Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and
Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this
illustration, which may be the first cover without a
headline or typography in The Atlantic's 167-year
history.
<https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1833105626962055554>
The Atlantic has unveiled a cover that was intended as a
smear on Donald Trump, but has ended up creating possibly
the best Trump campaign poster yet.
The cover shows Trump at the helm of a horse drawn wagon
riding through a decimated hellscape only recognisable as
Washington DC because of the Capitol building in the distance.
Trump has a fist raised, reminiscent of his response to almost
being assassinated, and he is holding a whip.
In the back of the wagon is a caged elephant, presumably
representing the Republican Party.
<https://modernity.news/2024/09/11/whoops-the-atlantic-makes-trump-look-epic-in-cover-intended-as-a-smear/>
Don wrote:
Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and
Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this
illustration, which may be the first cover without a
headline or typography in The Atlantic's 167-year
history.
<https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1833105626962055554>
The Atlantic has unveiled a cover that was intended as a
smear on Donald Trump, but has ended up creating possibly
the best Trump campaign poster yet.
The cover shows Trump at the helm of a horse drawn wagon
riding through a decimated hellscape only recognisable as
Washington DC because of the Capitol building in the distance.
Trump has a fist raised, reminiscent of his response to almost
being assassinated, and he is holding a whip.
In the back of the wagon is a caged elephant, presumably
representing the Republican Party.
<https://modernity.news/2024/09/11/whoops-the-atlantic-makes-trump-look-epic-in-cover-intended-as-a-smear/>
Yeats, "The Second Coming":
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
comes to mind.
Also the circus in /Something Wicked This Way Comes/.
There appears to be a Raven in the leafless tree.
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
But thanks for pointing this out.
Paul wrote:
Don wrote:
Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and
Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this
illustration, which may be the first cover without a
headline or typography in The Atlantic's 167-year
history.
<https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1833105626962055554>
The Atlantic has unveiled a cover that was intended as a
smear on Donald Trump, but has ended up creating possibly
the best Trump campaign poster yet.
The cover shows Trump at the helm of a horse drawn wagon
riding through a decimated hellscape only recognisable as
Washington DC because of the Capitol building in the distance.
Trump has a fist raised, reminiscent of his response to almost
being assassinated, and he is holding a whip.
In the back of the wagon is a caged elephant, presumably
representing the Republican Party.
<https://modernity.news/2024/09/11/whoops-the-atlantic-makes-trump-look-epic-in-cover-intended-as-a-smear/>
Yeats, "The Second Coming":
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
comes to mind.
Also the circus in /Something Wicked This Way Comes/.
There appears to be a Raven in the leafless tree.
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
But thanks for pointing this out.
Yeats also crossed my mind. Only this particular beast is headed to the
ninth circle of hell instead of Bethlehem. So the elephant caged can
cope with the mammoth Mammon mess he helped create.
Kamala and a Democratic donkey need to be added to the picture.--
Trump's not President yet so Kamala can sit beside him and fight over
who owns the whip. While a Democratic donkey decends with the whole
wagon when hell's in session.
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Lynn
On 16/09/24 14:02, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them >anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:02:45 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object??
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
On Sep 16, 2024, quadibloc wrote
(in article<e09e6f2a9b6dd18907f3d1785e1b3ade@www.novabbs.com>):
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in Springfield when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
Trump pushes baseless claim about immigrants ------
David Muir, the ABC News anchor co-moderating the debate, immediately fact-checked Trump's claims, saying that the city manager in Springfield, Ohio, told the network there had been no credible reports of pets being harmed, injured or abused by people in the city's immigrant community.
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 03:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?�
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
So, this is the event reported yesterday? I got the impression it was
more of a private altercation between two people which happened to
take place near whatever rock Trump's currently hiding under.
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
In article <20240915b@crcomp.net>, Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
Titus G wrote:
Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
London invented the legal fiction called a corporation. Then gave its corporation equal rights with humans. (As an aside, it'd be interesting
to know if the City of London Corporation, commonly called the Crown,
was incorporated first.)
At this point it's important to differentiate global, City of London sized corporations from infinitesimally smaller mom and pop
corporations. Because big boys at the top of corporate feudalism love to
hide the dirty details of crony Capitalism behind mom and pop and
pretend everything's existentially entrepreneurial based. Besides, big
boys believe it's not fair to force trust babies to compete against real world entrepreneurs.
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
autocracy along the lines of these guys:
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
Don wrote:
Titus G wrote:
Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
London invented the legal fiction called a corporation. Then gave its
corporation equal rights with humans. (As an aside, it'd be interesting
to know if the City of London Corporation, commonly called the Crown,
was incorporated first.)
At this point it's important to differentiate global, City of London
sized corporations from infinitesimally smaller mom and pop
corporations. Because big boys at the top of corporate feudalism love to
hide the dirty details of crony Capitalism behind mom and pop and
pretend everything's existentially entrepreneurial based. Besides, big
boys believe it's not fair to force trust babies to compete against real
boys believe it's not fair to force trust babies to compete against real
world entrepreneurs.
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
autocracy along the lines of these guys:
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Thank you for that long explanation. Was the reader supposed to
immediately realise all that based on your cryptic comment:
"ObSF: "Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said."?
As this is an SF group, I interpreted your reference as to Dick's "Flow
my Tears the Policeman Said, hence Constable Bacon.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
But Dick's tale was of a household name 'exiled' to an alternate reality where he was unknown and that has no relevance to the Atlantic cartoon
cover. (Unless my memory is at fault.)
On 9/16/2024 9:19 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 03:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC >>>>>> crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object??
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
So, this is the event reported yesterday? I got the impression it was
more of a private altercation between two people which happened to
take place near whatever rock Trump's currently hiding under.
No, it turned out to be one guy who waited at least 12 hours for Trump
to play golf and got spotted and arrested before he even saw Trump.
In article <20240915b@crcomp.net>, Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
On Sep 15, 2024, Don wrote
(in article <20240915a@crcomp.net>):
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Mman Routh was, apparently, a gung-ho gun-happy nut. The BBC has a nice >write up at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5eewvy3nlo
Note #4: Sheriff Ric is pissed. Hes taking this personally. Its a good >thing for mman Routh that it was the Martin County boys who caught him, >there might have been an unfortunate incident if Rics little helpers and >done it.
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC >>>>>> crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
On 9/16/24 15:20, WolfFan wrote:
On Sep 16, 2024, quadibloc wrote
(in article<e09e6f2a9b6dd18907f3d1785e1b3ade@www.novabbs.com>):
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in Springfield >> when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some
reason Ohio aint high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.
On 9/16/2024 11:57 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <20240915b@crcomp.net>, Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
I'm not a Swiftie either, though she seems pleasant enough,
and it helps that she aligns with me against Trump.
After her endorsement, I dropped into a pro-Trump reddit
sub to see how they were taking it. There was one thread
which probably deserved a prize for Cleverest Title of the Year:
"Woman who made career singing about her bad choices chooses Harris"
I couldn't help but smile.
pt
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassinatio= >n-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
Sound like a former Trump follower who has woken up to me. A
Republican who feels /very/ betrayed.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassinatio= >> n-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
Sound like a former Trump follower who has woken up to me. A
Republican who feels /very/ betrayed.
Sounds to me like nothing to do with Science Fiction. Take it elsewhere.
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
autocracy along the lines of these guys:
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
autocracy along the lines of these guys:
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Titus G wrote:
Titus G wrote:
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
But Dick's tale was of a household name 'exiled' to an alternate reality
where he was unknown and that has no relevance to the Atlantic cartoon
cover. (Unless my memory is at fault.)
Despite your earlier misgivings in this thread about only understanding really twisted PK Dick for only a short time you did an excellent job
of summarizing his story!
It's unintuitive how Constable Bacon jumps out at you at my mention of Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon.
"Hidden Life is Best" post?
<https://rec.arts.sf.written.narkive.com/HmUD6mC6/what-i-m-listening-to#post3>
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
autocracy along the lines of these guys:
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
Don wrote:
much snippage
Titus G wrote:
Titus G wrote:
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
But Dick's tale was of a household name 'exiled' to an alternate reality >>> where he was unknown and that has no relevance to the Atlantic cartoon
cover. (Unless my memory is at fault.)
Despite your earlier misgivings in this thread about only understanding
really twisted PK Dick for only a short time you did an excellent job
of summarizing his story!
Thank you.
It's unintuitive how Constable Bacon jumps out at you at my mention of
Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon.
You said: "ObSF: "Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said."
PK Dick said: "Flow my Tears" the Policeman said."
I said: "Constable Bacon,"
Do you remember your followup to my
"Hidden Life is Best" post?
No.
<https://rec.arts.sf.written.narkive.com/HmUD6mC6/what-i-m-listening-to#post3
I saw no reference to Titus G there.
I thought that it was not possible to search in Google Groups any more
so I was pleased to learn and use narkive.com. Thank you.
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
On 9/17/24 11:19, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassinatio= >>> n-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
Sound like a former Trump follower who has woken up to me. A
Republican who feels /very/ betrayed.
Sounds to me like nothing to do with Science Fiction. Take it elsewhere.
Oh we are so sorry to have offended you.
SF fans are political entities too.
A lot of SF is about politics and cultural choices.
Political notes have been included in this group long before
i came along and I was glad to see it accepted here because on my
other choices at participation in the WWW many simply ban politics
outright. Here we have reasonable conversation between all sides.
Freedom of speech though is a part of Usenet and if political
speech offends you then don't read political posts.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological >ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Isn't that the circle from which Satan (firmly stuck in and through
the center of the Earth) grabs souls to eat? It's been a while since I
read Dante.
Yes. Its a plain of ice, in which are embedded the souls of those who >betrayed their benefactors, people such as Judas Iscariot.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
Sounds like unrequited/refused love to me.
It claims '5,000 to 10,000 Haitians moved to Springfield in the
last five or six years.'
Now, its quite possible that more moved in the last 10 months,
even probable, but I don't know if 10,000 more came. But balance
that against Haiti's further descent into anarchy recently, I
wouldn't completely rule it out, either.
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
<snippo>
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological >>ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
John Dowland, born 2 years after Francis Bacon and so a contemporary
of his, wrote, among others, lute songs with titles like:
Can She Excuse My Wrongs
I Saw My Lady Weep
and
Flow My Tears
so, yes, I would say people in Bacon's day sung the blues, even if the
genre by that name did not exist yet.
I wouldn't rule out such songs in Ancient Rome, or even Classical
Greece.
As I said elsewhere, songs about problems with romance appearto have
been around for a /very/ long time.
On 9/18/2024 12:25 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 00:02:15 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't that the circle from which Satan (firmly stuck in and through
the center of the Earth) grabs souls to eat? It's been a while since I >>>> read Dante.
Yes. Its a plain of ice, in which are embedded the souls of those who
betrayed their benefactors, people such as Judas Iscariot.
So who are Trump's benefactors? Vince McMahon or Mark Burnett?
Benefactors here are people the damned person owed, and betrayed.
The creators of The Apprentice profited handsomely from the
show, so I don't think he betrayed them.
However, the contractors Trump stiffed, the Trump University
students, the investors and employees of the businesses he
ran into the ground, were certainly betrayed.
He's betrayed all three wives by sleeping around.
He's been convicted multiple times of betraying his lenders
by lying about his assets.
Extending further, I think he betrayed the American people,
with his self-serving approach to Covid ('Stop the testing!'),
and his failures to live up to his oath of office, and
creating the chaos following the 2020 election.
pt
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements. Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
And, of course, there's always Heinlein. Trump may actually be /worse/
than Scudder (alternately, he could be the lesser evil because of his >demonstrated incompetence as President; Scudder was, IIRC, quite
competent in that regard), and their supporters are pretty much the
same group: poor, white, feeling oppressed because they aren't in
charge, and vengeful. With the nutters, in both cases no doubt,
trending toward violent.
On 9/18/2024 6:39 AM, quadibloc wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 3:46:12 +0000, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.
It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.
When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.
We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and
we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.
John Savard
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Lynn
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements. Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of the
greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). In his
1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could lead >> to an increase in global temperatures by approximately 5 to 6 degrees
Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations regarding the heat
absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons Arrhenius >> was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that he
significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration. >> His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise between 5 and 6°C;
however, later revisions indicated that this figure was too high. By 1906, >> after further analysis and feedback from contemporaries like Knut Ångström,
Arrhenius revised his estimate downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to >> 2.1°C when accounting for feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations were
heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient of CO2. The >> absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines how effectively a
gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström challenged Arrhenius’s
values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This discrepancy highlighted that >> Arrhenius had not fully accounted for the complexities involved in how
different gases interact with infrared radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in Arrhenius’s
miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s role as a
greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion of the
atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on climate due >> to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat across various
wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, >> he did not adequately emphasize that its effects would be overshadowed by
those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics has
evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate models
incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse gases, including >> feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which were not part of
Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have led to more accurate >> predictions regarding temperature increases associated with rising levels
of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect, subsequent
research revealed that his initial estimates were overly optimistic due to >> errors in calculation methods and assumptions about atmospheric chemistry. >> His work serves as both a historical milestone in climate science and an
example of how scientific understanding can evolve over time through
rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
D wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move >>>>> beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters >>>>> such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientificGlobal warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
autocracy along the lines of these guys:
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come >>>>> true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say. >>>>> Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears." >>>>
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is wrong. >>> Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to that big
fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient (1.8%) but
works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not shining,
and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does not
affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has been proven >> by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
William Hyde
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
On 9/19/2024 4:12 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>> wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements. Svante August Arrhenius proved the >>>>> effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical >>>> chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of
the greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide
(CO2). In his 1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 could lead to an increase in global temperatures by
approximately 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on
his calculations regarding the heat absorption properties of CO2
compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is
that he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this
figure was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback
from contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his
estimate downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when
accounting for feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations
were heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient
of CO2. The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines
how effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström >>>> challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This >>>> discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for
the complexities involved in how different gases interact with
infrared radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s >>>> role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger
portion of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant
impact on climate due to its higher concentration and ability to
absorb heat across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized
CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize
that its effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate
dynamics has evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern
climate models incorporate complex interactions among various
greenhouse gases, including feedback loops involving clouds and
aerosols, which were not part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These
advancements have led to more accurate predictions regarding
temperature increases associated with rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect,
subsequent research revealed that his initial estimates were overly
optimistic due to errors in calculation methods and assumptions
about atmospheric chemistry. His work serves as both a historical
milestone in climate science and an example of how scientific
understanding can evolve over time through rigorous testing and
validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or
ever discussed.
We also tend to be kind of hard on flat-earthers. Oh, the intolerance!
On 9/18/2024 10:40 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 23:11:37 +0000, quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snippo>
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
<snippo blather, this is /politics/, get a grip>
4% isn't much of a gap. What was the margin of error?
"Support" doesn't matter, particularly if the question is being
answered in groups where social pressure can affect the response.
And the only "poll" that matters is the one in early November.
The polling started in Pennsylvania this week.
Texas will join the polling in the middle of October.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
No, just illustrating that the sun affects the climate which some climate >hysterics don't seem to know.
On 9/18/2024 6:45 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
<snippo>
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to comeJohn Dowland, born 2 years after Francis Bacon and so a contemporary
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears." >>>
of his, wrote, among others, lute songs with titles like:
Can She Excuse My Wrongs
I Saw My Lady Weep
and
Flow My Tears
so, yes, I would say people in Bacon's day sung the blues, even if the
genre by that name did not exist yet.
I wouldn't rule out such songs in Ancient Rome, or even Classical
Greece.
As I said elsewhere, songs about problems with romance appearto have
been around for a /very/ long time.
But he could also be less serious.
In a song the singer tells of his love for Cynthia, and how he carves
her name into a tree.
But later in the same song:
"If Cynthia crave her ring of me I blot her name out of the tree".
Is 'Greensleeves' an early Blues song?
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:13:44 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>> wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
No, just illustrating that the sun affects the climate which some climate
hysterics don't seem to know.
You have demonstrated that the Sun affects the /weather/, not the
climate.
The Sun is basically a constant input so far as climate is concerned. Greenhouse gasses, OTOH, are definitely /not/ a constant.
On 9/19/2024 4:12 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>> wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements. Svante August Arrhenius proved the >>>>> effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical >>>> chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of the >>>> greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). In his >>>> 1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could
lead to an increase in global temperatures by approximately 5 to 6
degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations regarding >>>> the heat absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that >>>> he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this figure >>>> was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback from
contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his estimate
downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when accounting for >>>> feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations were >>>> heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient of CO2. >>>> The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines how
effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström
challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This >>>> discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for the >>>> complexities involved in how different gases interact with infrared
radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in Arrhenius’s
miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s role as a
greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion of the
atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on climate >>>> due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat across various >>>> wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an important greenhouse >>>> gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its effects would be
overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics has >>>> evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate models
incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse gases,
including feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which were not >>>> part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have led to more >>>> accurate predictions regarding temperature increases associated with
rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect, subsequent >>>> research revealed that his initial estimates were overly optimistic due >>>> to errors in calculation methods and assumptions about atmospheric
chemistry. His work serves as both a historical milestone in climate
science and an example of how scientific understanding can evolve over >>>> time through rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or ever
discussed.
We also tend to be kind of hard on flat-earthers. Oh, the intolerance!
pt
On 9/18/2024 11:06 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/18/24 16:51, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/18/2024 6:39 AM, quadibloc wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 3:46:12 +0000, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.
It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.
When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.
We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and >>>> we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.
John Savard
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China,
United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Lynn
Israel is presumed to have Nuclear weapons. North Korea definitely has
them. Iran is trying to get theirs built but Western nations and
Israelis seem to be interfering with that objective.
I doubt Cuba is wasting it time and money on nuclear weapons
as they seem unaggressive except on the PR front as they send doctors
and other medical personnel to African nations at times.
bliss
At one point, Cuba had several nuclear weapons installed by the
Russians. It caused the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, maybe you have
heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
I have no idea if those Russian nuclear weapons were actually removed or not. Note, there were both nuclear missiles and nuclear bombers in Cuba.
Lynn
They were removed. The US and the SU negotiated an end to the crisis, in which SU nuclear weapons were removed from Cuba, and US nuclear missiles
were removed from Turkey.
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>>> really basic stuff.
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>>> wrong.snip
D wrote:
This is the truth!
grand minimums ...... , they
do not reverse long-term warming trends driven by human activities.
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
On 9/19/2024 2:34 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:12:55 +0000, Cryptoengineer wrote:
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans',
as opposed those polled.
I reveal what I meant when I noted that the other ones could easily be
prevented from voting by the guys with the white hoods.
I quoted the figures from an Angus Reid poll which split out the voting
preferences of _white_ Americans.
Although this is because Trump has strong rural support, and rural areas
are overwhelmingly white, I expect better from white America.
John Savard
You are Canadian, we ignore your expectations here in the USA. Just
like every other country in the world.
Lynn
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, United >Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
On 20/09/24 08:34, D wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>>>> really basic stuff.
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>>>> wrong.snip
D wrote:
This is the truth!
grand minimums ...... , they
do not reverse long-term warming trends driven by human activities.
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
On 9/19/2024 3:03 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote:
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Overestimation of Temperature Increase
One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that >>> he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration.
I'm not aware that scientists concerned about global warming
are going around insisting Svante Arrhenius' estimates were
right.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance
Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s >>> role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion
of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on
climate due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat
across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an
important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its
effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Now, this one is a total red herring.
The reason should be obvious.
What determines the level of water vapor in the atmosphere? Is it
being increased, say, by irrigation projects spraying water on
crops, which we should curtail before worrying about fossil
fuels?
No. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... is mostly due to
evaporation from the oceans and lakes and rivers. Which is controlled
by global temperatures.
So water vapor is part of a feedback loop that amplifies the effects
of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because the carbon dioxide
level is a *free* variable, that we're affecting significantly by our
use of fossil fuels.
