impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of Labor
Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually calculate the
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have
actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently
available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
How do they know that someone did these things?
My friend had to call his state unemployment officer ? councilor ?
flunky ? in the TQC (Texas Workforce Commission) every week and state
what he did. Or, he did not get his next unemployment check.
I have no idea how it was verified. Or if it was verified at all. He
used me for two of his weekly interviews. It was actually legit since
I have been thinking about hiring another sales person.
I've been through the process. These days, you have to enter your job
contact activites to a website to get your check.

But of course, after the checks run out, there's zero reason to tell
the state what you're doing, and I certainly wasn't questioned about it.

It's quite possible that the stats miss a lot of people who are actively
looking, but whose benefits have run out.

MA requires 3 contacts a week. In reality, for some job categories, its
hard to find that many realistic openings, that often. As a result,
people wind up make junk applications, which they have no actual
intention of taking. This clogs up the inboxes of many companies.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-15 01:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the
real unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the
current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause
even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying
jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemploym
ent-c harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh
alternatives or reduce our gasoline consumption by
supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but
one weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on
hardworking America to raise money to give to 3rd world
layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US
uneployment to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so
the official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked
appears to have completely decoupled from the official
numbers since 2009, to the point where it shows basically
no improvement in employment until this last year. Which is
remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes
people who are getting an unemployment check. It does not
include people who took a part time job to replace their
full time job (the underemployed). Nor does it include
people who retired and took social security early (62 to 66)
since they could not find a job (I know several of these).
It is very tough to get a new job if you are over the age of
50. I said tough, not impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of
Labor Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a
job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and
are currently available for work. Actively looking for work
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
How do they know that someone did these things?
My friend had to call his state unemployment officer ?
councilor ? flunky ? in the TQC (Texas Workforce Commission)
every week and state what he did. Or, he did not get his next
unemployment check.
I have no idea how it was verified. Or if it was verified at
all. He used me for two of his weekly interviews. It was
actually legit since I have been thinking about hiring another
sales person.
I've been through the process. These days, you have to enter
your job contact activites to a website to get your check.
You're helping Lynn change the subject to something completely
different, and run away (with his tail between his legs, as usual)
from the fact that he made a specific statement about the official
unemployment rate that was so wrong it was full of shit.

Once again, the link is:

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

Where it says "So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as
a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."

It also explains how they *do* collect their data.

If you want to know what you're talking about, rather than helping
to spread Lynn's paranoid propaganda.
Post by Cryptoengineer
But of course, after the checks run out, there's zero reason to
tell the state what you're doing, and I certainly wasn't
questioned about it.
One of the explicit reasons given at:

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

Where it says "So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as
a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."
Post by Cryptoengineer
It's quite possible that the stats miss a lot of people who are
actively looking, but whose benefits have run out.
Fortunately, then, it isn't the *state* the computes the official
unemployement rate, it's the feds, specifically the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. You can get pretty comprehensive information about what
the term means and how it is computed at:

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

Where it says "So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as
a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-07-15 05:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
You're helping Lynn change the subject to something completely
different, and run away (with his tail between his legs, as usual)
from the fact that he made a specific statement about the official
unemployment rate that was so wrong it was full of shit.
Basically, in both the United States *and* Canada, the official
unemployment rate consists primarily of people *eligible for
unemployment benefits*. So, if a lot of people still can't find jobs
after the money runs out, and wind up on welfare or homeless...
*they're* not "unemployed".

I don't know if 22% is indeed an accurate value for a "real"
unemployment rate that _does_ include those people... but somehow
manages to avoid including people who really aren't in the position of
lacking a paying job, even though they don't have one... e.g.,
housewives who are staying at home, the way most of them used to long
ago.

I know that the cost of living index has been modified to be less
embarassing for the government. As for the unemployment rate, it has
been changed to a "seasonally adjusted" rate that excludes the increased
unemployment in some parts of the year due to seasonal jobs.

However, I think that unemployment figures *always* excluded the long-
term unemployed, so this isn't a recent change, so I guess there is one
valid criticism you can make.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-15 17:21:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:35:33 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
You're helping Lynn change the subject to something completely
different, and run away (with his tail between his legs, as
usual) from the fact that he made a specific statement about
the official unemployment rate that was so wrong it was full of
shit.
Basically, in both the United States *and* Canada, the official
unemployment rate consists primarily of people *eligible for
unemployment benefits*.
No. Explicitly not, in the case of the United States. In the link,
which I presume you snipped out so you could lie about it (making
you quite a bit smarter than Lynn), it is *very* explicit about
this. And I quoted the relevant part. Go and read:

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

And try not to be so fucking *stupid*.

Since your premise was not only wrong, but even more retardedly
wrong than Lynn's, and *deliberately* so, since you chose to snip
out the actual facts (and the link to their source, who is the
_only_ credible source on the matter), there's no point in reading
the rest.