John Savard
We have extra water in the upper atmosphere right now due to the underwater volcano spewing water vapor, "Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of Warming" https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
"The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai sent megatons of water
vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming over the next 5 years."
Lynn
On 19/09/24 16:34, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
Here is my entry. (5 lines instead of six.)
On August 12th, NZ's Climate Institute announced the purchase of a $20 million Supercomputer, an investment in NIWA’s world-leading climate, marine and freshwater science and advanced technologies. If we had D's
post of 17th September before then, we could have saved millions by just buying thermometers, umbrellas and torches for our research staff.
D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move >>>>>>> beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters >>>>>>> such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific >>>>>>> autocracy along the lines of these guys:
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically >>>>>>> finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and >>>>>>> have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I >>>>>>> think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for >>>>>>> the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come >>>>>>> true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological >>>>>>> ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say. >>>>>>> Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My
Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>> really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in >>>>>> all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not shining, >>>> and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does not >>>> affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has been
proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
William Hyde
This is incorrect William.
You are concurring with Lynn's claim that global warming is due to the sun. It is not. We do study variations in the sun's output very closely, and such variations do not explain the current warming.
This has been known for decades.
You are also concurring with Lynn's claim that almost all climate change in the past was due to solar change. We know this not to be the case, in particular with the ice ages. We've known this for decades, suspected it for more than a century.
The world has often in the distant past been warmer than it is now. Yet the sun was dimmer. Clearly, other factors also count, even dominate at times.
In your first paragraph you confuse climate with weather. That's a mistake. Further, it does sometimes happen that night is warmer than day. Weather's like that.
The press does indeed sometimes print stories about solar change. It does not print that many for reasons given in the first paragraph.
But ignorance is not stupidity, it can be cured easily enough.
Lynn has maintained that he cannot believe in global change because it would be bad for his business. He is probably wrong in this, but it is for this reason that Lynn sees ignorance, or pretended ignorance, as being in his financial interests. That is why I did not respond to Lynn.
While politics can attach itself to anything, at heart this is not a political question. Observations show the earth to be warming, and we know why. Unexpected predictions, like Stratospheric cooling, were made in the 1960s and have been shown to be true (this alone contradicts warming by increased solar output, though one ill-informed person on this group cited it as evidence *against* AGW).
We have not yet begun to feel the worst effects, but weather events around the world tell us that change is here. As do rigorous statistical studies.
What to do about it? Now that is indeed a political question. One might propose doing nothing, just adapting to change. One might propose a severe cut in GHG emissions. One might propose geoengineering. Or some mix of the above. But we'll never make progress on these issues without accepting that the change is here, and worse is on the way.
Thirty five years ago, I said technology. It was clear that humans were going to use more and more energy, so that unless our energy sources were cleaned we wouldn't stop below 4XC02. But we didn't put the effort into it that was required. No matter how fast we implement the low carbon technologies we now have or are developing, that alone will not alone save us from a 3C warmer world.
I would guess that you and Lynn would be for adaptation - get used to the higher temperatures and more acid ocean, somehow, - or geoengineering. Either of those would probably have a less heavy regulatory framework than emissions cuts and that would fit with your political views.
But you won't make progress on either of those areas while wasting time arguing against reality. The more effort you put at that, the more the question of what solutions to adapt will be dominated by other people, and those will not be the solutions you prefer.
In part through the use of fossil fuels our ancestors created a society where ordinary people are live in comfort and safety beyond the dreams even of the richest people of earlier days, and have opportunities denied their ancestors for millennia. But many good things have bad side effects and the task of those who received the benefits is to deal with those side effects.
That task has fallen to us.
It is one thing to fail our descendants because we were wrong. Far worse to fail them because we didn't try.
William Hyde
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
Nope, read again. Carefully.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 22:35:18 +0000, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not shining, >>> and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does not
affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has been
proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
Are you sure it isn't sarcasm the post contains?
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 20:53:42 +0000, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 9:55 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
And you really don't want to know what we do to Mobious Strip
Earthers....
Oh my goodness, there are really people on the intertubes espousing that
craziness !
Really? Other than as a joke? I'll have to look into this. But since
there are people who believe in a hollow Earth with holes at the poles,
I could almost believe there were Klein Bottle-earthers.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:13:44 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>>> wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does >>>>>> not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has >>>>>> been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific >>>> study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as >>>> well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
No, just illustrating that the sun affects the climate which some climate >>> hysterics don't seem to know.
You have demonstrated that the Sun affects the /weather/, not the
climate.
The Sun is basically a constant input so far as climate is concerned.
Greenhouse gasses, OTOH, are definitely /not/ a constant.
Wrong again Paul!
How Much Has the Suns Energy Varied Throughout Time?
The Suns energy output has varied over multiple time scales, primarily >influenced by solar cycles and longer-term patterns. The most notable >variations occur in an 11-year cycle, where the Suns brightness
fluctuates due to the reversal of its magnetic poles. During periods of
high solar activity, known as solar maximum, the Suns total brightness
can be approximately 0.1 percent higher than during solar minimum.
Short-Term Variations: The 11-Year Solar Cycle
The 11-year sunspot cycle is a well-documented phenomenon where the number >of sunspots increases and decreases in a predictable pattern. Observations >have shown that during strong cycles, there can be a variation in total >solar irradiance (the amount of solar energy received at the top of
Earths atmosphere) on the order of about 1 Watt per square meter. This >variation is relatively small compared to other climate influences but is >significant for understanding short-term climate impacts.
Long-Term Variations: Gleissberg Cycles and Grand Solar Minimums
In addition to the short-term variations associated with the 11-year
cycle, there are longer-term changes known as Gleissberg cycles, which
span approximately 100 years. Historical records indicate that there have >been three major Gleissberg cycles since the 1700s: from 1700-1810, >1810-1910, and 1910-2010. These cycles show alternating periods of
stronger and weaker solar activity.
Moreover, there have been instances of Grand Solar Minimumsextended
periods where sunspot activity significantly declines for several decades
or even centuries. The Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) is one such example, >during which sunspots virtually disappeared. While these grand minimums
can lead to temporary cooling effects on Earths climate, they do not >reverse long-term warming trends driven by human activities.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 3:03 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote:
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Overestimation of Temperature Increase
One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2s impact on temperature is that >>>> he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration.
I'm not aware that scientists concerned about global warming
are going around insisting Svante Arrhenius' estimates were
right.
Neglecting Water Vapors Dominance
Another critical factor in
Arrheniuss miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapors
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion >>>> of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on >>>> climate due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat
across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an
important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its
effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Now, this one is a total red herring.
The reason should be obvious.
What determines the level of water vapor in the atmosphere? Is it
being increased, say, by irrigation projects spraying water on
crops, which we should curtail before worrying about fossil
fuels?
No. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... is mostly due to
evaporation from the oceans and lakes and rivers. Which is controlled
by global temperatures.
So water vapor is part of a feedback loop that amplifies the effects
of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because the carbon dioxide
level is a *free* variable, that we're affecting significantly by our
use of fossil fuels.
John Savard
We have extra water in the upper atmosphere right now due to the underwater >> volcano spewing water vapor, "Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth
Closer to 1.5C of Warming"
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
"The underwater eruption of Hunga TongaHunga Haapai sent megatons of water
vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming >> over the next 5 years."
Lynn
Let me just add a note here, that this was a natural process and not man >made.
D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>> wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements. Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of
the greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). >>>> In his 1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric
CO2 could lead to an increase in global temperatures by approximately >>>> 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations
regarding the heat absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor. >>>>
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2s impact on temperature is
that he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6C; however, later revisions indicated that this
figure was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback
from contemporaries like Knut ngstrm, Arrhenius revised his
estimate downwards to around 1.2C directly and up to 2.1C when
accounting for feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrheniuss original calculations
were heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient
of CO2. The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines
how effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). ngstrm
challenged Arrheniuss values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This
discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for
the complexities involved in how different gases interact with
infrared radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapors Dominance Another critical factor in
Arrheniuss miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapors
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger
portion of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant
impact on climate due to its higher concentration and ability to
absorb heat across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized
CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize
that its effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics >>>> has evolved significantly since Arrheniuss time. Modern climate
models incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse
gases, including feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which
were not part of Arrheniuss simpler models. These advancements have
led to more accurate predictions regarding temperature increases
associated with rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect,
subsequent research revealed that his initial estimates were overly
optimistic due to errors in calculation methods and assumptions about >>>> atmospheric chemistry. His work serves as both a historical milestone >>>> in climate science and an example of how scientific understanding can >>>> evolve over time through rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or ever
discussed.
"Never" is a long time. You've been here how long?
Actually there's been a great deal of discussion on this in the past.
More than there should have been, given its off topic nature.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:12:55 +0000, Cryptoengineer wrote:
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans',
as opposed those polled.
I reveal what I meant when I noted that the other ones could easily be >prevented from voting by the guys with the white hoods.
I quoted the figures from an Angus Reid poll which split out the voting >preferences of _white_ Americans.
Although this is because Trump has strong rural support, and rural areas
are overwhelmingly white, I expect better from white America.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 04:31:40 +0000, quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 20:53:42 +0000, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 9:55 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
And you really don't want to know what we do to Mobious Strip
Earthers....
Oh my goodness, there are really people on the intertubes espousing that >>> craziness !
Really? Other than as a joke? I'll have to look into this. But since
there are people who believe in a hollow Earth with holes at the poles,
I could almost believe there were Klein Bottle-earthers.
A Globe with holes-in-the-poles is an object they can see and feel.
A Moebius strip is something the can see and feel.
On the Great Plains, the Earth sure /looks/ flat. Well, as long as you
don't raise your eyes up enough to notice the Rockies slowly getting
higher as you move West.
But a Klein bottle has no physical analogue. So I would be /very/
surprised at anyone believing the Earth is a Klein bottle.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to >>>>>>>> move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey
specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific >>>>>>>> autocracy along the lines of these guys:
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically >>>>>>>> finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and >>>>>>>> have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I >>>>>>>> think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for >>>>>>>> the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to >>>>>>>> come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological >>>>>>>> ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they >>>>>>>> say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My >>>>>>>> Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>> really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in >>>>>>> all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say >>>>>>> Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead. >>>>>>>
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>> wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due >>>>>> to that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly
inefficient (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years
of fuel.
Lynn
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day,
and measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
William Hyde
This is incorrect William.
You are concurring with Lynn's claim that global warming is due to the
sun. It is not. We do study variations in the sun's output very
closely, and such variations do not explain the current warming.
This has been known for decades.
You are also concurring with Lynn's claim that almost all climate
change in the past was due to solar change. We know this not to be
the case, in particular with the ice ages. We've known this for
decades, suspected it for more than a century.
The world has often in the distant past been warmer than it is now.
Yet the sun was dimmer. Clearly, other factors also count, even
dominate at times.
In your first paragraph you confuse climate with weather. That's a
mistake. Further, it does sometimes happen that night is warmer than
day. Weather's like that.
The press does indeed sometimes print stories about solar change. It
does not print that many for reasons given in the first paragraph.
But ignorance is not stupidity, it can be cured easily enough.
Lynn has maintained that he cannot believe in global change because it
would be bad for his business. He is probably wrong in this, but it is
for this reason that Lynn sees ignorance, or pretended ignorance, as
being in his financial interests. That is why I did not respond to Lynn. >>
While politics can attach itself to anything, at heart this is not a
political question. Observations show the earth to be warming, and
we know why. Unexpected predictions, like Stratospheric cooling, were
made in the 1960s and have been shown to be true (this alone
contradicts warming by increased solar output, though one ill-informed
person on this group cited it as evidence *against* AGW).
We have not yet begun to feel the worst effects, but weather events
around the world tell us that change is here. As do rigorous
statistical studies.
What to do about it? Now that is indeed a political question. One
might propose doing nothing, just adapting to change. One might
propose a severe cut in GHG emissions. One might propose
geoengineering. Or some mix of the above. But we'll never make
progress on these issues without accepting that the change is here,
and worse is on the way.
Thirty five years ago, I said technology. It was clear that humans
were going to use more and more energy, so that unless our energy
sources were cleaned we wouldn't stop below 4XC02. But we didn't put
the effort into it that was required. No matter how fast we implement
the low carbon technologies we now have or are developing, that alone
will not alone save us from a 3C warmer world.
I would guess that you and Lynn would be for adaptation - get used to
the higher temperatures and more acid ocean, somehow, - or
geoengineering. Either of those would probably have a less heavy
regulatory framework than emissions cuts and that would fit with your
political views.
But you won't make progress on either of those areas while wasting
time arguing against reality. The more effort you put at that, the
more the question of what solutions to adapt will be dominated by
other people, and those will not be the solutions you prefer.
In part through the use of fossil fuels our ancestors created a
society where ordinary people are live in comfort and safety beyond
the dreams even of the richest people of earlier days, and have
opportunities denied their ancestors for millennia. But many good
things have bad side effects and the task of those who received the
benefits is to deal with those side effects.
That task has fallen to us.
It is one thing to fail our descendants because we were wrong. Far
worse to fail them because we didn't try.
William Hyde
Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in your text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!
Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion
that what we see is natural and not man made. We also must remember that science is not democracy, where you vote, so it doesn't matter if 10
people believe X if 1 person can prove Y. Of course there is inertia in
the system, so the 10 won't change over night, but eventually, with a paradigm shift or two they will.
So since neither will convince the other, let's put that question aside,
and focus on the second part.
Regardless of if it is man made or natural, what to do?
Since climate, coast lines, temperatures and what ever has shifted
numerous times before (without the help of man) humanity has adapted or
moved to a better place.
The same strategy will work now as well. For instance, where I now live, there was once 3 km of ice (without the help of man, and it disappeared without the help of man too), and at that time no one lived here. Now
people live here.
So if one areas gets hot, people will move to another. There is also AC
and numerous other technologies to deal with that.
The coast line will move? Not a problem, move inland.
Eventually technology will solve all problems for us. Give electric cars 20-30 years and I'm sure they will be cheaper, and have further reach
than gasoline cars. Then even I will change to electric.
What will defintiely _not_ solve any problems, is eco-fascism, taxing
peopl and companies to death. This will bring in a new dark age or
soviet union, and people will die en masse. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think the climate-hysteric I agree most with is Björn Lomborg. He has explained why the current eco-fascist ideas about climate change is a disaster, and proposes techno-optimism.
He also explains why all is not doom and gloom. The planet has been
warmer, it is currently greening, so warmer climate will bring a lot of
good with it.
So I say, enjoy the ride, enjoy reclaiming deserts, and longer summers,
and do not work to introduce eco-fascism, which will only bring wars and death when the public gets desperate.
D writes:
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
Nope, read again. Carefully.
Actually, he stated your position accurately. You say a bunch of shit,
but you never point to any actual data or research that supports your position.
Perhaps you should read this chapter before continuing your anonymous trolling.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#section.9.1
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
Nope, read again. Carefully.
Actually, he stated your position accurately. You say a bunch of shit,
but you never point to any actual data or research that supports your position.
Perhaps you should read this chapter before continuing your anonymous trolling.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#section.9.1
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 22:34:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:13:44 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>>>> wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>>>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does >>>>>>> not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has >>>>>>> been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific >>>>> study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as >>>>> well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
No, just illustrating that the sun affects the climate which some climate >>>> hysterics don't seem to know.
You have demonstrated that the Sun affects the /weather/, not the
climate.
The Sun is basically a constant input so far as climate is concerned.
Greenhouse gasses, OTOH, are definitely /not/ a constant.
Wrong again Paul!
How Much Has the Sun’s Energy Varied Throughout Time?
The Sun’s energy output has varied over multiple time scales, primarily
influenced by solar cycles and longer-term patterns. The most notable
variations occur in an 11-year cycle, where the Sun’s brightness
fluctuates due to the reversal of its magnetic poles. During periods of
high solar activity, known as solar maximum, the Sun’s total brightness
can be approximately 0.1 percent higher than during solar minimum.
Short-Term Variations: The 11-Year Solar Cycle
The 11-year sunspot cycle is a well-documented phenomenon where the number >> of sunspots increases and decreases in a predictable pattern. Observations >> have shown that during strong cycles, there can be a variation in total
solar irradiance (the amount of solar energy received at the top of
Earth’s atmosphere) on the order of about 1 Watt per square meter. This
variation is relatively small compared to other climate influences but is
significant for understanding short-term climate impacts.
Long-Term Variations: Gleissberg Cycles and Grand Solar Minimums
In addition to the short-term variations associated with the 11-year
cycle, there are longer-term changes known as Gleissberg cycles, which
span approximately 100 years. Historical records indicate that there have
been three major Gleissberg cycles since the 1700s: from 1700-1810,
1810-1910, and 1910-2010. These cycles show alternating periods of
stronger and weaker solar activity.
Moreover, there have been instances of Grand Solar Minimums—extended
periods where sunspot activity significantly declines for several decades
or even centuries. The Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) is one such example,
during which sunspots virtually disappeared. While these grand minimums
can lead to temporary cooling effects on Earth’s climate, they do not
reverse long-term warming trends driven by human activities.
If it comes in /cycles/ then it does not affect long-term secular
trends. Such as global warming. But the equally-secular increase in greenhouse gases /does/ affect long-term secular trends.
As the Sun ages, AFAIK, it will eventually reach the point where it
/will/ have new and different effects on the Earth. Such as engulfing
it when it becomes a Red Giant extending out to the orbit of Mars.
But that's a long time away.
You cannot use a constant to explain a variable.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:05:53 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 3:03 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote:
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Overestimation of Temperature Increase
One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that
he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration.
I'm not aware that scientists concerned about global warming
are going around insisting Svante Arrhenius' estimates were
right.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance
Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s >>>>> role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion >>>>> of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on >>>>> climate due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat
across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an
important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its
effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Now, this one is a total red herring.
The reason should be obvious.
What determines the level of water vapor in the atmosphere? Is it
being increased, say, by irrigation projects spraying water on
crops, which we should curtail before worrying about fossil
fuels?
No. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... is mostly due to
evaporation from the oceans and lakes and rivers. Which is controlled
by global temperatures.
So water vapor is part of a feedback loop that amplifies the effects
of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because the carbon dioxide
level is a *free* variable, that we're affecting significantly by our
use of fossil fuels.
John Savard
We have extra water in the upper atmosphere right now due to the underwater >>> volcano spewing water vapor, "Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth
Closer to 1.5°C of Warming"
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
"The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai sent megatons of water
vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming >>> over the next 5 years."
Lynn
Let me just add a note here, that this was a natural process and not man
made.
Then perhaps it should be pointed out that it is also /temporary/ and
not part of the secular increase in global temperature, which is not temporary.
On 9/16/24 15:20, WolfFan wrote:
On Sep 16, 2024, quadibloc wrote
(in article<e09e6f2a9b6dd18907f3d1785e1b3ade@www.novabbs.com>):
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in
Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some
reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.
On 9/20/2024 3:12 AM, D wrote:
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate change
XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's largest
CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022).
On 9/20/2024 2:30 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:51:20 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, United
Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Since when have Germany, Poland or Turkey ever tested a nuke? Where is
your evidence concerning Cuba?
There are several other countries that certainly WOULD have built
nukes (and have the technology - or could build them fairly readily)
if they didn't have "the American umbrella" - Japan, maybe Taiwan,
certainly South Korea, Australia, Canada, Italy, Sweden (All of these
have nuclear power plants)
South Africa is known to have built nukes but Botha seems to have
ordered them destroyed before handing over to Mandela.
Pakistan has sold nuclear weapons to several countries. Taiwan is
rumored to have bought a dozen from them and are using them to threaten
the destruction of the Three Gorges Dam if China attacks Taiwan.
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from the
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
Nope, read again. Carefully.
Note the similarity with medieval christianity. Only "we" (the church or
today, the policitians) can save you (the public), but you must suffer
and pay tax. But... you can purchase peace in the form of "climate
compensation", only then may we forgive you your sins.