Lynn's a retard. You're a liar.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-15 01:31:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the
real unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the
current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause
even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying
jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployme
nt-c harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh
alternatives or reduce our gasoline consumption by
supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but
one weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on
hardworking America to raise money to give to 3rd world
layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US
uneployment to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so
the official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked
appears to have completely decoupled from the official
numbers since 2009, to the point where it shows basically no
improvement in employment until this last year. Which is
remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes
people who are getting an unemployment check. It does not
include people who took a part time job to replace their full
time job (the underemployed). Nor does it include people who
retired and took social security early (62 to 66) since they
could not find a job (I know several of these). It is very
tough to get a new job if you are over the age of 50. I said
tough, not impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of
Labor Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job,
have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are
currently available for work. Actively looking for work may
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
How do they know that someone did these things?
My friend had to call his state unemployment officer ? councilor
? flunky ? in the TQC (Texas Workforce Commission) every week
and state what he did. Or, he did not get his next unemployment
check.
That's to collected unemployment. As noted in the link you refuse
to follow and will never - lest you find out how full of shit you
are - read, they do not use that data at all, precisely because it
would be useless.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 11:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real
unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-c
harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives
or reduce our gasoline consumption by supplementing with
alternative fuels enough to reduce demand to keep it below
$10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but one
weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on hardworking
America to raise money to give to 3rd world layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US uneployment
to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so the
official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked appears
to have completely decoupled from the official numbers since
2009, to the point where it shows basically no improvement in
employment until this last year. Which is remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes people
who are getting an unemployment check. It does not include
people who took a part time job to replace their full time job
(the underemployed). Nor does it include people who retired and
took social security early (62 to 66) since they could not find
a job (I know several of these). It is very tough to get a new
job if you are over the age of 50. I said tough, not
impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of Labor
Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually calculate the
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have
actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently
available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
How do they know that someone did these things?
My friend had to call his state unemployment officer ? councilor ?
flunky ? in the TQC (Texas Workforce Commission) every week and state
what he did. Or, he did not get his next unemployment check.
I have no idea how it was verified. Or if it was verified at all. He
used me for two of his weekly interviews. It was actually legit since I
have been thinking about hiring another sales person.
So how do they know that people who are not collecting unemployment are
doing these things? If you would actually pay attention and learn the
meaning of the word "context" it would be easier to converse with you.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-15 01:30:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the
real unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the
current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying
jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemploymen
t-c harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh
alternatives or reduce our gasoline consumption by
supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but
one weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on
hardworking America to raise money to give to 3rd world
layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US
uneployment to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so
the official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked
appears to have completely decoupled from the official
numbers since 2009, to the point where it shows basically no
improvement in employment until this last year. Which is
remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes
people who are getting an unemployment check. It does not
include people who took a part time job to replace their full
time job (the underemployed). Nor does it include people who
retired and took social security early (62 to 66) since they
could not find a job (I know several of these). It is very
tough to get a new job if you are over the age of 50. I said
tough, not impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of
Labor Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job,
have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are
currently available for work. Actively looking for work may
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
How do they know that someone did these things?
It's all explained on the link you didn't follow and are probably
too stupid to understand even if you do read it.

TLDR: surveys with a sample size three orders of magnitude larger
than most.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 11:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@69.16.179.42>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Lynn McGuire
In article
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for
gasoline and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the
real unemployment in the USA to rise to 50% from the
current 22%.
That doubling of unemployment in the USA will cause even
more social unrest as people get desperate for paying
jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemploymen
t-c harts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current
electricity sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh
alternatives or reduce our gasoline consumption by
supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
I think Lynn envisages that not to be the true cost, but
one weighted by punitive carbon taxes imposed on
hardworking America to raise money to give to 3rd world
layabouts.
You might also note that he believes the current US
uneployment to be at 22%, which is a remarkable figure.
Now, the state officials do have an incentive to choose a
methodology that puts things in the best possible light, so
the official estimate probably is on the optimistic side.
Still, the alternative measure from the site he linked
appears to have completely decoupled from the official
numbers since 2009, to the point where it shows basically no
improvement in employment until this last year. Which is
remarkable.
The official unemployment number in the USA only includes
people who are getting an unemployment check. It does not
include people who took a part time job to replace their full
time job (the underemployed). Nor does it include people who
retired and took social security early (62 to 66) since they
could not find a job (I know several of these). It is very
tough to get a new job if you are over the age of 50. I said
tough, not impossible.
Not surprisingly, you are full of shit. From the Bureau of
Labor Statistic web site (you know, the people who actually
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
-----
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job,
have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are
currently available for work. Actively looking for work may
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Submitting resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering job advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
How do they know that someone did these things?
It's all explained on the link you didn't follow and are probably
too stupid to understand even if you do read it.
TLDR: surveys with a sample size three orders of magnitude larger
than most.
Would it have been so hard for you to say "the government conducts a
survey" instead of providing a bunch of criteria?

Hmm--need to adjust my filters--I thought posts from you containing the
word "stupid" were killfiled.
Greg Goss
2017-07-15 06:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
66) since they could not find a job (I know several of these). It is
very tough to get a new job if you are over the age of 50. I said
tough, not impossible.
It took me more than five years to find a suitable job when I came out
of college with good marks on my second diploma. The idea of hiring
someone in his mid-fifties into an "entry-level" job just looks wrong
to too many people.

I just got a promotion from CAD$18.50 to CAD$20. In 2003 I was making
just under $33 an hour.