That is a very good comparison of CO2 taxes with indulgences.
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate change
XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's largest
CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022). China will not honor anyone's
request to stop their CO2 emissions. The USA is second at 13%. India
is third at 7%.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
In article <20240915b@crcomp.net>, Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:51:20 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, United >>Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Since when have Germany, Poland or Turkey ever tested a nuke? Where is
your evidence concerning Cuba?
There are several other countries that certainly WOULD have built
nukes (and have the technology - or could build them fairly readily)
if they didn't have "the American umbrella" - Japan, maybe Taiwan,
certainly South Korea, Australia, Canada, Italy, Sweden (All of these
have nuclear power plants)
On 9/20/2024 12:21 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/19/24 14:10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 2:34 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:12:55 +0000, Cryptoengineer wrote:
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans',
as opposed those polled.
I reveal what I meant when I noted that the other ones could easily be >>>> prevented from voting by the guys with the white hoods.
I quoted the figures from an Angus Reid poll which split out the voting >>>> preferences of _white_ Americans.
Although this is because Trump has strong rural support, and rural areas >>>> are overwhelmingly white, I expect better from white America.
John Savard
You are Canadian, we ignore your expectations here in the USA. Just like >>> every other country in the world.
Lynn
Indeed as a white American I too am disappointed to learn
of how many of us are dumb as door-nails. But I blame it all on
former President Rutherford B.Hayes, who in order to claim the
presidency pulled the Union Occupation forces out of the South.
This of course led to the end of the Era of Reconstruction and
the rise of the Black Codes which made it necessary for black
people to be employed by white men or be condemned to manual
labor for the county. Enforced by the Patrollers which amounted
to every white layabout.
I was also disappointed to learn that the great Republic
of Texas was founded with a stipulation in the Constitution that
only black slaves would be allowed in this new nation. Knowing
that though it is remarkable how many great free black people
have emerged from Texas. I will only cite Willie Brown who was
the leader in the State of California Legislature for many years
and the Mayor of San Francisco. This sort of racist thought
led to the foundation of Oregon and maybe a few other states.
It is no wonder that Mr.McGuire is resistant to the idea
that burning the millions of years of stored carbon is the cause
of global warming. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous per se unless
you are at the bottom of an enclosed space and the Carbon Dioxide
is displacing, due to the weight of the compound, the Oxygen that
you need to survive. It is however as mentioned endless times
a greenhouse gas and is contributing to Global Warming and to
of course the resultant weird and dangerous weather.
Carbon monoxide is the deadly gas which combines with
the hemoglobin in your bloodstream to smother you as it excludes
the amount of oxygen from your bloodstream that you need to live.
I would worry more about the CO coming out of a stack than the
COO, of course that is contributing to the warming. And the
heated gases might just melt your face.
I don't know if the world will continue to support complex
life in the future when the temperature is enough to boil brains.
Maybe though the most horrid conditions will be confined to only
most of the world and there may be oasis-es where complex life
can continue until relief after the next Ice Age.
bliss
If you have CO coming out of your stack then you have a problem. CO is a sign of incomplete combustion, a dangerous and potentially explosive condition.
Somebody here came up with a paper calculating the excess heat of the earth caused by humans for the next three centuries using the powers law. Now that might happen.
Lynn
On 9/20/24 01:23, D wrote:
Since climate, coast lines, temperatures and what ever has shifted
numerous times before (without the help of man) humanity has adapted or
moved to a better place.
The same strategy will work now as well. For instance, where I now live,
there was once 3 km of ice (without the help of man, and it disappeared
without the help of man too), and at that time no one lived here. Now
people live here.
So if one areas gets hot, people will move to another. There is also AC
and numerous other technologies to deal with that.
No, this strategy will no longer work, because now the world is
much more densely populated than in the long-past times to which
you refer. Now, the world is divided into nation-atates. With borders.
So if climate change prevents people in one area from growing food, they won't be able to move somewhere else and plant their crops; they will
be stuck where they are, and expected to starve to death peacefully.
John Savard
On 9/20/2024 3:12 AM, D wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 16:34, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>>> wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does >>>>>> not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has >>>>>> been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific >>>> study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as >>>> well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
Here is my entry. (5 lines instead of six.)
On August 12th, NZ's Climate Institute announced the purchase of a $20
million Supercomputer, an investment in NIWA’s world-leading climate,
marine and freshwater science and advanced technologies. If we had D's
post of 17th September before then, we could have saved millions by just >>> buying thermometers, umbrellas and torches for our research staff.
You do have a point. Enormous amount of money is wasted at the moment on
nonsense climate research. Instead if could be used to save millions of
lives in the third world, lower taxes and generally improve peoples lives. >>
As we all know, instead it is used to reinforce climate conspiracies in
order to allow the politicians to move to an authoritarian society based on >> eco-fascism.
Note the similarity with medieval christianity. Only "we" (the church or
today, the policitians) can save you (the public), but you must suffer and >> pay tax. But... you can purchase peace in the form of "climate
compensation", only then may we forgive you your sins.
That is a very good comparison of CO2 taxes with indulgences.
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate change XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's largest CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022). China will not honor anyone's request to stop their CO2 emissions. The USA is second at 13%. India is third at 7%.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Lynn
On 9/20/2024 7:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/20/2024 3:12 AM, D wrote:
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate change >>> XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's largest
CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022).
Actually, their emissions started to decline this year, after adding
very substantial renewable (solar, wind) resources - far more than the US.
Got facts ?
Texas alone added around 15,000 MW of solar this year. It has really complicated things for ERCOT Dispatch, "Duck Curve".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
Lynn
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:21:09 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree completely with Lynn which is why I am highly skeptical aboutNote the similarity with medieval christianity. Only "we" (the church or >>> today, the policitians) can save you (the public), but you must suffer
and pay tax. But... you can purchase peace in the form of "climate
compensation", only then may we forgive you your sins.
That is a very good comparison of CO2 taxes with indulgences.
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate change
XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's largest
CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022). China will not honor anyone's
request to stop their CO2 emissions. The USA is second at 13%. India
is third at 7%.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
the climate change rhetoric not because I'm a doubter but rather than
I doubt that any real solution is possible without Chinese
participation and it is totally unacceptable for the West to cripple
itself economically to no good end.
By all means we should do what we can but I would not support breaking
our economies (probably permanently) in support of an unreachable (at
least unreachable without Chinese participation) outcome.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:10:20 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
Nope, read again. Carefully.
The trouble with the whole global warming meme is that Earth has
demonstrably had wide temperature swings going back hundreds of
millions of years and the present is in fact one of the cooler times.
But most importantly it's established that there are 'tipping points'
which nobody really knows for sure where they are so even if climate
swings are 95% natural, that 5% portion from human activity COULD push
it over the edge.
(And this works in both directions - in the 80s we were more worried
about cooling rather than warming. I'm sure I'm not the only one here
who remembers all the talk of "nuclear winter")
Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in your
text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!
I leave those to you, and you provide plenty.
Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion that >> what we see is natural and not man made.
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified individuals.
But it doesn't matter, only arguments do. Neither you nor Lynn have offered a scintilla of evidence in defense of your position (the solar constant variations you mention in another post are the ones I cited above, and do not explain global warming at all).
science is not democracy, where you vote, so it doesn't matter if 10 people >> believe X if 1 person can prove Y.
But you can't prove Y. You haven't even tried. But I've presented evidence for X.
Of course there is inertia in
the system, so the 10 won't change over night, but eventually, with a
paradigm shift or two they will.
On the contrary, if the world of 2100 is two C warmer than today, denialists will still be denying.
So since neither will convince the other,
You don't even try. And your declaration of closed-mindedness is disturbing.
Regardless of if it is man made or natural, what to do?
Nowhere below do you mention the increasingly acid ocean. That place where our oxygen largely comes from. Life can adapt to slow changes in PH. But this is not slow.
What is your plan for that? And how much will it cost?
Since climate, coast lines, temperatures and what ever has shifted numerous >> times before (without the help of man) humanity has adapted or moved to a
better place.
The same strategy will work now as well. For instance, where I now live,
there was once 3 km of ice (without the help of man, and it disappeared
without the help of man too), and at that time no one lived here. Now
people live here.
This is one of the fundamental errors of denialists. To compare change that took place over eighteen thousand years with change due to take place over a couple of centuries.
So if one areas gets hot, people will move to another.
Great, let's move 30 million Brazilians to the US. I'm sure the republican party will have no problem with that!
And how about a hundred million Indians while you're at it? They may soon have to switch to more heat-resistant but lower yielding crops in India, so I'm sure some would prefer Kansas.
There is also AC
and numerous other technologies to deal with that.
Air conditioning does not work for farmland. Or were you planning on giving up food?
The areas of the world now too cold for agriculture mostly do not have good soil, or in some cases soil at all. Northern Ontario is a vast area, but even if it becomes warm enough to grow crops, it won't produce as much as a county in Iowa. After a century of effort it might just get there.
The coast line will move? Not a problem, move inland.
Sure, the cost of abandoning New York, London, Shanghai, Amsterdam, Washington, Miami, Hamburg ... it's a rounding error. Putting up housing, schools, transport, hospitals, factories, and the like for a billion people will boost the economy! Buy Toll Brothers!
Have we, as humans ever shown the ability to move large populations without a huge death toll?
eco-fascism, Power corrupts, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.
climate-hysteric
eco-fascist
He also explains why all is not doom and gloom. The planet has been warmer, >> it is currently greening,
Ah, that explains the vast forest fires. Black is the new green.
Last year's wildfires burnt 185,000 square kilometers in Canada. They didn't all go out in the winter. This year isn't so bad, only double thew worst previous year. Four years ago in Australia the toll was 240,000 square km.
so warmer climate will bring a lot of
good with it.
You provide zero evidence of this.
So I say, enjoy the ride, enjoy reclaiming deserts,
The general effect of warming is that areas which get a lot of rain get more, areas which get little get less.
So some dry areas are becoming deserts. Wet areas get flooding.
and do not work to introduce eco-fascism,
Just can't seem to stop the insults, can you?
which will only bring wars and
death when the public gets desperate.
War is on the way already, if not here. We'll see more as people get desperate.
So, the costs of doing nothing involve moving, housing, and etc, a billion people or so, somehow keeping the ocean sufficiently alkaline, converting
Australia has a single 20MW open pool nuclear reactor which is useful
for research and creating medical isotopes
So while it's true that we have a nuclear reactor we don't have
anything that would be useful to create nuclear weapons
On 9/20/2024 7:22 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/20/2024 2:30 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:51:20 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, United >>>>> Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan, >>>>> South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Since when have Germany, Poland or Turkey ever tested a nuke? Where is >>>> your evidence concerning Cuba?
There are several other countries that certainly WOULD have built
nukes (and have the technology - or could build them fairly readily)
if they didn't have "the American umbrella" - Japan, maybe Taiwan,
certainly South Korea, Australia, Canada, Italy, Sweden (All of these
have nuclear power plants)
South Africa is known to have built nukes but Botha seems to have
ordered them destroyed before handing over to Mandela.
Pakistan has sold nuclear weapons to several countries. Taiwan is
rumored to have bought a dozen from them and are using them to threaten
the destruction of the Three Gorges Dam if China attacks Taiwan.
Right. Which one of your apocalpytic future novels did that
come from?
You wish. Pakistan sells nuclear weapons for hard cash.
On 9/20/2024 7:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/20/2024 3:12 AM, D wrote:
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate change >>> XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's largest
CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022).
Actually, their emissions started to decline this year, after adding
very substantial renewable (solar, wind) resources - far more than the US.
Got facts ?
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/20/2024 7:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:Got facts ?
On 9/20/2024 3:12 AM, D wrote:
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate change >>>> XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's largest >>>> CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022).
Actually, their emissions started to decline this year, after adding
very substantial renewable (solar, wind) resources - far more than the US. >>
Texas alone added around 15,000 MW of solar this year. It has really
complicated things for ERCOT Dispatch, "Duck Curve".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
Lynn
Let me also add that in the first half of 2024, China began construction
on over 41 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power generation capacity. This
amount is significant as it represents a substantial portion of the global >new coal plant construction activities, accounting for approximately 90%
of the world’s total new coal power construction during that period.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:10:20 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
Nope, read again. Carefully.
The trouble with the whole global warming meme is that Earth has
demonstrably had wide temperature swings going back hundreds of
millions of years and the present is in fact one of the cooler times.
(And this works in both directions - in the 80s we were more worried
about cooling rather than warming. I'm sure I'm not the only one here
who remembers all the talk of "nuclear winter")
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear reactor to
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual >propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying
nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear
powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers
only to the propulsion system.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:21:09 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree completely with Lynn which is why I am highly skeptical about
the climate change rhetoric not because I'm a doubter but rather than
I doubt that any real solution is possible without Chinese
participation and it is totally unacceptable for the West to cripple
itself economically to no good end.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified >> individuals.
Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from >engineering, physics and the natural sciences, while many climate hysterics come
from gender science, postmodernism, economics, agriculture and other >hobby-sciences.
On 9/20/24 08:36, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 04:31:40 +0000, quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 20:53:42 +0000, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 9:55 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
And you really don't want to know what we do to Mobious Strip
Earthers....
Oh my goodness, there are really people on the intertubes espousing that >>>> craziness !
Really? Other than as a joke? I'll have to look into this. But since
there are people who believe in a hollow Earth with holes at the poles,
I could almost believe there were Klein Bottle-earthers.
A Globe with holes-in-the-poles is an object they can see and feel.
A Moebius strip is something the can see and feel.
On the Great Plains, the Earth sure /looks/ flat. Well, as long as you
don't raise your eyes up enough to notice the Rockies slowly getting
higher as you move West.
But a Klein bottle has no physical analogue. So I would be /very/
surprised at anyone believing the Earth is a Klein bottle.
A Klein bottle is a physical analogue.
Acme Klein Bottle <https://www.kleinbottle.com>
Acme will sell you a very large Klien bottle.
Just a search will bring you illustrations of the fine art
of the glass blower.
The earth may not be a Klein bottle but the Universe might be one. Or
at least we have no way yet of saying exactly what strange
geometry it follows. And I recall one SF story in a pulp magazine
that discovered the universe was more like a toilet.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/20/2024 12:21 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/19/24 14:10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 2:34 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:12:55 +0000, Cryptoengineer wrote:
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans', >>>>>> as opposed those polled.
I reveal what I meant when I noted that the other ones could easily be >>>>> prevented from voting by the guys with the white hoods.
I quoted the figures from an Angus Reid poll which split out the voting >>>>> preferences of _white_ Americans.
Although this is because Trump has strong rural support, and rural areas >>>>> are overwhelmingly white, I expect better from white America.
John Savard
You are Canadian, we ignore your expectations here in the USA. Just like >>>> every other country in the world.
Lynn
Indeed as a white American I too am disappointed to learn
of how many of us are dumb as door-nails. But I blame it all on
former President Rutherford B.Hayes, who in order to claim the
presidency pulled the Union Occupation forces out of the South.
This of course led to the end of the Era of Reconstruction and
the rise of the Black Codes which made it necessary for black
people to be employed by white men or be condemned to manual
labor for the county. Enforced by the Patrollers which amounted
to every white layabout.
I was also disappointed to learn that the great Republic
of Texas was founded with a stipulation in the Constitution that
only black slaves would be allowed in this new nation. Knowing
that though it is remarkable how many great free black people
have emerged from Texas. I will only cite Willie Brown who was
the leader in the State of California Legislature for many years
and the Mayor of San Francisco. This sort of racist thought
led to the foundation of Oregon and maybe a few other states.
It is no wonder that Mr.McGuire is resistant to the idea
that burning the millions of years of stored carbon is the cause
of global warming. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous per se unless
you are at the bottom of an enclosed space and the Carbon Dioxide
is displacing, due to the weight of the compound, the Oxygen that
you need to survive. It is however as mentioned endless times
a greenhouse gas and is contributing to Global Warming and to
of course the resultant weird and dangerous weather.
Carbon monoxide is the deadly gas which combines with
the hemoglobin in your bloodstream to smother you as it excludes
the amount of oxygen from your bloodstream that you need to live.
I would worry more about the CO coming out of a stack than the
COO, of course that is contributing to the warming. And the
heated gases might just melt your face.
I don't know if the world will continue to support complex
life in the future when the temperature is enough to boil brains.
Maybe though the most horrid conditions will be confined to only
most of the world and there may be oasis-es where complex life
can continue until relief after the next Ice Age.
bliss
If you have CO coming out of your stack then you have a problem. CO is a >> sign of incomplete combustion, a dangerous and potentially explosive
condition.
Somebody here came up with a paper calculating the excess heat of the earth >> caused by humans for the next three centuries using the powers law. Now that
might happen.
Lynn
Let me also add that there is zero risk of any brain boiling temperatures
on the earht due to CO2.
Note that historically, the maximum amount of CO2 in Earths atmosphere >historically was approximately 3,000 to 9,000 ppm. Today we are at an >estimate of 419.3 ppm.
Life existed happily, and the planet was covered in vegetation when the
CO2 level was 7x to 21x higher than today, so at least there is no need to >fear any brain boiling. =)
On 2024-09-16 15:57, a425couple wrote:
On 9/16/24 15:20, WolfFan wrote:
On Sep 16, 2024, quadibloc wrote
(in article<e09e6f2a9b6dd18907f3d1785e1b3ade@www.novabbs.com>):
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in
Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some >>> reason Ohio aint high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.
What sources?
A common, but inaccurate statement. Nuclear winter has nothing to
do with climate change, rather it's a product of nuclear war.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear reactor to
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual
propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying
nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear
powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers
only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/20/2024 7:22 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/20/2024 2:30 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:51:20 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, United >>>>>> Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan, >>>>>> South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Since when have Germany, Poland or Turkey ever tested a nuke? Where is >>>>> your evidence concerning Cuba?
There are several other countries that certainly WOULD have built
nukes (and have the technology - or could build them fairly readily) >>>>> if they didn't have "the American umbrella" - Japan, maybe Taiwan,
certainly South Korea, Australia, Canada, Italy, Sweden (All of these >>>>> have nuclear power plants)
South Africa is known to have built nukes but Botha seems to have
ordered them destroyed before handing over to Mandela.
Pakistan has sold nuclear weapons to several countries. Taiwan is
rumored to have bought a dozen from them and are using them to threaten >>>> the destruction of the Three Gorges Dam if China attacks Taiwan.
Right. Which one of your apocalpytic future novels did that
come from?
You wish. Pakistan sells nuclear weapons for hard cash.
You have _zero_ evidence for that claim.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:10:20 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
Nope, read again. Carefully.
The trouble with the whole global warming meme is that Earth has
demonstrably had wide temperature swings going back hundreds of
millions of years and the present is in fact one of the cooler times.
But most importantly it's established that there are 'tipping points'
which nobody really knows for sure where they are so even if climate
swings are 95% natural, that 5% portion from human activity COULD push
it over the edge.
(And this works in both directions - in the 80s we were more worried
about cooling rather than warming. I'm sure I'm not the only one here
who remembers all the talk of "nuclear winter")
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
A common, but inaccurate statement. Nuclear winter has nothing to
do with climate change, rather it's a product of nuclear war.
But, might it not be an effective way to counter global warming while
at the same time getting rid of people we don't like?
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
Nobody cares about Texas except Texans.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/20/2024 12:21 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/19/24 14:10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 2:34 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:12:55 +0000, Cryptoengineer wrote:
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans', >>>>>> as opposed those polled.
I reveal what I meant when I noted that the other ones could easily be >>>>> prevented from voting by the guys with the white hoods.
I quoted the figures from an Angus Reid poll which split out the
voting
preferences of _white_ Americans.
Although this is because Trump has strong rural support, and rural
areas
are overwhelmingly white, I expect better from white America.
John Savard
You are Canadian, we ignore your expectations here in the USA. Just
like every other country in the world.
Lynn
Indeed as a white American I too am disappointed to learn
of how many of us are dumb as door-nails. But I blame it all on
former President Rutherford B.Hayes, who in order to claim the
presidency pulled the Union Occupation forces out of the South.
This of course led to the end of the Era of Reconstruction and
the rise of the Black Codes which made it necessary for black
people to be employed by white men or be condemned to manual
labor for the county. Enforced by the Patrollers which amounted
to every white layabout.
I was also disappointed to learn that the great Republic
of Texas was founded with a stipulation in the Constitution that
only black slaves would be allowed in this new nation. Knowing
that though it is remarkable how many great free black people
have emerged from Texas. I will only cite Willie Brown who was
the leader in the State of California Legislature for many years
and the Mayor of San Francisco. This sort of racist thought
led to the foundation of Oregon and maybe a few other states.
It is no wonder that Mr.McGuire is resistant to the idea
that burning the millions of years of stored carbon is the cause
of global warming. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous per se unless
you are at the bottom of an enclosed space and the Carbon Dioxide
is displacing, due to the weight of the compound, the Oxygen that
you need to survive. It is however as mentioned endless times
a greenhouse gas and is contributing to Global Warming and to
of course the resultant weird and dangerous weather.
Carbon monoxide is the deadly gas which combines with
the hemoglobin in your bloodstream to smother you as it excludes
the amount of oxygen from your bloodstream that you need to live.
I would worry more about the CO coming out of a stack than the
COO, of course that is contributing to the warming. And the
heated gases might just melt your face.
I don't know if the world will continue to support complex
life in the future when the temperature is enough to boil brains.
Maybe though the most horrid conditions will be confined to only
most of the world and there may be oasis-es where complex life
can continue until relief after the next Ice Age.
bliss
If you have CO coming out of your stack then you have a problem. CO
is a sign of incomplete combustion, a dangerous and potentially
explosive condition.
Somebody here came up with a paper calculating the excess heat of the
earth caused by humans for the next three centuries using the powers
law. Now that might happen.
Lynn
Let me also add that there is zero risk of any brain boiling
temperatures on the earht due to CO2.
Note that historically, the maximum amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere historically was approximately 3,000 to 9,000 ppm. Today we are at an estimate of 419.3 ppm.
Life existed happily, and the planet was covered in vegetation when the
CO2 level was 7x to 21x higher than today, so at least there is no need
to fear any brain boiling. =)
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear reactor to
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual
propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying
nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear
powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers
only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than
the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are >"tactical" warheads, not city killers.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/20/2024 3:12 AM, D wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 16:34, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science
involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>>>> wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is >>>>>>>> due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly
inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the
day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does >>>>>>> not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has >>>>>>> been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed
scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as >>>>> well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
Here is my entry. (5 lines instead of six.)
On August 12th, NZ's Climate Institute announced the purchase of a $20 >>>> million Supercomputer, an investment in NIWA’s world-leading climate, >>>> marine and freshwater science and advanced technologies. If we had D's >>>> post of 17th September before then, we could have saved millions by
just
buying thermometers, umbrellas and torches for our research staff.
You do have a point. Enormous amount of money is wasted at the moment
on nonsense climate research. Instead if could be used to save
millions of lives in the third world, lower taxes and generally
improve peoples lives.
As we all know, instead it is used to reinforce climate conspiracies
in order to allow the politicians to move to an authoritarian society
based on eco-fascism.
Note the similarity with medieval christianity. Only "we" (the church
or today, the policitians) can save you (the public), but you must
suffer and pay tax. But... you can purchase peace in the form of
"climate compensation", only then may we forgive you your sins.
That is a very good comparison of CO2 taxes with indulgences.
Thank you Lynn, that is the word that escaped me.
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate
change XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's
largest CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022). China will not honor
anyone's request to stop their CO2 emissions. The USA is second at
13%. India is third at 7%.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Lynn
Yes! I think this is probably the best proof ever, that the climate
hysteria is just a political control tool. Do we see any serious efforts
on behalf of China, or the world to pressure china? Not at all. Do we
see any serious efforts at building nuclear, no.
What do we see?
Taxes, taxes, taxes, except perhaps, the increasing income, and nr of international tax free jobs for our elite politicians.
As long as our politicians don't deregulate nuclear, and pressure china
with a global boycott, to cut down to at least 13%, it is clear that not
even elite politicians believe in what they are saying or any "doomsday".
The only thing we hear is that the western man should be taxed to death
and return to medieval living conditions. What this has led too instead,
is an enormous gain of extreme left and extreme right parties, who
promise jobs and a good life to the gullible.
As long as western politicians insist on eco-fascism, eventually they
will drive one of the extremists to >50% of the votes if things get bad enough, and then it will be game over for that (or those) country
(countries) for at least a generation or two before they shake of the authoritarian yoke.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 9:55 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
...
And you really don't want to know what we do to Mobious StripCertainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the >>>>> narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or
ever discussed.
We also tend to be kind of hard on flat-earthers. Oh, the intolerance! >>>>
Earthers....
Oh my goodness, there are really people on the intertubes espousing that
craziness !
What idiots!
Everyone knows the Earth is a Klein Bottle!
From what I remember reading some years ago it isn't Pakistan that is
selling the weapons. It is the Pakistani _engineer/scientist_ who was
the driving force behind Pakistan's nuclear weapons program that is (or
at least was) selling the ability to make nuclear weapons.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from the >>>>> USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.Yup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear reactor to >>>> boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying
nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear
powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers
only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than
the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are
"tactical" warheads, not city killers.
Hiroshima was 15kt. It doesn't take much.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/20/2024 7:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:Got facts ?
On 9/20/2024 3:12 AM, D wrote:
The second real problem with the global warming XXXX XXXX climate change >>>>> XXXX XXXX climate disruption crowd is the fact that the world's largest >>>>> CO2 generator is China at 33% (2022).
Actually, their emissions started to decline this year, after adding
very substantial renewable (solar, wind) resources - far more than the US. >>>
Texas alone added around 15,000 MW of solar this year. It has really
complicated things for ERCOT Dispatch, "Duck Curve".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
Lynn
Let me also add that in the first half of 2024, China began construction
on over 41 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power generation capacity. This
amount is significant as it represents a substantial portion of the global >> new coal plant construction activities, accounting for approximately 90%
of the world???s total new coal power construction during that period.
1) stop posting in MIME format, this is usenet, not some useless web forum
2) Provide citations for your data.
3)
Coal plant commissioning
China commissioned 14 new coal plants in the first half of 2024,
which was a 79.3% decrease from the same period in 2023.
Coal power generation decline
China's coal power generation has decreased by 7% from June 2023
to June 2024 due to the growth of renewables.
(Above from the google search AI summary).
https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/china-puts-coal-on-back-burner-as-renewables-soar/
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified >>> individuals.
Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences, while many climate hysterics come
from gender science, postmodernism, economics, agriculture and other
hobby-sciences.
Nonsense. You must be Anthony Watts. Your statement is completely
false. 100%.
Rest of D (short for deranged?) ravings elided.
On 9/21/2024 7:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/20/2024 7:22 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/20/2024 2:30 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:51:20 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, >>>>>>> UnitedSince when have Germany, Poland or Turkey ever tested a nuke? Where is >>>>>> your evidence concerning Cuba?
Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan, >>>>>>> South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc. >>>>>>
There are several other countries that certainly WOULD have built
nukes (and have the technology - or could build them fairly readily) >>>>>> if they didn't have "the American umbrella" - Japan, maybe Taiwan, >>>>>> certainly South Korea, Australia, Canada, Italy, Sweden (All of these >>>>>> have nuclear power plants)
South Africa is known to have built nukes but Botha seems to have
ordered them destroyed before handing over to Mandela.
Pakistan has sold nuclear weapons to several countries. Taiwan is
rumored to have bought a dozen from them and are using them to threaten >>>>> the destruction of the Three Gorges Dam if China attacks Taiwan.
Right. Which one of your apocalpytic future novels did that
come from?
You wish. Pakistan sells nuclear weapons for hard cash.
You have _zero_ evidence for that claim.
From what I remember reading some years ago it isn't Pakistan that is selling the weapons. It is the Pakistani _engineer/scientist_ who was the driving force behind Pakistan's nuclear weapons program that is (or at least was) selling the ability to make nuclear weapons.
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 11:36:48 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/20/2024 12:21 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/19/24 14:10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/19/2024 2:34 PM, quadibloc wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:12:55 +0000, Cryptoengineer wrote:
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans', >>>>>>> as opposed those polled.
I reveal what I meant when I noted that the other ones could easily be >>>>>> prevented from voting by the guys with the white hoods.
I quoted the figures from an Angus Reid poll which split out the voting >>>>>> preferences of _white_ Americans.
Although this is because Trump has strong rural support, and rural areas >>>>>> are overwhelmingly white, I expect better from white America.
John Savard
You are Canadian, we ignore your expectations here in the USA. Just like >>>>> every other country in the world.
Lynn
Indeed as a white American I too am disappointed to learn
of how many of us are dumb as door-nails. But I blame it all on
former President Rutherford B.Hayes, who in order to claim the
presidency pulled the Union Occupation forces out of the South.
This of course led to the end of the Era of Reconstruction and
the rise of the Black Codes which made it necessary for black
people to be employed by white men or be condemned to manual
labor for the county. Enforced by the Patrollers which amounted
to every white layabout.
I was also disappointed to learn that the great Republic
of Texas was founded with a stipulation in the Constitution that
only black slaves would be allowed in this new nation. Knowing
that though it is remarkable how many great free black people
have emerged from Texas. I will only cite Willie Brown who was
the leader in the State of California Legislature for many years
and the Mayor of San Francisco. This sort of racist thought
led to the foundation of Oregon and maybe a few other states.
It is no wonder that Mr.McGuire is resistant to the idea
that burning the millions of years of stored carbon is the cause
of global warming. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous per se unless
you are at the bottom of an enclosed space and the Carbon Dioxide
is displacing, due to the weight of the compound, the Oxygen that
you need to survive. It is however as mentioned endless times
a greenhouse gas and is contributing to Global Warming and to
of course the resultant weird and dangerous weather.
Carbon monoxide is the deadly gas which combines with
the hemoglobin in your bloodstream to smother you as it excludes
the amount of oxygen from your bloodstream that you need to live.
I would worry more about the CO coming out of a stack than the
COO, of course that is contributing to the warming. And the
heated gases might just melt your face.
I don't know if the world will continue to support complex
life in the future when the temperature is enough to boil brains.
Maybe though the most horrid conditions will be confined to only
most of the world and there may be oasis-es where complex life
can continue until relief after the next Ice Age.
bliss
If you have CO coming out of your stack then you have a problem. CO is a >>> sign of incomplete combustion, a dangerous and potentially explosive
condition.
Somebody here came up with a paper calculating the excess heat of the earth >>> caused by humans for the next three centuries using the powers law. Now that
might happen.
Lynn
Let me also add that there is zero risk of any brain boiling temperatures
on the earht due to CO2.
Note that historically, the maximum amount of CO2 in Earths atmosphere
historically was approximately 3,000 to 9,000 ppm. Today we are at an
estimate of 419.3 ppm.
Life existed happily, and the planet was covered in vegetation when the
CO2 level was 7x to 21x higher than today, so at least there is no need to >> fear any brain boiling. =)
Of course it was covered in vegetation. Vegetation /lives/ on CO2.
And of course there was no brain boiling. Vegetation has no brain.
D wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, quadibloc wrote:
On 9/20/24 01:23, D wrote:
Since climate, coast lines, temperatures and what ever has shifted
numerous times before (without the help of man) humanity has adapted or >>>> moved to a better place.
The same strategy will work now as well. For instance, where I now live, >>>> there was once 3 km of ice (without the help of man, and it disappeared >>>> without the help of man too), and at that time no one lived here. Now
people live here.
So if one areas gets hot, people will move to another. There is also AC >>>> and numerous other technologies to deal with that.
No, this strategy will no longer work, because now the world is
much more densely populated than in the long-past times to which
you refer. Now, the world is divided into nation-atates. With borders.
So if climate change prevents people in one area from growing food, they >>> won't be able to move somewhere else and plant their crops; they will
be stuck where they are, and expected to starve to death peacefully.
John Savard
It will work. We have changed our environment for 1000s of years, and you
can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland.
And 99% of them would be dead in 24 hours, thus solving the climate crisis at a stroke!
You first.
At this point a "Stand on Zanzibar" reference is obligatory.
William Hyde
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure
nonsense.
D wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, quadibloc wrote:
On 9/20/24 01:23, D wrote:
Since climate, coast lines, temperatures and what ever has shifted
numerous times before (without the help of man) humanity has adapted or >>>> moved to a better place.
The same strategy will work now as well. For instance, where I now live, >>>> there was once 3 km of ice (without the help of man, and it disappeared >>>> without the help of man too), and at that time no one lived here. Now
people live here.
So if one areas gets hot, people will move to another. There is also AC >>>> and numerous other technologies to deal with that.
No, this strategy will no longer work, because now the world is
much more densely populated than in the long-past times to which
you refer. Now, the world is divided into nation-atates. With borders.
So if climate change prevents people in one area from growing food, they >>> won't be able to move somewhere else and plant their crops; they will
be stuck where they are, and expected to starve to death peacefully.
John Savard
It will work. We have changed our environment for 1000s of years, and you
can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland.
And 99% of them would be dead in 24 hours, thus solving the climate crisis at a stroke!
You first.
At this point a "Stand on Zanzibar" reference is obligatory.
William Hyde
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 16:34, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>> wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
Here is my entry. (5 lines instead of six.)
On August 12th, NZ's Climate Institute announced the purchase of a $20
million Supercomputer, an investment in NIWA’s world-leading climate,
marine and freshwater science and advanced technologies. If we had D's
post of 17th September before then, we could have saved millions by just
buying thermometers, umbrellas and torches for our research staff.
You do have a point.
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 11:36:48 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:snip
Let me also add that there is zero risk of any brain boiling temperatures
on the earht due to CO2.
Life existed happily, and the planet was covered in vegetation when the
CO2 level was 7x to 21x higher than today, so at least there is no need to >> fear any brain boiling. =)
Of course it was covered in vegetation. Vegetation /lives/ on CO2.
And of course there was no brain boiling. Vegetation has no brain.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified >>> individuals.
Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences, while many climate hysterics come
from gender science, postmodernism, economics, agriculture and other
hobby-sciences.
Nonsense. You must be Anthony Watts. Your statement is completely
false. 100%.
Rest of D (short for deranged?) ravings elided.
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure nonsense.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 11:36:48 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Let me also add that there is zero risk of any brain boiling temperatures >> on the earht due to CO2.
Note that historically, the maximum amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere >> historically was approximately 3,000 to 9,000 ppm. Today we are at an
estimate of 419.3 ppm.
Life existed happily, and the planet was covered in vegetation when the
CO2 level was 7x to 21x higher than today, so at least there is no need to >> fear any brain boiling. =)
Of course it was covered in vegetation. Vegetation /lives/ on CO2.
And of course there was no brain boiling. Vegetation has no brain.
The period he is referring to was 500 million years ago, so the sun was
5% cooler. Such a cooling will by itself cancel out a huge amount of
GHG warming. Several X, at least.
Something Wiwaxia, Marella, and Anomalocaris were doubtless grateful for.
Next I expect him to bring up the Hadean, where a CO2 concentration of perhaps 20X allowed archaic bacteria to thrive, and build a wonderful capitalist system.
On 9/21/2024 4:49 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:I have seen watched it once and have a file of it here.
On 9/21/24 11:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from the >>>>>>> USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.Yup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
reactor to
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual >>>>>> propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying
nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear >>>>>> powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers >>>>>> only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than
the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are
"tactical" warheads, not city killers.
Hiroshima was 15kt. It doesn't take much.
That bomb was barely functional and did not begin to realize
its power but still was a horror unleashed on a largely wooden city
and totally unsuspecting citizens. Read last "Train from Hiroshima"
by the way it went to Nagasaki. The Nagasaki bomb functioned better
but was mistargeted. Still horrible times for the populations.
But it has some descriptions of the hell world after the bombing
that are more vivid than the descriptions in the next item.
About Hiroshima there is a classic manga by a young man who
survived as a child protected by a stone wall from a blast that
evaporated his teacher standing by.
"Gen of Hiroshima", "Barefoot Gen", and "I saw it" are some of
titles used but Keiji Nakazawa, recently deceased was the author. He
lost his whole family. His father was very unpopular because of his
out-spoken pacifism and i believe that Keiji Nakazawa has a particular
POV. Gen was widely translated and distributed by the anti-nuclear
and peace movements.
Its a member of a fairly small list of books and films about the actual effects of nuclear war, as opposed to using one to set up a Mad Max type scenario.
Gen of Hiroshima
Threads
The War Game
The Day After
When the Bough Breaks
Perhaps "Panic in the Year Zero"
pt
On 22/09/24 03:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified
individuals.
Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences, while many climate hysterics come
from gender science, postmodernism, economics, agriculture and other
hobby-sciences.
Nonsense. You must be Anthony Watts. Your statement is completely
false. 100%.
Rest of D (short for deranged?) ravings elided.
Initially I chose D for Dishonest because of his plagiarism followed by
D for Dunce but D for Deranged is more accurate.
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 9:37:47 +0000, D wrote:
It will work. We have changed our environment for 1000s of years, and
you
can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland. That
the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure
nonsense.
That people need to secure permission to move across international
boundaries is not nonsense; it's a fact of life that can easily
be confirmed. Just try buying an airplane ticket to another country
without a passport and (usually) a visa.
While it is true that thanks to Norman Borlaug, the world is no
longer felt to be facing an urgent population crisis in absolute
terms, it is more populated than it was thousands of years ago, so
pretty much its entire habitable surface is organized into states
which patrol and defend their borders; that wasn't the case back
when people migrated to avoid past natural changes in climate.
John Savard
On 21/09/24 21:37, D wrote:
snip
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland.
Anticipating long division, the world population, (including
eco-fascists), is seven billion.
The area of Gotland Island is 2,994 km2.
Using climate-hysteric-free science, where would all those people park
their cars?
Would coal-fired vintage steam engine enthusiasts be allowed parades?
I can't think of any more at present, but there are probably other
questions that would need to be answered as well.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure
nonsense.
Unless you are making a cryptic reference to your previous claim that
Russia is seeking to steal the free world's toilet fittings, I can't
agree with you more. If people had nowhere to go, why would governments
build roads, how would travel agencies stay in business and why would
houses have doors?
Your presence here is a breath of fresh air with your original thinking!
P.S. Is there an airport on Gotland Island?
On 20/09/24 20:12, D wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 16:34, Titus G wrote:
On 19/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:snip
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>>>>>> really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>>>>>> wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to >>>>>>> that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient >>>>>>> (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and >>>>>> measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does >>>>>> not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has >>>>>> been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific >>>> study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as >>>> well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
Here is my entry. (5 lines instead of six.)
On August 12th, NZ's Climate Institute announced the purchase of a $20
million Supercomputer, an investment in NIWA’s world-leading climate,
marine and freshwater science and advanced technologies. If we had D's
post of 17th September before then, we could have saved millions by just >>> buying thermometers, umbrellas and torches for our research staff.
You do have a point.
Are you saying that my shorter posting doesn't contain as much ignorance
as yours above? Are you claiming my challenge is unsuccessful?
Will the heat dissipating from my red faced rage at failure contribute significantly to climate change? Ignore that last question. I can test
it myself as there is a thermometer here somewhere.
D wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in your >>>> text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!
I leave those to you, and you provide plenty.
Now we're talking! ;)
Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion
that what we see is natural and not man made.
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be
unqualified individuals.
Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences,
Those who work on global change are physicists, mathematicians, meteorologists, and so forth. We are not responsible for the words of those in the public sphere who may or may not take our work to extremes.
And it is dishonest of you to imply such.
As for your experts, a major source for them has been for years the "Oregon institute of science and medicine" petition. Examination of those on that list reveals a plethora of totally unqualified individuals, and of the qualified, some did not sign the list (one I know personally).
while many climate
hysterics
Now you are stating that your opponents are "hysterics". Again. That is a dishonest debate tactic.