I do get overtime, and $30 an hour adds up pretty quickly. I've had a
few pay periods over a hundred hours in a two week set. Our local
labour laws specify O/T after a 44 hour week, but company policy
specifies 40 hours. I'm making significant headway on my debts (and a
few "charity" projects) but risking burnout.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 11:35:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Lynn McGuire
66) since they could not find a job (I know several of these). It is
very tough to get a new job if you are over the age of 50. I said
tough, not impossible.
It took me more than five years to find a suitable job when I came out
of college with good marks on my second diploma. The idea of hiring
someone in his mid-fifties into an "entry-level" job just looks wrong
to too many people.
Don't go for entry level.

I was over 60 and unemployed when I got my current job. It pays twice what
any engineering job I've ever held pays. It's one that I didn't expect to
get--I applied because APL was mentioned specifically in the job
description and I was curious as to who was still using APL. Since I
wasn't expecting to get it I was quite relaxed. Aced their test ("highest
score in 20 years"), interviews went well, made me an offer I didn't
believe, I stuck them for a little more, they gave, and so far it's the
best job I've ever had in more ways than one.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-14 20:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going
to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA
to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in
the USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our gasoline
consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.

Lynn
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-07-14 22:40:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going
to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA
to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment
in the USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate
for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our
gasoline consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to
reduce demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
Why in the world would you do that instead of just building nuclear
reactors, either primary or as backup instead of more fossil-fuel burning?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-14 22:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going
to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA
to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment
in the USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate
for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our
gasoline consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to
reduce demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
Why in the world would you do that instead of just building nuclear
reactors, either primary or as backup instead of more fossil-fuel burning?
Because we are doing it now. All of the wind and solar power facilities
require some sort of backup power on the grid that can be online quickly.

Nuclear reactors are base load power plants. They do not swing load
very well. The way that you vary the electricity production on a
nuclear power plant is to divert the steam directly into the steam
condenser, bypassing the steam turbine / generator.

Nuclear power plants require 3 ??? to 7 ??? days to startup. Not good
for backup. Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.

California has an interesting problem coming in August. A solar
eclipse. California peaks at 9% solar power generation now. They are
planning to make up the solar power loss using the hydro plants running
wide open. It might work.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-prepares-solar-power-loss-153000541.html

Actually, I like solar power satellites the best for long term power
needs. And you can fry your enemies with them !

Lynn
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 00:21:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For
?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years ?are totally inconsistent
with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.?"
"?Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published
[global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever ? despite current claims of record setting
warming,? according to a study published June 27 by two scientists
and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going
to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA
to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment
in the USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate
for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our
gasoline consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to
reduce demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
Why in the world would you do that instead of just building nuclear
reactors, either primary or as backup instead of more fossil-fuel burning?
Because we are doing it now. All of the wind and solar power facilities
require some sort of backup power on the grid that can be online quickly.
All what wind and solar facilities? There aren't any wind or solar
facilities to speak of around _here_. Do you live in China or something?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Nuclear reactors are base load power plants. They do not swing load
very well. The way that you vary the electricity production on a
nuclear power plant is to divert the steam directly into the steam
condenser, bypassing the steam turbine / generator.
Nuclear power plants require 3 ??? to 7 ??? days to startup. Not good
for backup.
Who said anything about backup?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the way to
Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Post by Lynn McGuire
California has an interesting problem coming in August. A solar
eclipse. California peaks at 9% solar power generation now. They are
planning to make up the solar power loss using the hydro plants running
wide open. It might work.
Fuck California. Any disasters that happen to them they brought on
themselves.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-prepares-solar-power-loss-153000541.html
Actually, I like solar power satellites the best for long term power
needs. And you can fry your enemies with them !
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the infrastructure
you use to build them out of the sky. However that would be a crappy
design.

You seem to be big on poor planning.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-15 00:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For
?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years ?are totally inconsistent
with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.?"
"?Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published
[global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever ? despite current claims of record setting
warming,? according to a study published June 27 by two scientists
and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going
to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA
to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment
in the USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate
for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our
gasoline consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to
reduce demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
Why in the world would you do that instead of just building nuclear
reactors, either primary or as backup instead of more fossil-fuel burning?
Because we are doing it now. All of the wind and solar power facilities
require some sort of backup power on the grid that can be online quickly.
All what wind and solar facilities? There aren't any wind or solar
facilities to speak of around _here_. Do you live in China or something?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Nuclear reactors are base load power plants. They do not swing load
very well. The way that you vary the electricity production on a
nuclear power plant is to divert the steam directly into the steam
condenser, bypassing the steam turbine / generator.
Nuclear power plants require 3 ??? to 7 ??? days to startup. Not good
for backup.
Who said anything about backup?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the way to
Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Post by Lynn McGuire
California has an interesting problem coming in August. A solar
eclipse. California peaks at 9% solar power generation now. They are
planning to make up the solar power loss using the hydro plants running
wide open. It might work.
Fuck California. Any disasters that happen to them they brought on
themselves.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-prepares-solar-power-loss-153000541.html
Actually, I like solar power satellites the best for long term power
needs. And you can fry your enemies with them !
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the infrastructure
you use to build them out of the sky. However that would be a crappy
design.
You seem to be big on poor planning.
Sea Wasp said why not build nuclear power for backup.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the way to
Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Stone cold engines to full power in 5 minutes ? Really ? So much for
all the blade seals.

Aeroderivative gas turbines and power generation gas turbines are wildly
different beasts. Aeroderivative gas turbines are multispeed. Power
generation gas turbines are constant 3600 rpm for the 60 hz grids and
don't light off until 2200 rpm or so. Cold or hot can affect their
startup time. If they only run on natural gas then you might have to
schedule natural gas into the pipeline first or run out quickly.
Post by J. Clarke
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the
infrastructure
Post by J. Clarke
you use to build them out of the sky. However that would be a crappy
design.
I wonder why the Japanese are building a SPS system right now ?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/how-japan-plans-to-build-an-orbital-solar-farm

If someone is shooting your SPS down, you have way bigger problems than
power generation. Hint, power generation needs power transmission lines
to deliver the product. And living customers to buy the product.

Lynn
Cryptoengineer
2017-07-15 01:13:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For
?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temp
erature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in
-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface
temperature readings by scientists in recent years ?are
totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.?"
"?Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three
published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever ? despite current claims of record
setting warming,? according to a study published June 27 by
two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-
per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very
-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know
what
they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny
that it says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this
going to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline
and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment
in the USA to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling
of unemployment in the USA will cause even more social unrest as
people get desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chart
s
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our
gasoline consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels
enough to reduce demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
Why in the world would you do that instead of just building nuclear
reactors, either primary or as backup instead of more fossil-fuel burning?
Because we are doing it now. All of the wind and solar power
facilities require some sort of backup power on the grid that can be
online quickly.
All what wind and solar facilities? There aren't any wind or solar
facilities to speak of around _here_. Do you live in China or something?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Nuclear reactors are base load power plants. They do not swing load
very well. The way that you vary the electricity production on a
nuclear power plant is to divert the steam directly into the steam
condenser, bypassing the steam turbine / generator.
Nuclear power plants require 3 ??? to 7 ??? days to startup. Not
good for backup.
Who said anything about backup?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the
way to Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Post by Lynn McGuire
California has an interesting problem coming in August. A solar
eclipse. California peaks at 9% solar power generation now. They
are planning to make up the solar power loss using the hydro plants
running wide open. It might work.
Fuck California. Any disasters that happen to them they brought on
themselves.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-prepares-solar-power-loss-15300
0541.html
Actually, I like solar power satellites the best for long term power
needs. And you can fry your enemies with them !
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the
infrastructure you use to build them out of the sky. However that
would be a crappy design.
You seem to be big on poor planning.
Sea Wasp said why not build nuclear power for backup.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the
way to
Post by J. Clarke
Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Stone cold engines to full power in 5 minutes ? Really ? So much for
all the blade seals.
Aeroderivative gas turbines and power generation gas turbines are
wildly different beasts. Aeroderivative gas turbines are multispeed.
Power generation gas turbines are constant 3600 rpm for the 60 hz
grids and don't light off until 2200 rpm or so. Cold or hot can
affect their startup time. If they only run on natural gas then you
might have to schedule natural gas into the pipeline first or run out
quickly.
Post by J. Clarke
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the
infrastructure
Post by J. Clarke
you use to build them out of the sky. However that would be a
crappy design.
I wonder why the Japanese are building a SPS system right now ?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/how-japan-plans-to-build-an-o
rbital-solar-farm
If someone is shooting your SPS down, you have way bigger problems
than power generation. Hint, power generation needs power
transmission lines to deliver the product. And living customers to
buy the product.
Lynn
You're all looking at old-timey solutions. California is putting into
place a mandate requiring large commerical solar power installations to
include energy storage:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-passes-huge-grid-
energy-storage-mandate

Batteries are getting cheaper all the time, and Terry may soon be
lighting his house with power from a 400 MWh battery bank:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-largest-storage-
battery-will-power-los-angeles/

Lynn will be thrilled to hear that this will let LA permanently shut
down a gas turbine 'peaker'.