Indeed, as I am debating you, you are attaching those labels to me. I resent that.
plain sight due political reasons.
I've looked at everything the denialist world has to offer.
They have no evidence.
I invite you to supply some. Actual reasoning, that is. Don't bother cut-and-pasting some page you don't actually understand yourself.
You don't even try. And your declaration of closed-mindedness is
disturbing.
Likewise. See above.
Not likewise.
I can explain why the pattern of warming we see is distinct - more warming
in higher than lower latitudes, more in winter than summer, more by night than day, cooling in the stratosphere. These are all predicted consequences of increased greenhouse gases, predictions that were made decades ago.
Can you explain this pattern without invoking greenhouse gases? Can you explain the warming at all?
No, we are not alike at all.
I seek reality, you seek factoids to support that which you believe already. You are a creature of politics.
William Hyde
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:10:20 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
Nope, read again. Carefully.
The trouble with the whole global warming meme is that Earth has
demonstrably had wide temperature swings going back hundreds of
millions of years and the present is in fact one of the cooler times.
That is not a problem at all.
First, the biosphere had time to adapt to those temperatures, which
changed very slowly, while we are now forcing change at a rate orders of >magnitude higher. Have you noticed how the trees in your area had
plenty of time to develop resistance to the mountain pine beetle so that >half of your lodgepole pine was not lost? What? They didn't?
Secondly, we were not supporting eight billion people in those past >climates. We did not have trillions of dollars of infrastructure
tailored to current conditions (such as, for example, being above water) >which will be wiped out.
Think the site C dam is costing a lot of money? Try relocating London >(Vancouver's average is at 34m, so you're fine for a long time even in
the worst case scenario).
But most importantly it's established that there are 'tipping points'
which nobody really knows for sure where they are so even if climate
swings are 95% natural, that 5% portion from human activity COULD push
it over the edge.
It's scary enough without tipping points. A world 3C warmer would be
very different. Costs of adaptation would be in the trillions, and even
so the forced relocation and death toll would be vast. The world would
be much poorer.
Four children have been born in my family in the past year. Most of
them will probably live to see the year 2100. What kind of world do you >want them to see?
(And this works in both directions - in the 80s we were more worried
about cooling rather than warming. I'm sure I'm not the only one here
who remembers all the talk of "nuclear winter")
That is an entirely separate issue, only to come about in the event of >nuclear war or asteroid impact. Nor is that science nearly as settled, >though there's evidence of a freeze after the K/T impact.
On 9/21/24 17:55, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 9/21/2024 4:49 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:I have seen watched it once and have a file of it here.
On 9/21/24 11:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from >>>>>>>> theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine >>>>>>>>
reactor to
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual >>>>>>> propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying >>>>>>> nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear >>>>>>> powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers >>>>>>> only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than >>>>> the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are >>>>> "tactical" warheads, not city killers.
Hiroshima was 15kt. It doesn't take much.
That bomb was barely functional and did not begin to realize
its power but still was a horror unleashed on a largely wooden city
and totally unsuspecting citizens. Read last "Train from Hiroshima"
by the way it went to Nagasaki. The Nagasaki bomb functioned better
but was mistargeted. Still horrible times for the populations.
But it has some descriptions of the hell world after the bombing
that are more vivid than the descriptions in the next item.
About Hiroshima there is a classic manga by a young man who
survived as a child protected by a stone wall from a blast that
evaporated his teacher standing by.
"Gen of Hiroshima", "Barefoot Gen", and "I saw it" are some of >>> titles used but Keiji Nakazawa, recently deceased was the author. He
lost his whole family. His father was very unpopular because of his
out-spoken pacifism and i believe that Keiji Nakazawa has a particular
POV. Gen was widely translated and distributed by the anti-nuclear
and peace movements.
Its a member of a fairly small list of books and films about the actual
effects of nuclear war, as opposed to using one to set up a Mad Max type
scenario.
Gen of Hiroshima
The manga goes on from the end of the film and
it runs to 12 volumes. Whenever I see volume 1 at the
SFPL-main I will pick it up and begin to re-read the
story, I have read it at least twice and if I had more
money and more room I would have my own set.
Threads
The War Game
The Day After
I think I have seen this on late night TV. Not too
impressive. It might be time to tranlate "Last Train
from Hiroshima" from text into a Live Action film with the
special effects now available.
On 2024-09-16 15:57, a425couple wrote:
On 9/16/24 15:20, WolfFan wrote:
On Sep 16, 2024, quadibloc wrote
(in article<e09e6f2a9b6dd18907f3d1785e1b3ade@www.novabbs.com>):
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in
Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some >>> reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.
What sources?
On 2024-09-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-09-16 15:57, a425couple wrote:
On 9/16/24 15:20, WolfFan wrote:
On Sep 16, 2024, quadibloc wrote
(in article<e09e6f2a9b6dd18907f3d1785e1b3ade@www.novabbs.com>):
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in
Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some >>>> reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.
What sources?
NY Times reports 12,000-20,000. Springfield News-Sun reports 15,000-20,000. (links are on my other computer). So 20,000 is the high end of estimates, but it is what is being reported.
It still amazes me in this era that people here spend time arguing facts rather than doing a simple search.
On 9/22/2024 5:13 AM, D wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in >>>>>> your text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!
I leave those to you, and you provide plenty.
Now we're talking! ;)
Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion >>>>>> that what we see is natural and not man made.
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be
unqualified individuals.
Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences,
Those who work on global change are physicists, mathematicians,
meteorologists, and so forth. We are not responsible for the words of
those in the public sphere who may or may not take our work to extremes. >>>
And it is dishonest of you to imply such.
It is not. Plenty of politicians and rent seekers in the climate field.
This has been proven again and again. There are also physicists who do
not agree, that is a fact.
As for your experts, a major source for them has been for years theEveryone who disagrees is unqualified, got it.
"Oregon institute of science and medicine" petition. Examination of
those on that list reveals a plethora of totally unqualified individuals, >>> and of the qualified, some did not sign the list (one I know personally). >>
while many climate
hysterics
Now you are stating that your opponents are "hysterics". Again. That is >>> a dishonest debate tactic.
Indeed, as I am debating you, you are attaching those labels to me. I
resent that.
Well, you have been caustic too. I will stop, since you don't like it. I
will refer to you as human, and the doomsday phenomenon of the climate
agitators as climate hysterics. Björn Lomborg is an example of someone I
disagree with, but who I do not call climate hysteric.
The reason I say climate hysteric is also that many people, and I do not
mean you, call people who disgaree with the narrative climate deniers.
That is possibly even more dishonest, trying to lump climate
rationalists together with holocaust deniers.
plain sight due political reasons.
I've looked at everything the denialist world has to offer.
They have no evidence.
I invite you to supply some. Actual reasoning, that is. Don't bother
cut-and-pasting some page you don't actually understand yourself.
I will give you 5.
Natural Climate Variability One of the primary arguments against man- made >> climate change is that
Earth’s climate has always experienced fluctuations due to natural
processes. Rationalists have explained that the warming observed in recent >> decades could be part of a natural cycle rather than a result of human
activity. They point to historical climate data showing periods of
warming and cooling over thousands of years, suggesting that current
changes may not be unprecedented.
Solar Activity Influence Another argument is that variations in solar
activity are responsible
for the observed changes in global temperatures. Increased solar
irradiance correlates with rising temperatures and natural
solar cycles have a more significant impact on climate than
human-generated greenhouse gases.
Questionable Climate Models The climate models are often flawed or overly
reliant on assumptions
about human impact. These models have failed to accurately replicate
past climate conditions and therefore cannot be trusted to forecast
future scenarios reliably.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Absorption Earth’s natural systems, such as oceans >> and forests, can absorb
significant amounts of CO2 emitted by human activities, mitigating
potential warming effects. This perspective suggests that the capacity
of these “carbon sinks” could offset any potential anthropogenic
emissions, reducing their overall impact on global temperatures.
Historical CO2 Levels and Temperature Correlation Studies indicate that
increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have
historically followed temperature rises rather than preceding them. This
correlation suggests that CO2 may not be a primary driver of climate
change but rather a response to other climatic factors.
You don't even try. And your declaration of closed-mindedness is
disturbing.
Likewise. See above.
Not likewise.
I can explain why the pattern of warming we see is distinct - more warming >>> in higher than lower latitudes, more in winter than summer, more by night >>> than day, cooling in the stratosphere. These are all predicted
consequences of increased greenhouse gases, predictions that were made
decades ago.
Can you explain this pattern without invoking greenhouse gases? Can you >>> explain the warming at all?
See 5 points above. Natural variation most likely.
No, we are not alike at all.
I seek reality, you seek factoids to support that which you believe
already. You are a creature of politics.
Now you are insulting me. But I'll let that pass, since this is an
aynchronous medium. I have not insulted you in this post.
William Hyde
Over the decades, I've observed that when a Usenet flamefest degrades
to the point that the participants are arguing about how they are
arguing, there's no point in paying much attention.
pt
On 9/22/2024 5:00 AM, D wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 21/09/24 21:37, D wrote:
snip
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland.
Anticipating long division, the world population, (including
eco-fascists), is seven billion.
The area of Gotland Island is 2,994 km2.
Using climate-hysteric-free science, where would all those people park
their cars?
Would coal-fired vintage steam engine enthusiasts be allowed parades?
I can't think of any more at present, but there are probably other
questions that would need to be answered as well.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure
nonsense.
Unless you are making a cryptic reference to your previous claim that
Russia is seeking to steal the free world's toilet fittings, I can't
agree with you more. If people had nowhere to go, why would governments
build roads, how would travel agencies stay in business and why would
houses have doors?
Your presence here is a breath of fresh air with your original thinking! >>> P.S. Is there an airport on Gotland Island?
It is not my role to answer that, it is the role of the individuals
themselves. I have demonstrated that there is plenty of space on the
planet. For individual preferences ask them. Personally I move hera and
there depending on the season.
Your Gotland reference would put 2.3 people on each square meter. Not
much personal space.
But its an idiot's argument, since sustaining the life of people
requires a lot more, just to feed them.
Already, 44% of Earth's land is under agricultural use.
We seem a lot closer to the limit there.
pt
On 9/22/2024 5:00 AM, D wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 21/09/24 21:37, D wrote:
snip
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland.
Anticipating long division, the world population, (including
eco-fascists), is seven billion.
The area of Gotland Island is 2,994 km2.
Using climate-hysteric-free science, where would all those people park
their cars?
Would coal-fired vintage steam engine enthusiasts be allowed parades?
I can't think of any more at present, but there are probably other
questions that would need to be answered as well.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure
nonsense.
Unless you are making a cryptic reference to your previous claim that
Russia is seeking to steal the free world's toilet fittings, I can't
agree with you more. If people had nowhere to go, why would governments
build roads, how would travel agencies stay in business and why would
houses have doors?
Your presence here is a breath of fresh air with your original thinking! >>> P.S. Is there an airport on Gotland Island?
It is not my role to answer that, it is the role of the individuals
themselves. I have demonstrated that there is plenty of space on the
planet. For individual preferences ask them. Personally I move hera
and there depending on the season.
Your Gotland reference would put 2.3 people on each square meter. Not
much personal space.
But its an idiot's argument, since sustaining the life of people
requires a lot more, just to feed them.
Already, 44% of Earth's land is under agricultural use.
We seem a lot closer to the limit there.
pt
On 9/22/24 10:15, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 9/22/2024 5:00 AM, D wrote:Sounds a lot like a "Stand on Zanzibar" situation.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 21/09/24 21:37, D wrote:
snip
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland. >>>>Anticipating long division, the world population, (including
eco-fascists), is seven billion.
The area of Gotland Island is 2,994 km2.
Using climate-hysteric-free science, where would all those people park >>>> their cars?
Would coal-fired vintage steam engine enthusiasts be allowed parades?
I can't think of any more at present, but there are probably other
questions that would need to be answered as well.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure >>>>> nonsense.
Unless you are making a cryptic reference to your previous claim that
Russia is seeking to steal the free world's toilet fittings, I can't
agree with you more. If people had nowhere to go, why would governments >>>> build roads, how would travel agencies stay in business and why would
houses have doors?
Your presence here is a breath of fresh air with your original
thinking!
P.S. Is there an airport on Gotland Island?
It is not my role to answer that, it is the role of the individuals
themselves. I have demonstrated that there is plenty of space on the
planet. For individual preferences ask them. Personally I move hera
and there depending on the season.
Your Gotland reference would put 2.3 people on each square meter. Not
much personal space.
But its an idiot's argument, since sustaining the life of people
requires a lot more, just to feed them.
Already, 44% of Earth's land is under agricultural use.
We seem a lot closer to the limit there.
pt
But putting everyone on the same small island is a bad idea.
We have plenty of high ground around the world and with some cooperation,rationing and good will we might be able to grow or other
wise provide enough food to keep them alive.
And we have to keep people alive to provide an adequate genetic
base for the future.
On 9/22/2024 12:25 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/22/24 10:15, Cryptoengineer wrote:What? And pass up the chance to insure that only people of the same
On 9/22/2024 5:00 AM, D wrote:Sounds a lot like a "Stand on Zanzibar" situation.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 21/09/24 21:37, D wrote:
snip
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of
gotland.
Anticipating long division, the world population, (including
eco-fascists), is seven billion.
The area of Gotland Island is 2,994 km2.
Using climate-hysteric-free science, where would all those people park >>>>> their cars?
Would coal-fired vintage steam engine enthusiasts be allowed parades? >>>>> I can't think of any more at present, but there are probably other
questions that would need to be answered as well.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure >>>>>> nonsense.
Unless you are making a cryptic reference to your previous claim that >>>>> Russia is seeking to steal the free world's toilet fittings, I can't >>>>> agree with you more. If people had nowhere to go, why would
governments
build roads, how would travel agencies stay in business and why would >>>>> houses have doors?
Your presence here is a breath of fresh air with your original
thinking!
P.S. Is there an airport on Gotland Island?
It is not my role to answer that, it is the role of the individuals
themselves. I have demonstrated that there is plenty of space on the
planet. For individual preferences ask them. Personally I move hera
and there depending on the season.
Your Gotland reference would put 2.3 people on each square meter. Not
much personal space.
But its an idiot's argument, since sustaining the life of people
requires a lot more, just to feed them.
Already, 44% of Earth's land is under agricultural use.
We seem a lot closer to the limit there.
pt
But putting everyone on the same small island is a bad idea.
We have plenty of high ground around the world and with some
cooperation,rationing and good will we might be able to grow or other
wise provide enough food to keep them alive.
And we have to keep people alive to provide an adequate genetic
base for the future.
skin color, religion and culture as you survive?
I invite you to supply some. Actual reasoning, that is. Don't bother
cut-and-pasting some page you don't actually understand yourself.
I will give you 5.
General comment.
You should read the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers", a non-technical description of the work done. It would save you much embarrassment.
And you would know what your "opponents" are actually doing. At the moment it's like you're playing Kriegspiel, and they're playing chess.
Natural Climate Variability One of the primary arguments against man-made
climate change is that
Earth’s climate has always experienced fluctuations due to natural
processes. Rationalists have explained that the warming observed in recent >> decades could be part of a natural cycle rather than a result of human
activity. They point to historical climate data showing periods of
warming and cooling over thousands of years, suggesting that current
changes may not be unprecedented.
This was, of course, one of the first things proposed as an alternative by the actual scientific community. It was rejected for several reasons:
(1) There is no analog to this in the record of natural climate variability. The speed of this warming is unprecedented in moderate climates. By orders of magnitude. Note that above you say "thousands of years". We're seeing changes of the same magnitude over decades.
(2) Natural variability is not without cause. No such cause is apparent. Variations in clouds, solar output, current, albedo, and other causes have been examined. Even changes in sea-salt aerosols. Nothing accounts for the current change.
Solar Activity Influence Another argument is that variations in solar
activity are responsible
for the observed changes in global temperatures. Increased solar
irradiance correlates with rising temperatures and natural
solar cycles have a more significant impact on climate than
human-generated greenhouse gases.
Wrong on several counts.
Variations in solar constant are not nearly large enough to account for the current warming, as the excerpt you posted a few days ago in response to Paul showed. And the warming has continued even when the sun was growing cooler.
The current warming would imply an increase of average solar radiation at the surface of the earth of several watts per square meter, much larger than the solar variability you cite, but in line with the forcing due to greenhouse gases.
An increase in solar output will produce more warming in areas that receive more sunlight. More warming at low latitudes than high, more in summer than winter. The opposite pattern, predicted by climate models as early as 1980, prevails.
An increase of solar output would warm the stratosphere. Instead the stratosphere is cooling, in line with the physics of global warming and as predicted as long ago as 1965.
The solar argument is refuted.
Questionable Climate Models The climate models are often flawed or overly
reliant on assumptions
about human impact. These models have failed to accurately replicate
past climate conditions and therefore cannot be trusted to forecast
future scenarios reliably.
These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the ice ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels in east Africa. Your source here is simply incorrect.
They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat them for the tenth time?). Neither of the ideas you propose above have made any correct predictions.
"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree".
It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Absorption Earth’s natural systems, such as oceans >> and forests, can absorb
significant amounts of CO2 emitted by human activities, mitigating
potential warming effects.
So what?
This is accounted for in the simulations. If we didn't include these effects the models would be calling for a 10C warming by 2100, rather than 2 (or so).
Do you actually think we're stupid enough not to account for CO2 absorbed by the oceans even though this has been known for well over a century? Or both stupid and dishonest?
If the oceans absorbed no CO2 they wouldn't be acidifying. Can I really be stupid enough to think that all CO2 stays in the atmosphere, and yet that a dangerous amount goes into the ocean?
Really, if I was running a conspiracy to fool the public I'd be much more clever than that.
This perspective suggests that the capacity
of these “carbon sinks” could offset any potential anthropogenic
emissions, reducing their overall impact on global temperatures.
Except that we've gone from 280 to over 410 ppm. So the offset, while welcome, is clearly not sufficient. Are you reading that which you are posting?
Historical CO2 Levels and Temperature Correlation Studies indicate that
increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have
historically followed temperature rises rather than preceding them. This
correlation suggests that CO2 may not be a primary driver of climate
change but rather a response to other climatic factors.
It is well known that CO2 can function as both a forcing and a feedback. A climate which warms for other reasons will result in a different biosphere, which may produce more warming and hence C02 will increase the original signal. This happened in the ice ages, which were magnified but not caused by C02 variations.
But in our time the C02 began to increase before the warming, not after. C02 (and other ghgs we produce) is the forcing.
As C02 and CH4 leach from Arctic soils it will also become a feedback, with very bad consequences for us.
Zero for five.
You don't even try. And your declaration of closed-mindedness is
disturbing.
Likewise. See above.
Not likewise.
I can explain why the pattern of warming we see is distinct - more warming >>> in higher than lower latitudes, more in winter than summer, more by night >>> than day, cooling in the stratosphere. These are all predicted
consequences of increased greenhouse gases, predictions that were made
decades ago.
Can you explain this pattern without invoking greenhouse gases? Can you >>> explain the warming at all?
See 5 points above. Natural variation most likely.
Nowhere in your five points did you even try to explain the above pattern, nor did you have any explanation that works for the warming.
Now you are insulting me. But I'll let that pass, since this is an
aynchronous medium. I have not insulted you in this post.
You fail to comment on facts presented, as you did in our previous discussions. You use the common political trick of posting "refutations" which are only superficially valid ("my opponent says he's tough on crime, but his son got a speeding ticket"). You demonize opponents.
You even posted:
"scientists are scrambling to support the
narrative in the hope of becoming part of the nobility of the future authoritarian society politicians are steering us towards."
which is utterly deranged. Is James Hansen up for a dukedom? Can I get at least a barony?
In this context, calling you a political creature seems more like a description than an insult. If you think it is an insult that may be a good sign for you.
But I still think you are making a political error. In your flailing against established fact of anthropogenic greenhouse warming you waste effort you could be using in pushing your program of dealing with the issue by doing nothing. "Do nothing" is generally an easy sell, but you can't leave the field entirely to your opponents.
Though, in your insistence that people could live at a density of several per square meter you paint yourself as a troll. No sane person could believe that. So say I and the ten other people in this room with me.
William Hyde
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC >>>>>> crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
On 9/22/24 20:44, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 9/22/2024 12:25 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:Every watch "Finding Your Roots" on PBS?
On 9/22/24 10:15, Cryptoengineer wrote:What? And pass up the chance to insure that only people of the same
On 9/22/2024 5:00 AM, D wrote:Sounds a lot like a "Stand on Zanzibar" situation.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 21/09/24 21:37, D wrote:
snip
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of
gotland.
Anticipating long division, the world population, (including
eco-fascists), is seven billion.
The area of Gotland Island is 2,994 km2.
Using climate-hysteric-free science, where would all those people
park
their cars?
Would coal-fired vintage steam engine enthusiasts be allowed parades? >>>>>> I can't think of any more at present, but there are probably other >>>>>> questions that would need to be answered as well.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure >>>>>>> nonsense.
Unless you are making a cryptic reference to your previous claim that >>>>>> Russia is seeking to steal the free world's toilet fittings, I can't >>>>>> agree with you more. If people had nowhere to go, why would
governments
build roads, how would travel agencies stay in business and why would >>>>>> houses have doors?
Your presence here is a breath of fresh air with your original
thinking!
P.S. Is there an airport on Gotland Island?
It is not my role to answer that, it is the role of the individuals
themselves. I have demonstrated that there is plenty of space on
the planet. For individual preferences ask them. Personally I move
hera and there depending on the season.
Your Gotland reference would put 2.3 people on each square meter. Not
much personal space.
But its an idiot's argument, since sustaining the life of people
requires a lot more, just to feed them.
Already, 44% of Earth's land is under agricultural use.
We seem a lot closer to the limit there.
pt
But putting everyone on the same small island is a bad idea.
We have plenty of high ground around the world and with some
cooperation,rationing and good will we might be able to grow or other
wise provide enough food to keep them alive.
And we have to keep people alive to provide an adequate genetic >>> base for the future.
skin color, religion and culture as you survive?
On 2024-09-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in
Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some >>>> reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.
What sources?
NY Times reports 12,000-20,000.
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC >>>>>>> crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them >>>> anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
There's been differing stories
The latest information I've seen is that he was registered democrat
before he lost voting rights for a felony convinction around 2002
He regained voting rights in 2012 and has been unaffiliated since
He posted in 2020 that he'd voted for Trump in 2016 but wanted him out
and he made contributions to various Democrats in the primaries, his
only political donations (total about $140 so hardly huge amounts)
This year he tagged Nikki Haley into a post suggesting she could form
a combined ticket with Vivek Ramaswamy to make a ticket "we could all
get behind"
So "he's a democrat" seems a dubious interpretation
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 9/22/2024 5:00 AM, D wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 21/09/24 21:37, D wrote:
snip
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland. >>>>Anticipating long division, the world population, (including
eco-fascists), is seven billion.
The area of Gotland Island is 2,994 km2.
Using climate-hysteric-free science, where would all those people park >>>> their cars?
Would coal-fired vintage steam engine enthusiasts be allowed parades?
I can't think of any more at present, but there are probably other
questions that would need to be answered as well.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure >>>>> nonsense.
Unless you are making a cryptic reference to your previous claim that
Russia is seeking to steal the free world's toilet fittings, I can't
agree with you more. If people had nowhere to go, why would governments >>>> build roads, how would travel agencies stay in business and why would
houses have doors?
Your presence here is a breath of fresh air with your original thinking! >>>> P.S. Is there an airport on Gotland Island?
It is not my role to answer that, it is the role of the individuals
themselves. I have demonstrated that there is plenty of space on the
planet. For individual preferences ask them. Personally I move hera and >>> there depending on the season.
Your Gotland reference would put 2.3 people on each square meter. Not
much personal space.
But its an idiot's argument, since sustaining the life of people
requires a lot more, just to feed them.
Already, 44% of Earth's land is under agricultural use.
We seem a lot closer to the limit there.
pt
Old argument that have been made countless of times. With GMO and science >you will be surprised 50 years from now at how cheap and plentiful food
and energy will be.
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC >>>>>>> crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them >>>> anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
There's been differing stories
The latest information I've seen is that he was registered democrat
before he lost voting rights for a felony convinction around 2002
He regained voting rights in 2012 and has been unaffiliated since
He posted in 2020 that he'd voted for Trump in 2016 but wanted him out
and he made contributions to various Democrats in the primaries, his
only political donations (total about $140 so hardly huge amounts)
This year he tagged Nikki Haley into a post suggesting she could form
a combined ticket with Vivek Ramaswamy to make a ticket "we could all
get behind"
So "he's a democrat" seems a dubious interpretation
On 9/21/2024 10:42 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/21/24 17:55, Cryptoengineer wrote:In development at 20th Century Fox.
On 9/21/2024 4:49 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:I have seen watched it once and have a file of it here.
On 9/21/24 11:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from >>>>>>>>> theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
reactor to
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual >>>>>>>> propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying >>>>>>>> nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear >>>>>>>> powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers >>>>>>>> only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than >>>>>> the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are >>>>>> "tactical" warheads, not city killers.
Hiroshima was 15kt. It doesn't take much.
That bomb was barely functional and did not begin to realize
its power but still was a horror unleashed on a largely wooden city
and totally unsuspecting citizens. Read last "Train from Hiroshima"
by the way it went to Nagasaki. The Nagasaki bomb functioned better
but was mistargeted. Still horrible times for the populations.
But it has some descriptions of the hell world after the bombing
that are more vivid than the descriptions in the next item.
About Hiroshima there is a classic manga by a young man who
survived as a child protected by a stone wall from a blast that
evaporated his teacher standing by.
"Gen of Hiroshima", "Barefoot Gen", and "I saw it" are some of
titles used but Keiji Nakazawa, recently deceased was the author. He
lost his whole family. His father was very unpopular because of his
out-spoken pacifism and i believe that Keiji Nakazawa has a particular >>>> POV. Gen was widely translated and distributed by the anti-nuclear
and peace movements.
Its a member of a fairly small list of books and films about the actual
effects of nuclear war, as opposed to using one to set up a Mad Max type >>> scenario.
Gen of Hiroshima
The manga goes on from the end of the film and
it runs to 12 volumes. Whenever I see volume 1 at the
SFPL-main I will pick it up and begin to re-read the
story, I have read it at least twice and if I had more
money and more room I would have my own set.
Threads
The War Game
The Day After
I think I have seen this on late night TV. Not too
impressive. It might be time to tranlate "Last Train
from Hiroshima" from text into a Live Action film with the
special effects now available.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 21:43:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 9/22/2024 5:00 AM, D wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 21/09/24 21:37, D wrote:
snip
you can fit all the world population on the swedish island of gotland. >>>>>Anticipating long division, the world population, (including
eco-fascists), is seven billion.
The area of Gotland Island is 2,994 km2.
Using climate-hysteric-free science, where would all those people park >>>>> their cars?
Would coal-fired vintage steam engine enthusiasts be allowed parades? >>>>> I can't think of any more at present, but there are probably other
questions that would need to be answered as well.
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure >>>>>> nonsense.
Unless you are making a cryptic reference to your previous claim that >>>>> Russia is seeking to steal the free world's toilet fittings, I can't >>>>> agree with you more. If people had nowhere to go, why would governments >>>>> build roads, how would travel agencies stay in business and why would >>>>> houses have doors?
Your presence here is a breath of fresh air with your original thinking! >>>>> P.S. Is there an airport on Gotland Island?
It is not my role to answer that, it is the role of the individuals
themselves. I have demonstrated that there is plenty of space on the
planet. For individual preferences ask them. Personally I move hera and >>>> there depending on the season.
Your Gotland reference would put 2.3 people on each square meter. Not
much personal space.
But its an idiot's argument, since sustaining the life of people
requires a lot more, just to feed them.
Already, 44% of Earth's land is under agricultural use.
We seem a lot closer to the limit there.
pt
Old argument that have been made countless of times. With GMO and science
you will be surprised 50 years from now at how cheap and plentiful food
and energy will be.
Since I'm currently 77 years old, I don't expect to be seeing much in
50 years. Well, not here at least.
These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the ice >> ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels in east >> Africa. Your source here is simply incorrect.
They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat them >> for the tenth time?). Neither of the ideas you propose above have made any >> correct predictions.
"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree".
It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.
Incorrect. They are just models, and past patterns do not guarantee
future performance. It is easy to create any model you want, to show any result you need.
This reliance on models instead of proof, is another huge weakness of climatologists and completely undermines their theories.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, D wrote:
These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the ice >>> ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels in east >>> Africa. Your source here is simply incorrect.
They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat them >>> for the tenth time?). Neither of the ideas you propose above have made any >>> correct predictions.
"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree".
It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.
Incorrect. They are just models, and past patterns do not guarantee
future performance. It is easy to create any model you want, to show any
result you need.
This reliance on models instead of proof, is another huge weakness of
climatologists and completely undermines their theories.
Good evening William, I found a great article on the unreliability of
models and why we cannot rely on them. I hope you enjoy the read!
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear reactor to
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual
propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying
nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear
powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers
only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than
the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are "tactical" warheads, not city killers.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 22:10:07 +1000, Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC >>>>>>>> crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them >>>>> anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
There's been differing stories
The latest information I've seen is that he was registered democrat
before he lost voting rights for a felony convinction around 2002
He regained voting rights in 2012 and has been unaffiliated since
He posted in 2020 that he'd voted for Trump in 2016 but wanted him out
and he made contributions to various Democrats in the primaries, his
only political donations (total about $140 so hardly huge amounts)
This year he tagged Nikki Haley into a post suggesting she could form
a combined ticket with Vivek Ramaswamy to make a ticket "we could all
get behind"
So "he's a democrat" seems a dubious interpretation
It's a Republican interpretation.
Anything to avoid the possibility that Trump's dissing everyone but
his base and then betraying his base on the topic of abortion could be
coming back to haunt him.
And, to blame Democrats for /daring/ to follow Trump's lead ("how dare
they! only /we/ can do that!" -- a cry echoed recently by Hezbollah
upon receiving a dose of their own medicine) and so provoking the
attempts.
But, in this case, I think he's just a nutter. And /that/ is assuming
he meant to shoot at Trump; since he didn't shoot, who can say what
(if anything) he had in mind?
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 08:48:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/21/2024 10:42 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/21/24 17:55, Cryptoengineer wrote:In development at 20th Century Fox.
On 9/21/2024 4:49 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:> Gen of Hiroshima
On 9/21/24 11:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from >>>>>>>>>> theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine >>>>>>>>>>
reactor to
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual >>>>>>>>> propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying >>>>>>>>> nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear >>>>>>>>> powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers >>>>>>>>> only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than >>>>>>> the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are >>>>>>> "tactical" warheads, not city killers.
Hiroshima was 15kt. It doesn't take much.
That bomb was barely functional and did not begin to realize >>>>> its power but still was a horror unleashed on a largely wooden city
and totally unsuspecting citizens. Read last "Train from Hiroshima"
by the way it went to Nagasaki. The Nagasaki bomb functioned better
but was mistargeted. Still horrible times for the populations.
But it has some descriptions of the hell world after the bombing
that are more vivid than the descriptions in the next item.
About Hiroshima there is a classic manga by a young man who >>>>> survived as a child protected by a stone wall from a blast that
evaporated his teacher standing by.
"Gen of Hiroshima", "Barefoot Gen", and "I saw it" are some of >>>>> titles used but Keiji Nakazawa, recently deceased was the author. He >>>>> lost his whole family. His father was very unpopular because of his >>>>> out-spoken pacifism and i believe that Keiji Nakazawa has a particular >>>>> POV. Gen was widely translated and distributed by the anti-nuclear >>>>> and peace movements.
Its a member of a fairly small list of books and films about the actual >>>> effects of nuclear war, as opposed to using one to set up a Mad Max type >>>> scenario.
I have seen watched it once and have a file of it here.
The manga goes on from the end of the film and
it runs to 12 volumes. Whenever I see volume 1 at the
SFPL-main I will pick it up and begin to re-read the
story, I have read it at least twice and if I had more
money and more room I would have my own set.
Threads
The War Game
The Day After
I think I have seen this on late night TV. Not too
impressive. It might be time to tranlate "Last Train
from Hiroshima" from text into a Live Action film with the
special effects now available.
I happened, a while back to run across two anime films set in the late war/post-war eras.
One was about the inhabitants of an island that was occupied by the
Soviets.
The other was about people who lived near Hiroshima.
To me, it looked like two efforts to come to grips with the past. Is
that, by any chance, a "thing" in current Japanese culture?
To which /Godzilla Minus One/ could be added, as it is set in the same
time frame. Although clearly not entirely realistic; but at least it's
more or less on topic.
On 9/23/2024 8:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 22:10:07 +1000, Mad HamishHe didn't shoot because he never got a line of sight on Trump.
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning >>>>>>>>> ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can >>>>>>>> singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like >>>>>> them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president! >>>>>
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a >>>>> lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to >>>>> avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short >>>>> fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
There's been differing stories
The latest information I've seen is that he was registered democrat
before he lost voting rights for a felony convinction around 2002
He regained voting rights in 2012 and has been unaffiliated since
He posted in 2020 that he'd voted for Trump in 2016 but wanted him out
and he made contributions to various Democrats in the primaries, his
only political donations (total about $140 so hardly huge amounts)
This year he tagged Nikki Haley into a post suggesting she could form
a combined ticket with Vivek Ramaswamy to make a ticket "we could all
get behind"
So "he's a democrat" seems a dubious interpretation
It's a Republican interpretation.
Anything to avoid the possibility that Trump's dissing everyone but
his base and then betraying his base on the topic of abortion could be
coming back to haunt him.
And, to blame Democrats for /daring/ to follow Trump's lead ("how dare
they! only /we/ can do that!" -- a cry echoed recently by Hezbollah
upon receiving a dose of their own medicine) and so provoking the
attempts.
But, in this case, I think he's just a nutter. And /that/ is assuming
he meant to shoot at Trump; since he didn't shoot, who can say what
(if anything) he had in mind?
On 9/23/24 18:38, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 9/23/2024 8:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:He left a note saying that he was going to attempt to kill
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 22:10:07 +1000, Mad HamishHe didn't shoot because he never got a line of sight on Trump.
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being >>>>>>>>>>> shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in >>>>>>>>>> the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem
leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can >>>>>>>>> singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting. >>>>>>>>>
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't
like them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president! >>>>>>
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a >>>>>> lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to >>>>>> avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short >>>>>> fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-
assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
There's been differing stories
The latest information I've seen is that he was registered democrat
before he lost voting rights for a felony convinction around 2002
He regained voting rights in 2012 and has been unaffiliated since
He posted in 2020 that he'd voted for Trump in 2016 but wanted him out >>>> and he made contributions to various Democrats in the primaries, his
only political donations (total about $140 so hardly huge amounts)
This year he tagged Nikki Haley into a post suggesting she could form
a combined ticket with Vivek Ramaswamy to make a ticket "we could all
get behind"
So "he's a democrat" seems a dubious interpretation
It's a Republican interpretation.
Anything to avoid the possibility that Trump's dissing everyone but
his base and then betraying his base on the topic of abortion could be
coming back to haunt him.
And, to blame Democrats for /daring/ to follow Trump's lead ("how dare
they! only /we/ can do that!" -- a cry echoed recently by Hezbollah
upon receiving a dose of their own medicine) and so provoking the
attempts.
But, in this case, I think he's just a nutter. And /that/ is assuming
he meant to shoot at Trump; since he didn't shoot, who can say what
(if anything) he had in mind?
Trump and apologizing for failing to do so.
He was using the wrong sort of gun so his planning was
defective. The gun he was using was not very accurate at over
100 yards and the closest he could have gotten was at least
3 times further.
Assasins this year are not a good crop. ;^)
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, D wrote:
These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the ice
ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels in east
Africa. Your source here is simply incorrect.
They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat them
for the tenth time?). Neither of the ideas you propose above have made any
correct predictions.
"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree". >>>> It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.
Incorrect. They are just models, and past patterns do not guarantee
future performance. It is easy to create any model you want, to show any >>> result you need.
This reliance on models instead of proof, is another huge weakness of
climatologists and completely undermines their theories.
Good evening William, I found a great article on the unreliability of
models and why we cannot rely on them. I hope you enjoy the read!
William wrote that he participated in the development of
the models. The Hoover institute doesn't do scientific research,
nor does it employ scientists. The author of the report you
quoted is an economist, the other works for a pharmaceutical company.
(BTW - did you get permission to respost the copyrighted content
you lifted from their website)?
On 9/23/2024 8:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 22:10:07 +1000, Mad HamishHe didn't shoot because he never got a line of sight on Trump.
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC >>>>>>>>> crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can >>>>>>>> singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them >>>>>> anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president! >>>>>
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a >>>>> lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to >>>>> avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short >>>>> fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
There's been differing stories
The latest information I've seen is that he was registered democrat
before he lost voting rights for a felony convinction around 2002
He regained voting rights in 2012 and has been unaffiliated since
He posted in 2020 that he'd voted for Trump in 2016 but wanted him out
and he made contributions to various Democrats in the primaries, his
only political donations (total about $140 so hardly huge amounts)
This year he tagged Nikki Haley into a post suggesting she could form
a combined ticket with Vivek Ramaswamy to make a ticket "we could all
get behind"
So "he's a democrat" seems a dubious interpretation
It's a Republican interpretation.
Anything to avoid the possibility that Trump's dissing everyone but
his base and then betraying his base on the topic of abortion could be
coming back to haunt him.
And, to blame Democrats for /daring/ to follow Trump's lead ("how dare
they! only /we/ can do that!" -- a cry echoed recently by Hezbollah
upon receiving a dose of their own medicine) and so provoking the
attempts.
But, in this case, I think he's just a nutter. And /that/ is assuming
he meant to shoot at Trump; since he didn't shoot, who can say what
(if anything) he had in mind?
Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
Australia has a single 20MW open pool nuclear reactor which is useful
for research and creating medical isotopes
Don't you still have one of the Westinghouse research reactors?
They
were reliable and safe and pretty much free from issues of misuse to
create plutonium. The US shipped a lot of them around the world....
even the Congo got one and Australia got a couple.
They are getting
long in the tooth and political issues are getting a lot of them shut
down, though. The one at Georgia Tech got shut down in the mid-nineties,
and the one in Pittsburgh got shut down at about the same time.
I was told by a Westinghouse engineer that they "were intrinsically
safe-- so safe even Italians can run them."
So while it's true that we have a nuclear reactor we don't have
anything that would be useful to create nuclear weapons
The problem is that it's hard to purify uranium to make bombs because
that is a difficult physical process that involves separating out
isotopes by very small atomic mass differences, while purifying plutonium
is a comparatively easy chemical process. So reactions that make
plutonium as a byproduct are frowned on by the UN crew, while reactions
whose decay products are anything other than plutonium are considered okay. >--scott
On 9/23/24 05:10, Mad Hamish wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC >>>>>>>> crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them >>>>> anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
There's been differing stories
The latest information I've seen is that he was registered democrat
before he lost voting rights for a felony convinction around 2002
He regained voting rights in 2012 and has been unaffiliated since
He posted in 2020 that he'd voted for Trump in 2016 but wanted him out
and he made contributions to various Democrats in the primaries, his
only political donations (total about $140 so hardly huge amounts)
This year he tagged Nikki Haley into a post suggesting she could form
a combined ticket with Vivek Ramaswamy to make a ticket "we could all
get behind"
So "he's a democrat" seems a dubious interpretation
Don't forget the Iranians who want to kill Trump because he
threatens them with war.