pt
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 11:00:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For
?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temp
erature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in
-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface
temperature readings by scientists in recent years ?are
totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.?"
"?Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three
published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent
years have
been the warmest ever ? despite current claims of record
setting warming,? according to a study published June 27 by
two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be
fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-
per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very
-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know
what
they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny
that it says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this
going to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline
and $0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment
in the USA to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling
of unemployment in the USA will cause even more social unrest as
people get desperate for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chart
s
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our
gasoline consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels
enough to reduce demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
Why in the world would you do that instead of just building nuclear
reactors, either primary or as backup instead of more fossil-fuel burning?
Because we are doing it now. All of the wind and solar power
facilities require some sort of backup power on the grid that can be
online quickly.
All what wind and solar facilities? There aren't any wind or solar
facilities to speak of around _here_. Do you live in China or something?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Nuclear reactors are base load power plants. They do not swing load
very well. The way that you vary the electricity production on a
nuclear power plant is to divert the steam directly into the steam
condenser, bypassing the steam turbine / generator.
Nuclear power plants require 3 ??? to 7 ??? days to startup. Not
good for backup.
Who said anything about backup?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the
way to Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Post by Lynn McGuire
California has an interesting problem coming in August. A solar
eclipse. California peaks at 9% solar power generation now. They
are planning to make up the solar power loss using the hydro plants
running wide open. It might work.
Fuck California. Any disasters that happen to them they brought on
themselves.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-prepares-solar-power-loss-15300
0541.html
Actually, I like solar power satellites the best for long term power
needs. And you can fry your enemies with them !
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the
infrastructure you use to build them out of the sky. However that
would be a crappy design.
You seem to be big on poor planning.
Sea Wasp said why not build nuclear power for backup.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the
way to
Post by J. Clarke
Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Stone cold engines to full power in 5 minutes ? Really ? So much for
all the blade seals.
Aeroderivative gas turbines and power generation gas turbines are
wildly different beasts. Aeroderivative gas turbines are multispeed.
Power generation gas turbines are constant 3600 rpm for the 60 hz
grids and don't light off until 2200 rpm or so. Cold or hot can
affect their startup time. If they only run on natural gas then you
might have to schedule natural gas into the pipeline first or run out
quickly.
Post by J. Clarke
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the
infrastructure
Post by J. Clarke
you use to build them out of the sky. However that would be a
crappy design.
I wonder why the Japanese are building a SPS system right now ?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/how-japan-plans-to-build-an-o
rbital-solar-farm
If someone is shooting your SPS down, you have way bigger problems
than power generation. Hint, power generation needs power
transmission lines to deliver the product. And living customers to
buy the product.
Lynn
You're all looking at old-timey solutions. California is putting into
place a mandate requiring large commerical solar power installations to
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-passes-huge-grid-
energy-storage-mandate
In other words they are trying to legislate magic. California seems to
have a vested interest in convincing its citizens that there is an "energy
crisis" by obstructing the production of electric power.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Batteries are getting cheaper all the time, and Terry may soon be
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-largest-storage-
battery-will-power-los-angeles/
Lynn will be thrilled to hear that this will let LA permanently shut
down a gas turbine 'peaker'.
I'll believe the battery when it's run its life cycle and proven to
actually be cheaper, including disposal when it's dead. And it sounds good
now but what's its capacity going to be 50 years from now?
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 10:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For
?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years ?are totally inconsistent
with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.?"
"?Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published
[global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years
have
been the warmest ever ? despite current claims of record setting
warming,? according to a study published June 27 by two scientists
and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going
to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA
to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment
in the USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate
for paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our
gasoline consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to
reduce demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
Why in the world would you do that instead of just building nuclear
reactors, either primary or as backup instead of more fossil-fuel burning?
Because we are doing it now. All of the wind and solar power facilities
require some sort of backup power on the grid that can be online quickly.
All what wind and solar facilities? There aren't any wind or solar
facilities to speak of around _here_. Do you live in China or something?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Nuclear reactors are base load power plants. They do not swing load
very well. The way that you vary the electricity production on a
nuclear power plant is to divert the steam directly into the steam
condenser, bypassing the steam turbine / generator.
Nuclear power plants require 3 ??? to 7 ??? days to startup. Not good
for backup.
Who said anything about backup?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the way to
Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Post by Lynn McGuire
California has an interesting problem coming in August. A solar
eclipse. California peaks at 9% solar power generation now. They are
planning to make up the solar power loss using the hydro plants running
wide open. It might work.
Fuck California. Any disasters that happen to them they brought on
themselves.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-prepares-solar-power-loss-153000541.html
Actually, I like solar power satellites the best for long term power
needs. And you can fry your enemies with them !
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the infrastructure
you use to build them out of the sky. However that would be a crappy
design.
You seem to be big on poor planning.
Sea Wasp said why not build nuclear power for backup.
Asperger's much?

If you have nuclear you don't need no steenking solar and wind.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Gas turbines require 20 to 30 minutes startup for simple
cycle operation.
Must be pretty crappy ones. A B-52 can go from cold iron to on the
way to
Post by J. Clarke
Moscow in under 5 minutes.
Stone cold engines to full power in 5 minutes ? Really ? So much for
all the blade seals.
The B-52s are still flying and will be for another 40 years or so.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Aeroderivative gas turbines and power generation gas turbines are wildly
different beasts. Aeroderivative gas turbines are multispeed. Power
generation gas turbines are constant 3600 rpm for the 60 hz grids and
don't light off until 2200 rpm or so. Cold or hot can affect their
startup time. If they only run on natural gas then you might have to
schedule natural gas into the pipeline first or run out quickly.
Uh huh. Pratt doesn't have a special production line for "power generation
gas turbines". The difference is accessories and mounting.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Which gives your enemies an incentive to shoot them and the
infrastructure
Post by J. Clarke
you use to build them out of the sky. However that would be a crappy
design.
I wonder why the Japanese are building a SPS system right now ?
Perhaps because they don't have your infantile fantasies about using it as
a weapon?
Post by Lynn McGuire
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/how-japan-plans-to-build-an-orbital-solar-farm
If someone is shooting your SPS down, you have way bigger problems than
power generation. Hint, power generation needs power transmission lines
to deliver the product. And living customers to buy the product.
What is your point?

Look, I'm not big on global warming or on solar and wind as solutions, but
you're starting to come across as a nutcake even by _my_ low standards.
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 00:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For
?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years ?are totally inconsistent
with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.?"
"?Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published
[global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever ? despite current claims of record setting
warming,? according to a study published June 27 by two scientists
and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going
to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA
to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in
the USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our gasoline
consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
Fuck wind and solar. This problem was solved in the '40s. You seem to be
conveniently forgetting that.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-15 00:40:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For
?Nearly All
Of The Warming? In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years ?are totally inconsistent
with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.?"
"?Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published
[global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever ? despite current claims of record setting
warming,? according to a study published June 27 by two scientists
and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going
to happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA
to rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in
the USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
And you don't think we can replace any of our current electricity
sources with cheaper than $0.50/kwh alternatives or reduce our gasoline
consumption by supplementing with alternative fuels enough to reduce
demand to keep it below $10/gal?
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
F*** wind and solar. This problem was solved in the '40s. You seem to be
conveniently forgetting that.
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Lynn
Greg Goss
2017-07-15 06:23:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
F*** wind and solar. This problem was solved in the '40s. You seem to be
conveniently forgetting that.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
He's talking about Uranium steam. (I think you have to get into the
sixties to get breeders). I support nuclear electricity despite the
skepticism of my lefty companions.