On 9/23/2024 8:44 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 08:48:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/21/2024 10:42 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/21/24 17:55, Cryptoengineer wrote:In development at 20th Century Fox.
On 9/21/2024 4:49 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:> Gen of Hiroshima
On 9/21/24 11:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from >>>>>>>>>>> theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear >>>>>>>>>> reactor to
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine >>>>>>>>>>>
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual >>>>>>>>>> propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying >>>>>>>>>> nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear >>>>>>>>>> powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers >>>>>>>>>> only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than >>>>>>>> the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are >>>>>>>> "tactical" warheads, not city killers.
Hiroshima was 15kt. It doesn't take much.
That bomb was barely functional and did not begin to realize >>>>>> its power but still was a horror unleashed on a largely wooden city >>>>>> and totally unsuspecting citizens. Read last "Train from Hiroshima" >>>>>> by the way it went to Nagasaki. The Nagasaki bomb functioned better >>>>>> but was mistargeted. Still horrible times for the populations.
But it has some descriptions of the hell world after the bombing
that are more vivid than the descriptions in the next item.
About Hiroshima there is a classic manga by a young man who
survived as a child protected by a stone wall from a blast that
evaporated his teacher standing by.
"Gen of Hiroshima", "Barefoot Gen", and "I saw it" are some of >>>>>> titles used but Keiji Nakazawa, recently deceased was the author. He >>>>>> lost his whole family. His father was very unpopular because of his >>>>>> out-spoken pacifism and i believe that Keiji Nakazawa has a particular >>>>>> POV. Gen was widely translated and distributed by the anti-nuclear >>>>>> and peace movements.
Its a member of a fairly small list of books and films about the actual >>>>> effects of nuclear war, as opposed to using one to set up a Mad Max type >>>>> scenario.
I have seen watched it once and have a file of it here.
The manga goes on from the end of the film and
it runs to 12 volumes. Whenever I see volume 1 at the
SFPL-main I will pick it up and begin to re-read the
story, I have read it at least twice and if I had more
money and more room I would have my own set.
Threads
The War Game
The Day After
I think I have seen this on late night TV. Not too
impressive. It might be time to tranlate "Last Train
from Hiroshima" from text into a Live Action film with the
special effects now available.
I happened, a while back to run across two anime films set in the late
war/post-war eras.
One was about the inhabitants of an island that was occupied by the
Soviets.
The other was about people who lived near Hiroshima.
To me, it looked like two efforts to come to grips with the past. Is
that, by any chance, a "thing" in current Japanese culture?
To which /Godzilla Minus One/ could be added, as it is set in the same
time frame. Although clearly not entirely realistic; but at least it's
more or less on topic.
Sort of. The Original Godzilla movies were part of the same thing. And >there are limits on Japanese military activities written into their >constitutions IIRC. (Which were recently loosened because of the
increasing threats from China, Russia and North Korea.) The loss of WW2
and the associated mass destruction, not just from the nukes but there
were a sharp poke in the eye, has had a traumatic effect on Japanese >culture. Not really a surprise.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, D wrote:
These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the ice
ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels in east
Africa. Your source here is simply incorrect.
They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat them
for the tenth time?). Neither of the ideas you propose above have made any
correct predictions.
"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree". >>>>> It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.
Incorrect. They are just models, and past patterns do not guarantee
future performance. It is easy to create any model you want, to show any >>>> result you need.
This reliance on models instead of proof, is another huge weakness of
climatologists and completely undermines their theories.
Good evening William, I found a great article on the unreliability of
models and why we cannot rely on them. I hope you enjoy the read!
William wrote that he participated in the development of
the models. The Hoover institute doesn't do scientific research,
nor does it employ scientists. The author of the report you
quoted is an economist, the other works for a pharmaceutical company.
(BTW - did you get permission to respost the copyrighted content
you lifted from their website)?
Anything about the content or only meta?
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 18:35:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 8:44 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 08:48:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/21/2024 10:42 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/21/24 17:55, Cryptoengineer wrote:In development at 20th Century Fox.
On 9/21/2024 4:49 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:> Gen of Hiroshima
On 9/21/24 11:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 9/21/2024 8:01 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:00:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Australia is buying several Virgina class attack submarines from >>>>>>>>>>>> theYup - but there's a huge difference between using a nuclear >>>>>>>>>>> reactor to
USA. One wonders what armament those subs will have. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine >>>>>>>>>>>>
boil steam to drive turbines which drive the sub (which is the usual
propulsion method in nuclear submarines) and submarines carrying >>>>>>>>>>> nuclear weapons (usually missiles). SSBNs are almost always nuclear >>>>>>>>>>> powered but carry nuclear missiles as opposed to SSNs which refers >>>>>>>>>>> only to the propulsion system.
SSNs carry Tomahawks. Look up TLAM-N.
Tomahawks have a much shorter range and smaller payload capacity than >>>>>>>>> the strategic missiles carried by SSBNs. The nukes on Tomahawks are >>>>>>>>> "tactical" warheads, not city killers.
Hiroshima was 15kt. It doesn't take much.
That bomb was barely functional and did not begin to realize
its power but still was a horror unleashed on a largely wooden city >>>>>>> and totally unsuspecting citizens. Read last "Train from Hiroshima" >>>>>>> by the way it went to Nagasaki. The Nagasaki bomb functioned better >>>>>>> but was mistargeted. Still horrible times for the populations. >>>>>>> But it has some descriptions of the hell world after the bombing >>>>>>> that are more vivid than the descriptions in the next item.
About Hiroshima there is a classic manga by a young man who >>>>>>> survived as a child protected by a stone wall from a blast that
evaporated his teacher standing by.
"Gen of Hiroshima", "Barefoot Gen", and "I saw it" are some of
titles used but Keiji Nakazawa, recently deceased was the author. He >>>>>>> lost his whole family. His father was very unpopular because of his >>>>>>> out-spoken pacifism and i believe that Keiji Nakazawa has a particular >>>>>>> POV. Gen was widely translated and distributed by the anti-nuclear >>>>>>> and peace movements.
Its a member of a fairly small list of books and films about the actual >>>>>> effects of nuclear war, as opposed to using one to set up a Mad Max type >>>>>> scenario.
I have seen watched it once and have a file of it here.
The manga goes on from the end of the film and
it runs to 12 volumes. Whenever I see volume 1 at the
SFPL-main I will pick it up and begin to re-read the
story, I have read it at least twice and if I had more
money and more room I would have my own set.
Threads
The War Game
The Day After
I think I have seen this on late night TV. Not too
impressive. It might be time to tranlate "Last Train
from Hiroshima" from text into a Live Action film with the
special effects now available.
I happened, a while back to run across two anime films set in the late
war/post-war eras.
One was about the inhabitants of an island that was occupied by the
Soviets.
The other was about people who lived near Hiroshima.
To me, it looked like two efforts to come to grips with the past. Is
that, by any chance, a "thing" in current Japanese culture?
To which /Godzilla Minus One/ could be added, as it is set in the same
time frame. Although clearly not entirely realistic; but at least it's
more or less on topic.
Sort of. The Original Godzilla movies were part of the same thing. And
there are limits on Japanese military activities written into their
constitutions IIRC. (Which were recently loosened because of the
increasing threats from China, Russia and North Korea.) The loss of WW2
and the associated mass destruction, not just from the nukes but there
were a sharp poke in the eye, has had a traumatic effect on Japanese
culture. Not really a surprise.
I don't doubt it, and don't forget the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which
killed more civilians than /either/ atomic bomb. Just took longer.
But, having seen three films set in this general period fairly
recently, I was asking if there is /currently/ a focus on
understanding that part of their past?
They are getting
long in the tooth and political issues are getting a lot of them shut
down, though. The one at Georgia Tech got shut down in the mid-nineties, >>and the one in Pittsburgh got shut down at about the same time.
I was told by a Westinghouse engineer that they "were intrinsically
safe-- so safe even Italians can run them."
Yeah, but they would say that wouldn't they?
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:02:21 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, D wrote:
These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the ice
ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels in east
Africa. Your source here is simply incorrect.
They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat them
for the tenth time?). Neither of the ideas you propose above have made any
correct predictions.
"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree". >>>>>> It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.
Incorrect. They are just models, and past patterns do not guarantee
future performance. It is easy to create any model you want, to show any >>>>> result you need.
This reliance on models instead of proof, is another huge weakness of >>>>> climatologists and completely undermines their theories.
Good evening William, I found a great article on the unreliability of
models and why we cannot rely on them. I hope you enjoy the read!
William wrote that he participated in the development of
the models. The Hoover institute doesn't do scientific research,
nor does it employ scientists. The author of the report you
quoted is an economist, the other works for a pharmaceutical company.
(BTW - did you get permission to respost the copyrighted content
you lifted from their website)?
Anything about the content or only meta?
What content? This is like citing Linus Pauling on the benefits of
Vitamin C.
Or, at best, an uninformed-by-relevant-scientific-knowledge opinion
piece.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 18:38:16 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
He didn't shoot because he never got a line of sight on Trump.
Also, it appears that he wrote a letter stating that he was, indeed, intending to get Trump. Since this was entered in court, it has a
certain amount of ... plausibility ... other stories do not, although
given the Kraken suits ... well, this time it's a prosecutor, not an
idiotic Trump lawyer (most of whom have, apparently, been fined/sanctioned/removed from the bar -- the courts having a low
tolerance for nonsense).
Meanwhile Trump is twice divorced, has cheated on all 3 wives, was
besties with Epstein for about 15 years until they fell out over
realestate (Epstein went to Trump for advice about how do do something
after he'd bought a house, Trump then outbid him for it)
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 0:08:18 +0000, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Given that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is measured in parts per million, I had
not thought of that as an important factor just yet.
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
I recently had dinner with a group of climatologists (one of our
conspiracy group meetings, at which we plotted against all
right-thinking people, as you know) and I failed to find any sign of desperation.
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Over the decades, I've observed that when a Usenet flamefest degrades
to the point that the participants are arguing about how they are
arguing, there's no point in paying much attention.
In general, I don't expect these to be read.
Typing them is good exercise for the fingers, though.
William Hyde
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:21:09 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree completely with Lynn which is why I am highly skeptical about
the climate change rhetoric not because I'm a doubter but rather than
I doubt that any real solution is possible without Chinese
participation and it is totally unacceptable for the West to cripple
itself economically to no good end.
The problem with your statement is that the Chinese _are_ participating
(to the extent that they added more solar than the rest of the world
combined in 2023 and doubled that in 2023).
The problem is that it's hard to purify uranium to make bombs because
that is a difficult physical process that involves separating out
isotopes by very small atomic mass differences, while purifying plutonium
is a comparatively easy chemical process. So reactions that make
plutonium as a byproduct are frowned on by the UN crew, while reactions
whose decay products are anything other than plutonium are considered okay.
Meanwhile Trump is twice divorced, has cheated on all 3 wives, was
besties with Epstein for about 15 years until they fell out over
realestate (Epstein went to Trump for advice about how do do something
after he'd bought a house, Trump then outbid him for it) and a fair >proportion of people he picked as part of his administration have said
he shouldn't be president again...
Knowing that the thing is possible is the hard part... from that part
working out how to do it isn't so hard. And maybe there is a still
easier way to do it that hasn't been found yet.
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible. Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line. Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
then* does the fossil go offline."
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves. They
want to impose energy restrictions for entirely other reasons.
(If their flying in their CO2-belching private jets,
individually, to international conferences preaching how we
need to forcibly restrict access to energy for the rest of
us didn't already make this pretty clear.)
On 25/09/24 10:01, William Hyde wrote:
snip
Puts on de hat.
I recently had dinner with a group of climatologists (one of our
conspiracy group meetings, at which we plotted against all
right-thinking people, as you know) and I failed to find any sign of
desperation.
Yes, because as eco terrorists you wish to hide any weakness but if you
were really confident as opposed to desperate, you would have already
ordered your golden crowns, purple robes and the media's housing section would be in just two sections, tiny homes, (Be Quick for the Gotland
Island Special Offer!), and the new medieval castles with modern architectural features such as drone stations instead of crenellations.
Takes off D hat.
quadibloc wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
That the world is overpopulated with no where to go to, is just pure >>>>> nonsense.
Needless to say, I disagree.
The above are not my words.
My response is more nuanced. He's partly right. The world is not so
overpopulated that people _couldn't_ be moved elsewhere to avoid the
consequences of climate change.
But the fact I cited, which he argued with, is that the world is
populated enough that everywhere people might want to go to in order
to escape climate change, there's a government which is very likely
not to allow them to do so.
It's not that the population level all by itself means there's
absolutely
no room,
This is a claim nobody has made. So contesting it is pointless.
it's just that the world is not organized any more so that
people can just migrate wherever they feel like.
Which was rather my point.
It's not that the US couldn't absorb 30 million Brazilians and 50 million Indians.
It's just that they won't.
William Hyde
Obviously the public material only exists to pacify the masses.
Or to summarize your attitude:
"I won't read anything which might contradict the views that I hold".
As witness your response to my comments on your "five points", which as a favour to all I will not bother to respond to.
I don't. I can tell you many times people have been shouting, calling me
a denier, almost becoming violent.
Poor child. Of course, it's not even news when people working for IPCC get death threats.
The demonizing is 100% on the climate
hysterics, and what you are seeing is a reaction to that environment.
Sorry, so you mean "climate hysterics" or "eco-facists" or "Eco-authoritarians"? Or "Scientists seeking to rule us all in the new feudal state". I've lost track. This demonizing business can be tricky!
That, in it self, that people who disagree are threatened, made to look
like holocaust deniers,
It is for this reason that for many years I did not use the word "denier", but preferred "skeptic". I too did not like the association.
But to be a skeptic requires engagement with the evidence. Your utter failure in this discussion to deal with the evidence I have repeatedly presented is an example. The pattern of warming shows the long-predicted characteristics of greenhouse gases, as I have pointed out many times, but you never engage with this. You simply deny.
Hence the label is appropriate.
and generally tried to be stopped at any price,
That's us climatologists. A wild and lawless bunch, the terrors of academia.
D wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, D wrote:
These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the >>>>>> ice
ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels in >>>>>> east
Africa. Your source here is simply incorrect.
They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat >>>>>> them
for the tenth time?). Neither of the ideas you propose above have made >>>>>> any
correct predictions.
"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree". >>>>>> It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.
Incorrect. They are just models, and past patterns do not guarantee
future performance. It is easy to create any model you want, to show any >>>>> result you need.
This reliance on models instead of proof, is another huge weakness of >>>>> climatologists and completely undermines their theories.
Good evening William, I found a great article on the unreliability of
models and why we cannot rely on them. I hope you enjoy the read!
William wrote that he participated in the development of
the models. The Hoover institute doesn't do scientific research,
nor does it employ scientists. The author of the report you
quoted is an economist, the other works for a pharmaceutical company.
(BTW - did you get permission to respost the copyrighted content
you lifted from their website)?
Anything about the content or only meta?
Yes, it's crap.
Better presented than your stuff, but still full of lies, distortions and omissions.
Nothing new, in other words.
William Hyde
On 21 Sep 2024 18:42:37 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Knowing that the thing is possible is the hard part... from that part
working out how to do it isn't so hard. And maybe there is a still
easier way to do it that hasn't been found yet.
That's not the entire story - an hour after the Hiroshima blast,
Japanese physics professors knew what had hit them and were amazed -
not at the physics but rather that the United States had managed to
dedicate the production capacity (which the Japanese had estimated and
told the Japanese government they couldn't dedicate that much
production capacity without breaking the rest of the military) to do
so in wartime.
On 23/09/24 11:09, William Hyde wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Over the decades, I've observed that when a Usenet flamefest degrades
to the point that the participants are arguing about how they are
arguing, there's no point in paying much attention.
In general, I don't expect these to be read.
I think D is the funniest troll we have had for ages. I also think most
here will be reading and appreciating your posts as I do. As I do not
have a background in any relevant science, I am also ignorant, not
concerned enough to alter that state as I am confident that GW is AGW
and have been so for some time but nowhere near as long Exxon Mobil et
al back in the 60s or 70s?
On 9/24/2024 11:19 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On 21 Sep 2024 18:42:37 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Knowing that the thing is possible is the hard part... from that part
working out how to do it isn't so hard. And maybe there is a still
easier way to do it that hasn't been found yet.
That's not the entire story - an hour after the Hiroshima blast,
Japanese physics professors knew what had hit them and were amazed -
not at the physics but rather that the United States had managed to
dedicate the production capacity (which the Japanese had estimated and
told the Japanese government they couldn't dedicate that much
production capacity without breaking the rest of the military) to do
so in wartime.
Admiral Yamamoto had tried to warn his government of the size of the
American industrial capacity but far too many either didn't want to
believe him or literally couldn't comprehend it.
Very true - which is why EVERY American nuke (excluding Little Boy,
the Hiroshima bomb) has been a plutonium bomb. (I have read the during
the 1950s they built another as an experimental device but never used
it and it was subsequently disassembled and melted down)
On 9/24/2024 8:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 18:38:16 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
He didn't shoot because he never got a line of sight on Trump.
Also, it appears that he wrote a letter stating that he was, indeed,
intending to get Trump. Since this was entered in court, it has a
certain amount of ... plausibility ... other stories do not, although
given the Kraken suits ... well, this time it's a prosecutor, not an
idiotic Trump lawyer (most of whom have, apparently, been
fined/sanctioned/removed from the bar -- the courts having a low
tolerance for nonsense).
_Some_ courts do. There is one high profile counter-example I'm sure
you've heard of.
Everything you need to know about Trump:
https://sundayguardianlive.com/investigation/123686
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 17:52:22 +1000, Mad Hamish ><newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
Meanwhile Trump is twice divorced, has cheated on all 3 wives, was
besties with Epstein for about 15 years until they fell out over
realestate (Epstein went to Trump for advice about how do do something >>after he'd bought a house, Trump then outbid him for it) and a fair >>proportion of people he picked as part of his administration have said
he shouldn't be president again...
All of which completely causes me consternation as to why far too many >evangelicals love Trump. The only reason I can see is that the
Democrats have swerved far to the left since Clinton. (Who was nearly
as much a horn-dog as Trump)
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 23:07:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 17:52:22 +1000, Mad Hamish
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
Meanwhile Trump is twice divorced, has cheated on all 3 wives, was
besties with Epstein for about 15 years until they fell out over
realestate (Epstein went to Trump for advice about how do do something
after he'd bought a house, Trump then outbid him for it) and a fair
proportion of people he picked as part of his administration have said
he shouldn't be president again...
All of which completely causes me consternation as to why far too many
evangelicals love Trump. The only reason I can see is that the
Democrats have swerved far to the left since Clinton. (Who was nearly
as much a horn-dog as Trump)
Clinton was the last fiscally-conservative President we had (if you
want proof, consider that his last budget left his successor with a
1.2B surplus -- promptly used to finance a Tax Cut for Rich People).
This made more like the traditional Republicans than the tax-and-spend Democrats. Republicans today, of course, are spend-and-spend
Republicans, which is why they are as responsible for the size of the National Debt and the Democrats are, if not somewhat more so.
Fiscally-speaking, it is a sad day when tax-and-spend Democrats are
the Party that at least /tries/ to keep the budget from escaping
completely from control.
Clinton was the last fiscally-conservative President we had (if you
want proof, consider that his last budget left his successor with a
1.2B surplus -- promptly used to finance a Tax Cut for Rich People).
On 9/25/2024 8:58 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
This is true and something you never read about in the newspapers. You
only hear about how many die due to heat, and how high taxes must be to
save the planet.
You never read about the millions dead due to cold (which outnumber
deaths due to heat) as well as what would happen if we were 100% solar
powered and many systems and services would collapse.\
"millions dead due to cold (which outnumber deaths due to heat)
Can you document this claim?
I don't think you can.
Everything you need to know about Trump:
https://sundayguardianlive.com/investigation/123686
John Savard
This is true, and I was wrong.
After I posted, I decided to do what I should have done first,
and check.
I found this article, with similar data: >https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
I tried to post a followup correction, but for some reason Agent
wouldn't let me.