Where I grew up, there's plenty of hydro. With dammed hydro, you get
a certain amount of energy available from the spring melt, and can tap
into it on very short notice whenever you need power. BC's hydro
should never be used for baseload, but rather should be backstopping
Alberta wind and California solar.

BC did something like that in the early twokays, dropping most of its
long-term contracts and concentrating on the California spot market.
They earned a ton of receivables as Enron played the market, but never
collected when the counterparties went bankrupt.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 10:47:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
No. The costs of backing up solar and wind power with natural gas
fueled gas turbines is immense.
F*** wind and solar. This problem was solved in the '40s. You seem to be
conveniently forgetting that.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
He's talking about Uranium steam. (I think you have to get into the
sixties to get breeders). I support nuclear electricity despite the
skepticism of my lefty companions.
Where I grew up, there's plenty of hydro. With dammed hydro, you get
a certain amount of energy available from the spring melt, and can tap
into it on very short notice whenever you need power. BC's hydro
should never be used for baseload, but rather should be backstopping
Alberta wind and California solar.
BC did something like that in the early twokays, dropping most of its
long-term contracts and concentrating on the California spot market.
They earned a ton of receivables as Enron played the market, but never
collected when the counterparties went bankrupt.
Anything we do right now is a stopgap. Long term it's going to be fusion
and space solar. But we have to get from now to then.
Peter Trei
2017-07-14 20:03:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA to
rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
"Buying a smaller or electric car" != "social unrest"

Crop failures, famine, and ecosystem collapse wouldn't be fun either.

Curious stat: US Gasoline sales (by volume, not price) have been falling
for years, by 60% since 2004. We're now spending less household
income (as a percentage of budget) than we were in 1972.

No wonder Lynn thinks its the end of the world.

pt
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-14 21:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant. I believe that $10/gal for gasoline and
$0.50/kwh for electricity will cause the real unemployment in the USA to
rise to 50% from the current 22%. That doubling of unemployment in the
USA will cause even more social unrest as people get desperate for
paying jobs.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
"Buying a smaller or electric car" != "social unrest"
Crop failures, famine, and ecosystem collapse wouldn't be fun either.
Curious stat: US Gasoline sales (by volume, not price) have been falling
for years, by 60% since 2004. We're now spending less household
income (as a percentage of budget) than we were in 1972.
No wonder Lynn thinks its the end of the world.
pt
Wow, you are correct about the gasoline sales in the USA:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M

Diesel fuel sales are up though:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A223600001&f=M

Propane sales are way up:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A903600001&f=M

Natural gas sales are way, way, way up (30 TCF (trillion cubic feet)
this year predicted back in Jan with all the new LNG plants):
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9140us2a.htm

No wonder we have dropped from 250 refineries to 100 refineries in the
last 20 years in the USA. Many of the old refineries have been
converted into fuel storage facilities.

Actually, my business is more affected by natural gas usage than crude
oil or gasoline.

Lynn
Juho Julkunen
2017-07-14 20:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant.
It is not. "AGW can't be true because the consequences would be bad" is
not an argument one expects to hear from an adult.

It would be relevant if you wanted to debate the merits of potential
policies to pursue for mitigating the effects of climate chance; but
you are not, since you profess to proudly believe nothing needs to be
done.
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 00:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant.
It is not. "AGW can't be true because the consequences would be bad" is
not an argument one expects to hear from an adult.
It would be relevant if you wanted to debate the merits of potential
policies to pursue for mitigating the effects of climate chance; but
you are not, since you profess to proudly believe nothing needs to be
done.
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just propaganda?
The normal state of this planet is considerably warmer than at present and
with no icecaps. Its existence in that state seems to have done no harm to
much of anything. So why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
Robert Bannister
2017-07-15 00:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant.
It is not. "AGW can't be true because the consequences would be bad" is
not an argument one expects to hear from an adult.
It would be relevant if you wanted to debate the merits of potential
policies to pursue for mitigating the effects of climate chance; but
you are not, since you profess to proudly believe nothing needs to be
done.
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just propaganda?
The normal state of this planet is considerably warmer than at present and
with no icecaps. Its existence in that state seems to have done no harm to
much of anything. So why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
It is already affecting the weather with more and larger storms. Some
parts of the ocean are becoming more acidic as they absorb more carbon
and that is one reason the Great Barrier Reef is dying - the latter
produces billions of tourist dollars.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 11:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant.
It is not. "AGW can't be true because the consequences would be bad" is
not an argument one expects to hear from an adult.
It would be relevant if you wanted to debate the merits of potential
policies to pursue for mitigating the effects of climate chance; but
you are not, since you profess to proudly believe nothing needs to be
done.
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just propaganda?
The normal state of this planet is considerably warmer than at present and
with no icecaps. Its existence in that state seems to have done no harm to
much of anything. So why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
It is already affecting the weather with more and larger storms.
So?
Post by Robert Bannister
Some
parts of the ocean are becoming more acidic as they absorb more carbon
and that is one reason the Great Barrier Reef is dying - the latter
produces billions of tourist dollars.
So? We did fine for most of the existence of the human species without
tourist dollars, or dollars of any kind for that matter.

You're conflating "inconvenient" with "bad". And coral seems to have done
fine when the temperature was much warmer. Maybe not in the same locations
though.
Lynn McGuire
2017-07-15 01:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant.
It is not. "AGW can't be true because the consequences would be bad" is
not an argument one expects to hear from an adult.
It would be relevant if you wanted to debate the merits of potential
policies to pursue for mitigating the effects of climate chance; but
you are not, since you profess to proudly believe nothing needs to be
done.
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just propaganda?
The normal state of this planet is considerably warmer than at present and
with no icecaps. Its existence in that state seems to have done no harm to
much of anything. So why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
"Guy McPherson - Human Extinction within 10 years"


Nine years to go !

Lynn
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 11:04:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant.
It is not. "AGW can't be true because the consequences would be bad" is
not an argument one expects to hear from an adult.
It would be relevant if you wanted to debate the merits of potential
policies to pursue for mitigating the effects of climate chance; but
you are not, since you profess to proudly believe nothing needs to be
done.
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just propaganda?
The normal state of this planet is considerably warmer than at present and
with no icecaps. Its existence in that state seems to have done no harm to
much of anything. So why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
"Guy McPherson - Human Extinction within 10 years"
http://youtu.be/zqIt93dDG1M
Nine years to go !
A fine example of why loons should be locked up.
Quadibloc
2017-07-15 01:43:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just propaganda?
The normal state of this planet is considerably warmer than at present and
with no icecaps. Its existence in that state seems to have done no harm to
much of anything. So why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
We would like the Earth to stay the way it is, good for people to live on,
rather than wanting to bring back the dinosaurs?

Of course *life* will continue to exist on this planet just fine if it were a
bit warmer. But from certain human viewpoints, since the life in many biomes
would now consist of early invasive species, rather than a climax or equilibrium
situation... think of a forest versus brushland overrun by weeds. There will be
less plant life with a surplus to produce large fruits, for example.

The Earth would remain filled with life, and get along just fine. However, in
the period of adjustment to different kinds of plants being optimal for
different places, the number of human beings the Earth could feed would
decrease. That is quite reasonably considered a thing to avoid if possible.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-15 03:49:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just
propaganda? The normal state of this planet is considerably
warmer than at present and with no icecaps. Its existence in
that state seems to have done no harm to much of anything. So
why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
We would like the Earth to stay the way it is, good for people
to live on, rather than wanting to bring back the dinosaurs?
Of course *life* will continue to exist on this planet just fine
if it were a bit warmer. But from certain human viewpoints,
since the life in many biomes would now consist of early
invasive species, rather than a climax or equilibrium
situation... think of a forest versus brushland overrun by
weeds. There will be less plant life with a surplus to produce
large fruits, for example.
The Earth would remain filled with life, and get along just
fine. However, in the period of adjustment to different kinds of
plants being optimal for different places, the number of human
beings the Earth could feed would decrease. That is quite
reasonably considered a thing to avoid if possible.
If there were no intelligent species, that'd be a convincing
argument. But with a self aware, intelligent, technologically
sophisticated species, we have the ability to intervene in the
change and guide, if not control it.

As we always have.

Your premise is based on an unspoken assumption that is
indefensible (which is why you don't say it out loud).
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-07-15 05:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
If there were no intelligent species, that'd be a convincing
argument. But with a self aware, intelligent, technologically
sophisticated species, we have the ability to intervene in the
change and guide, if not control it.
As we always have.
Your premise is based on an unspoken assumption that is
indefensible (which is why you don't say it out loud).
As an intelligent species, we can reduce our carbon emissions.

What else could we do _if we don't_?

I suppose we could supply genetically engineered crops to the Third World that
could endure higher temperatures. And we could mitigate temperature rise with
geoengineering.

However, given the delay in addressing the underlying issue, I suspect we will
have to do that kind of stuff *anyways*, and what we can do in that department
will *not* be enough to avoid some bad consequences.

Nuclear power is such an *obvious* solution to carbon emissions without
abandoning the technological lifestyle supported by a high level of energy
consumption that... for one thing, I don't want to waste time on distracting
sideshows, and for another, the delay in making use of it casts doubt on just
how much of an "intelligent species" we're dealing with here.

Make no mistake: of course humans _are_ a true intelligent species, but various
factors prevent humanity as a whole from acting in an organized and rational
fashion for the common human well-being. Like the division into multiple nations
which have the bad habit of making war on one another - not that a World
Government is preferable, given the risk of _that_ becoming a world-wide
dictatorship rather than what one might hope for.

H. G. Wells may have had benign dreams, but he had a certain naivete about real-
world politics that led to some of the positions he took to be positions that
would have led not to the realization of those dreams, but to nightmares. Churchill, on the other hand, saw both Hitler and Stalin for what they were.

John Savard
Greg Goss
2017-07-15 06:07:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
If there were no intelligent species, that'd be a convincing
argument. But with a self aware, intelligent, technologically
sophisticated species, we have the ability to intervene in the
change and guide, if not control it.
As we always have.
Your premise is based on an unspoken assumption that is
indefensible (which is why you don't say it out loud).
As an intelligent species, we can reduce our carbon emissions.
What else could we do _if we don't_?
Sulfate droplets or carbonate particles injected into the upper
atmosphere on a continuous basis. But that won't fix ocean
acidification, and if we run into some runaway effect (perhaps
seabottom methane hydrate decrystalization, or permafrost methane
release), that might not be enough.
Post by Quadibloc
Nuclear power is such an *obvious* solution to carbon emissions without
abandoning the technological lifestyle supported by a high level of energy
consumption that... for one thing, I don't want to waste time on distracting
sideshows, and for another, the delay in making use of it casts doubt on just
how much of an "intelligent species" we're dealing with here.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-15 17:16:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:49:59 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
If there were no intelligent species, that'd be a convincing
argument. But with a self aware, intelligent, technologically
sophisticated species, we have the ability to intervene in the
change and guide, if not control it.
As we always have.
Your premise is based on an unspoken assumption that is
indefensible (which is why you don't say it out loud).
As an intelligent species, we can reduce our carbon emissions.
We can. We can also observe that the climate has always change,
thoughout all of recorded history, and we have always adpated.
What else could we do _if we don't_?
Adapt, as we have always done. Like the people who are already
adapting to the longer growing season.
I suppose we could supply genetically engineered crops to the
Third World that could endure higher temperatures. And we could
mitigate temperature rise with geoengineering.
We've already turned India from annual famine to a net food
exporter with genetic engineering, so why not?
However, given the delay in addressing the underlying issue, I
suspect we will have to do that kind of stuff *anyways*, and
what we can do in that department will *not* be enough to avoid
some bad consequences.
So you assume, in your completely ignorance (and frankly,
stupidity) of the issue. Others, some of whom are not all that
ignorant, do not agree.
H. G. Wells may have had benign dreams, but he had a certain
naivete about real- world politics
Now *that* is funny, coming from you.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Greg Goss
2017-07-15 02:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Juho Julkunen
It would be relevant if you wanted to debate the merits of potential
policies to pursue for mitigating the effects of climate chance; but
you are not, since you profess to proudly believe nothing needs to be
done.
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just propaganda?
The normal state of this planet is considerably warmer than at present and
with no icecaps. Its existence in that state seems to have done no harm to
much of anything. So why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
Under the current theories, the "great dying" of a quarter billion
years ago (an order of magnitude worse than the dinosaur-killer) was
caused by burning coal / gas / oil and baked methane from underground
reservoirs under a Siberian megavolcano.
https://skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2017-07-15 11:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Juho Julkunen
It would be relevant if you wanted to debate the merits of potential
policies to pursue for mitigating the effects of climate chance; but
you are not, since you profess to proudly believe nothing needs to be
done.
Are the consequences really going to be bad, or is that just propaganda?
The normal state of this planet is considerably warmer than at present and
with no icecaps. Its existence in that state seems to have done no harm to
much of anything. So why are do-gooders so afraid of a little warming?
Under the current theories, the "great dying" of a quarter billion
years ago (an order of magnitude worse than the dinosaur-killer) was
caused by burning coal / gas / oil and baked methane from underground
reservoirs under a Siberian megavolcano.
https://skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html
One study is somebody's opinion. When it becomes the consensus of somebody
other than IPCC and its hangers-on get back to us.

In any case, the time frame is much longer than any of the IPCC studies.
If we don't have fusion going by then we deserve what we get.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-07-14 22:35:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All
Of The Warming’ In Climate Data"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
"A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”"
"“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician."
I am not surprised. All climate science appears to be fraudulent.
and here's an actual analysis of the credibility of the 'study'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Summary: The authors of the paper either don't know what they're
talking about, or they're deliberately lying, because they don't even
contest the basic truths behind the data, they simply deny that it
says what it manifestly DOES.
So no, Lynn, once again you've posted total BS.
Can you afford to pay $10/gal for gasoline ?
And $0.50/kwh for electricity ?
Is that relevant? No. How much things will or could cost has
literally absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of "is this going to
happen" and "which side seems to understand science".
It is entirely relevant.
No, it is not.

The consequences of high gas prices have nothing to do with whether AGW
is real or not.

Now, you may FEAR those consequences, and really really really WISH
that it wasn't real, but those consequences are UTTERLY irrelevant to
the discussion.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Quadibloc
2017-07-15 05:31:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, it is not.
The consequences of high gas prices have nothing to do with whether AGW
is real or not.
Now, you may FEAR those consequences, and really really really WISH
that it wasn't real, but those consequences are UTTERLY irrelevant to
the discussion.
They're utterly irrelevant to any scientific investigation of global temperature
changes and their causes.

But the climate change discussion usually combines claims of the reality of AGW
with specific policy recommendations. And if someone tells you to jump off a
cliff, the threshold of credibility before you would trust him enough to follow
his recommendation is higher than if he suggests an apparently benign course of
action.

So, while it is correct to note that things we don't like can still be real,
noting the consequences of serious cuts in energy use is not completely
irrelevant to the discussion as it is presently conducted as a whole.

As I've noted, there are worse fallacies to point out. Being skeptical of mainstream peer-reviewed science, and uncritical of politicized fringe sources because they agree with one's disposition, to start with.

John Savard
Loading...