I really try not to maintain a position after it is shown to
be incorrect.
Give me an electric car that goes as far (or further) than my gasoline
car, with a charging time that is equal, at a cost that is equal, and I
will definitely buy it.
On 2024-09-25, Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 8:58 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
This is true and something you never read about in the newspapers. You
only hear about how many die due to heat, and how high taxes must be to
save the planet.
You never read about the millions dead due to cold (which outnumber
deaths due to heat) as well as what would happen if we were 100% solar
powered and many systems and services would collapse.\
"millions dead due to cold (which outnumber deaths due to heat)
Can you document this claim?
I don't think you can.
One very nice in depth scientific overview (cites 50+ journal articles) is https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change
From the summary there:
It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per
year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6
million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and
0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures.
...
Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been
decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a
reduction in cold deaths. It has been estimated that warming from
2000 to 2019 has resulted in a net decline in excess deaths
globally (a larger decrease in cold deaths than an increase in
heat deaths).
Chris
On 9/25/2024 8:58 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
This is true and something you never read about in the newspapers. You only >> hear about how many die due to heat, and how high taxes must be to save the >> planet.
You never read about the millions dead due to cold (which outnumber deaths >> due to heat) as well as what would happen if we were 100% solar powered and >> many systems and services would collapse.\
"millions dead due to cold (which outnumber deaths due to heat)
Can you document this claim?
I don't think you can.
pt
On 9/25/2024 3:33 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-09-25, Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 8:58 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
This is true and something you never read about in the newspapers. You >>>> only hear about how many die due to heat, and how high taxes must be to >>>> save the planet.
You never read about the millions dead due to cold (which outnumber
deaths due to heat) as well as what would happen if we were 100% solar >>>> powered and many systems and services would collapse.\
"millions dead due to cold (which outnumber deaths due to heat)
Can you document this claim?
I don't think you can.
One very nice in depth scientific overview (cites 50+ journal articles) is >> https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change
From the summary there:
It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per
year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6
million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and
0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures.
...
Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been
decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a
reduction in cold deaths. It has been estimated that warming from
2000 to 2019 has resulted in a net decline in excess deaths
globally (a larger decrease in cold deaths than an increase in
heat deaths).
Chris
This is true, and I was wrong.
After I posted, I decided to do what I should have done first,
and check.
I found this article, with similar data: https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
I tried to post a followup correction, but for some reason Agent
wouldn't let me.
I really try not to maintain a position after it is shown to
be incorrect.
pt
On 2024-09-25, Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 8:58 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
This is true and something you never read about in the newspapers. You
only hear about how many die due to heat, and how high taxes must be to
save the planet.
You never read about the millions dead due to cold (which outnumber
deaths due to heat) as well as what would happen if we were 100% solar
powered and many systems and services would collapse.\
"millions dead due to cold (which outnumber deaths due to heat)
Can you document this claim?
I don't think you can.
One very nice in depth scientific overview (cites 50+ journal articles) is >https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change
From the summary there:
It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per
year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6
million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and
0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures.
...
Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been
decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a
reduction in cold deaths. It has been estimated that warming from
2000 to 2019 has resulted in a net decline in excess deaths
globally (a larger decrease in cold deaths than an increase in
heat deaths).
Chris
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate
scientists I know.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be
carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4
to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural
gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. There is
no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently
have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's
beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
On 21 Sep 2024 14:28:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
The problem is that it's hard to purify uranium to make bombs because
that is a difficult physical process that involves separating out
isotopes by very small atomic mass differences, while purifying plutonium >>is a comparatively easy chemical process. So reactions that make
plutonium as a byproduct are frowned on by the UN crew, while reactions >>whose decay products are anything other than plutonium are considered okay.
Very true - which is why EVERY American nuke (excluding Little Boy,
the Hiroshima bomb) has been a plutonium bomb. (I have read the during
the 1950s they built another as an experimental device but never used
it and it was subsequently disassembled and melted down)
In article <c0056f49-7df6-41f8-ee4c-8125d5ff0952@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Give me an electric car that goes as far (or further) than my gasoline
car, with a charging time that is equal, at a cost that is equal, and I
will definitely buy it.
I think hybrid is, given current technology, a superior
solution. My Prius got right around 50 MPG. With a 10.5 gallon
tank, that's 450 miles before the "low fuel" light lights, and
comfortably 50 miles range beyond that. (I got the "Low Fuel"
light a few miles from home in San Jose, drove back to work in
South San Francisco the next day, and drove to Costco next to
the San Francisco Airport at lunch to refuel. Slightly over
10 gallons to fill, so I still had a comfortable margin.)
I drove it for 13 years, no trouble with the battery, sold it
to a friend's son who was going off to college, and it's still
going strong. I tend to drive cars until they drive no more.
I'm contemplating a plug-in hybrid next time I have to buy a
car. Not nearly the electric range of a full electric, but
plenty for a retired person's trips to the store and whatnot.
And a normal gas car's range on gas for long trips.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 23:07:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 17:52:22 +1000, Mad Hamish
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
Meanwhile Trump is twice divorced, has cheated on all 3 wives, was
besties with Epstein for about 15 years until they fell out over
realestate (Epstein went to Trump for advice about how do do something
after he'd bought a house, Trump then outbid him for it) and a fair
proportion of people he picked as part of his administration have said
he shouldn't be president again...
All of which completely causes me consternation as to why far too many
evangelicals love Trump. The only reason I can see is that the
Democrats have swerved far to the left since Clinton. (Who was nearly
as much a horn-dog as Trump)
Clinton was the last fiscally-conservative President we had (if you
want proof, consider that his last budget left his successor with a
1.2B surplus -- promptly used to finance a Tax Cut for Rich People).
This made more like the traditional Republicans than the tax-and-spend Democrats. Republicans today, of course, are spend-and-spend
Republicans, which is why they are as responsible for the size of the National Debt and the Democrats are, if not somewhat more so.
Fiscally-speaking, it is a sad day when tax-and-spend Democrats are
the Party that at least /tries/ to keep the budget from escaping
completely from control.
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible. Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line. Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
then* does the fossil go offline."
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate scientists
I know.
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the
warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic economic decline. But even if we accept that this was
possible then, it isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few
decades.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be
carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4
to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. There is
no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently
have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's
beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
All of which completely causes me consternation as to why far too many >evangelicals love Trump. The only reason I can see is that the
Democrats have swerved far to the left since Clinton. (Who was nearly
as much a horn-dog as Trump)
a denier, almost becoming violent.
Poor child. Of course, it's not even news when people working for IPCC >>> get death threats.
Ahh, sorry, then it is ok. Climate-hysteric! On the other hand, I am not
surprised. Anything goes when it comes to climate rationalists, but
critique of the climate nobility must be silenced, preferably with fines
and violence. The climate rationalist on the other hand, can apparently
be shot in the head. I get it.
You clearly didn't understand what I said, so here goes.
Climate scientists get death threats. It's not rare.
On the other
hand, the nazis eventually lost power and so will eco-fascism. But I
honestly cannot blame your hostility.
Impugning the motives of your opponents is generally clear evidence of lack of confidence in your case.
must say what they want to hear to get your rewards.
As I mentioned my conspiracy cash seems to be lost in the mail, and there's no progress being made on my Barony.
It's almost as if the monetary compensation I got for my work consisted of my salary, and nothing else.
For the record, only two of my papers, three at most, deal with the current climate change. About as many as I have in solid state physics.
The majority of my work is in paleoclimate, specifically ice ages over the past 550 million years or so.
That's why I expect my conspiracy cheque to be pro-rated downwards.
Thank God for the money from the solid-state conspiracy folks. It's not easy fooling people into believing that the relativistic component of the anomalous g-shift in Lithium is .0022 when as any fool knows, it's actually .0023! But on such things does the coming quantum-facist state depend!
As for evidence, likewise. I've presented iron clad proofs and arguments
and you have not been able to refute them.
Finally, it turned out, that in the end, your arguments boiled down to
models, which as we saw, is completely unscientific given the variables,
the subjective nature, and how badly models work.
You've denied, often cut-and-pasting things you don't understand. You've tackled no evidence at all.
That's us climatologists. A wild and lawless bunch, the terrors of
academia.
Of the world... not just academia. The climate rationalists are the new
jews.
Well in that case you're safe, since there's nothing rational about your position at all.
In article <c0056f49-7df6-41f8-ee4c-8125d5ff0952@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Give me an electric car that goes as far (or further) than my gasoline
car, with a charging time that is equal, at a cost that is equal, and I
will definitely buy it.
I think hybrid is, given current technology, a superior
solution. My Prius got right around 50 MPG. With a 10.5 gallon
tank, that's 450 miles before the "low fuel" light lights, and
comfortably 50 miles range beyond that. (I got the "Low Fuel"
light a few miles from home in San Jose, drove back to work in
South San Francisco the next day, and drove to Costco next to
the San Francisco Airport at lunch to refuel. Slightly over
10 gallons to fill, so I still had a comfortable margin.)
I drove it for 13 years, no trouble with the battery, sold it
to a friend's son who was going off to college, and it's still
going strong. I tend to drive cars until they drive no more.
I'm contemplating a plug-in hybrid next time I have to buy a
car. Not nearly the electric range of a full electric, but
plenty for a retired person's trips to the store and whatnot.
And a normal gas car's range on gas for long trips.
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate scientists I know.
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic economic decline. But even if we accept that this was possible then, it isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. There is no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
William Hyde
In article <vd1td8$3qtr8$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate
scientists I know.
Good. You make ... what, the third? ... that has come to my
attention. In the past, when I've said this, what I've gotten
from the global warming folks in the conversation is "Noooooo,
nuclear is teh evulzzz!!!"
One of several reasons I took "Science Friday" off of my
podcast download was that in several years of listening
to it, they had many, many overheated (heh) stories about
global warming, but never once could bring themselves to
mention nuclear in that context. The only mention of
nuclear power I recall was one "nuclear is bad" story.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be
carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4
to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural
gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
Hydro is great, but as has been pointed out, all the good
sites have been taken. (And the greens, of course, are
clammoring to have even existing dams torn down.)
Apparently, phytoplankton could absorb a lot more CO2 if it
weren't for lack of the limiting nutrient, iron. Some experiements
should be done (*CAREFULLY*) along these lines, but they aren't.
One group did try something along these lines, and were roundly
condemned for doing it. (I did get the impression that their
experiment wasn't particularly well controlled, so perhaps they
did deserve some criticism, but it's been years, and nobody else
is even looking into this as far as I know.)
Any solution that doesn't involve shutting down fossil fuel
use *right now* generally gets shouted down with chants of
"Technofix!" as if that's a bad thing.
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to
2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic
economic decline. But even if we accept that this was possible then, it
isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in
the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefully >> done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degreeOh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. Better than
coal, but not good enough).
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance
we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!
In article <vd1td8$3qtr8$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate
scientists I know.
Good. You make ... what, the third? ... that has come to my
attention. In the past, when I've said this, what I've gotten
from the global warming folks in the conversation is "Noooooo,
nuclear is teh evulzzz!!!"
One of several reasons I took "Science Friday" off of my
podcast download was that in several years of listening
to it, they had many, many overheated (heh) stories about
global warming, but never once could bring themselves to
mention nuclear in that context. The only mention of
nuclear power I recall was one "nuclear is bad" story.
On 25/09/2024 21:08, D wrote:
https://sundayguardianlive.com/investigation/123686The guardian? That's a socialist rag.
There are two issues with that. The first is that The Graun is far from a leftwing paper. Left of centre in British terms, but rarely entirely happy with any socialist policy.
The other is that the link is to the Sunday Guardian of New Delhi.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to
2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic >>> economic decline. But even if we accept that this was possible then, it >>> isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in
the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?
There is a lot of hype around the concept of Small Nuclear Reactors;
yet many of the regulatory issues that apply to large power stations
will continue to apply to small (soi disant portable) reactors as
well - including waste disposal, safety, proliferation and decomissioning.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefullyOh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree
that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. Better than >>> coal, but not good enough).
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance
we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!
Hydro has several fundamental limits. Many of the places in the
world where hydro can be cost effective have already been developed. Like
all power sources, it also has downsides (silting, effects on migrating
fish populations (e.g. salmon) and ecosystem) along with the upsides (flood control, agricultural irrigation, at. al).
Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum. Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.). Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*]. Absurd, perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to
2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic >>>> economic decline. But even if we accept that this was possible then, it >>>> isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in
the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?
There is a lot of hype around the concept of Small Nuclear Reactors;
yet many of the regulatory issues that apply to large power stations
will continue to apply to small (soi disant portable) reactors as
well - including waste disposal, safety, proliferation and decomissioning. >>
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefullyOh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree
that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. Better than >>>> coal, but not good enough).
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance
we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!
Hydro has several fundamental limits. Many of the places in the
world where hydro can be cost effective have already been developed. Like
all power sources, it also has downsides (silting, effects on migrating
fish populations (e.g. salmon) and ecosystem) along with the upsides (flood >> control, agricultural irrigation, at. al).
Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum. Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.). Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*]. Absurd,
perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20
This has been discussed before, and I think you were proven wrong about >nuclear.
On 28/09/2024 01:50, Dimensional Traveler wrote:...
On 9/27/2024 3:55 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
I'd love to see more work done on thorium reactors.That _sounds_ like an obvious answer to I have to ask what the catch is.
No great catch, except that thorium reactors have been massively
over-hyped.
Less radioactive waste? Long-term waste is pretty much the same. Claims
for less short-term waste are ... disputable.
I'd love to see more work done on thorium reactors.That _sounds_ like an obvious answer to I have to ask what the catch is.
On 15/09/2024 21:21, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:02:45 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
I don't remember that there /was/ an assassination
attempt in the debate, if you don't count the handshake
in which he might have dropped dead from fright.
In article <vd7m9n$uguu$1@dont-email.me>,
Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/09/2024 01:50, Dimensional Traveler wrote:...
On 9/27/2024 3:55 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
I'd love to see more work done on thorium reactors.That _sounds_ like an obvious answer to I have to ask what the catch is.
No great catch, except that thorium reactors have been massively
over-hyped.
Less radioactive waste? Long-term waste is pretty much the same. ClaimsIt's actually the opposite.
for less short-term waste are ... disputable.
In general, short term waste (the really hot stuff) is fission products; the long term
waste (weakly radioactive)** is mostly transuranics.
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
Don wrote:
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
I'm not a Swiftie either, though she seems pleasant enough,
and it helps that she aligns with me against Trump.
After her endorsement, I dropped into a pro-Trump reddit
sub to see how they were taking it. There was one thread
which probably deserved a prize for Cleverest Title of the Year:
"Woman who made career singing about her bad choices chooses Harris"
I couldn't help but smile.
On 9/28/2024 11:53 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 28/09/2024 17:06, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <vd7m9n$uguu$1@dont-email.me>,
Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/09/2024 01:50, Dimensional Traveler wrote:...
On 9/27/2024 3:55 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:No great catch, except that thorium reactors have been massively
I'd love to see more work done on thorium reactors.That _sounds_ like an obvious answer to I have to ask what the catch is. >>>>
over-hyped.
Less radioactive waste? Long-term waste is pretty much the same. Claims >>>> for less short-term waste are ... disputable.It's actually the opposite.
Ah yes, my mistake here, got that the wrong way round. Too late at night,
can't sleep. My apologies.
I think we'd both agree that the short-term fission product waste is pretty >> much the same.
In general, short term waste (the really hot stuff) is fission products; >>> the long term
waste (weakly radioactive)** is mostly transuranics.
For the uranium cycle, yes: but for the thorium cycle the worst of the
long-term waste are the actinides Pa-231 and Th-229. There are others.
Not technically transuranics, but equally nasty heavier-than-lead non-
fission-product long-term wastes.
Sure thorium produces less transuranics - though not none - but the heavier >> transuranics/actinides produced by uranium tend to have short half-lives
and get consumed while still in the reactor. The lighter actinides produced >> from thorium tend to have longer half-lives and once the fuel is removed
from the reactor and left for a few years there are more of them left.
While the results of simulations vary depending on details of the reactor
conditions, for similar conditions long-term (10^3-10^4 years)
radiotoxicities generally do not vary much between uranium and thorium
fuels. Sometimes uranium wins, sometimes thorium,
If the actinides are reintroduced into the reactor they can in general be
destroyed. This is true for both uranium and thorium.
I have nothing against thorium vs uranium - except idiots who plan
trailer-sized molten salt reactors which can't cope with a post-SCRAM
meltdown and which are a huge proliferation risk and claim because it's
thorium it's somehow safer, and the like, and the like, and people who go
on and on about the supposed benefits of thorium.
[...]
You must be thrilled by Project Pele
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3915633/dod-breaks-ground-on-project-pele-a-mobile-nuclear-reactor-for-energy-resiliency/
pt
On 9/28/2024 11:53 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:[...]
I have nothing against thorium vs uranium - except idiots who plan
trailer-sized molten salt reactors which can't cope with a post-SCRAM
meltdown and which are a huge proliferation risk and claim because
it's thorium it's somehow safer, and the like, and the like, and
people who go on and on about the supposed benefits of thorium.
[...]
You must be thrilled by Project Pele
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3915633/dod-breaks-ground-on-project-pele-a-mobile-nuclear-reactor-for-energy-resiliency/
Now China plans to build the world’s first NPP based on molten salt in the >Gobi desert. Construction will begin in 2025 with the aim of developing
safer and more environmentally friendly nuclear energy. The reactor does
not need water for cooling, since it uses liquid salt and carbon dioxide
to transfer heat and generate electricity.
The reactor will use fuel enriched in less than 20% U-235, with a thorium >reserve of about 50 kg and a conversion factor of about 0.1. FLiBe – a >eutectic mixture of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride containing
99.95% lithium-7 will be used, and the fuel will consist of uranium >tetrafluoride (UF4).
It is expected that the implementation of the project will begin with some >refuelling online and removal of gaseous fission products. However, after
5-8 years, all fuel salts will be disposed of for processing and
separation of fission products and secondary actinides for storage. The >reactor will launch an ongoing process of processing uranium and thorium >salts with the operational separation of fission products and secondary >actinoids. If this project is successful, China plans to fully commission
a 373 MW reactor by 2030.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Now China plans to build the world’s first NPP based on molten salt in the >> Gobi desert. [..]
Okay, I am missing something somewhere. In order to make a heat engine
work (and generating power from nuclear reactions traditionally employs
a heat engine), you need a hot thing and a cold thing and a way to move
heat from one to the other. The hot thing is the reactor, but where is
the cold thing in the middle of the Gobi desert. CO2 is fine for transferring
heat (at low temperatures) but where do we put it?
So, this sounds to me like a breeder reactor and not a power reactor at
all. So if it works they're going to build a 373MW power reactor afterward?
On 29/09/2024 22:00, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Now China plans to build the world’s first NPP based on molten salt
in the
Gobi desert. [..]
Okay, I am missing something somewhere. In order to make a heat engine
work (and generating power from nuclear reactions traditionally employs
a heat engine), you need a hot thing and a cold thing and a way to move
heat from one to the other. The hot thing is the reactor, but where is
the cold thing in the middle of the Gobi desert. CO2 is fine for
transferring
heat (at low temperatures) but where do we put it?
It's a molten salt reactor, so the working fluid and the hot end of the
CO2 cycle is at at least 800C. Even Gobi air is way cool enough for that.
In article <5musejhgi2f0hhbdg0gf3ks66qdci6rduj@4ax.com>,
Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
Meanwhile Trump is twice divorced, has cheated on all 3 wives, was
besties with Epstein for about 15 years until they fell out over
realestate (Epstein went to Trump for advice about how do do something >>after he'd bought a house, Trump then outbid him for it)
Yeah, Trump is not exactly a person of sterling character.
Though the Trump/Epstein falling out was actually when Epstein
made advances on another Mar-A-Lago member's 14 year old
daughter, and Trump expelled him and cancelled his membership.
Hey, let's remove from all positions of power or authority
everyone who ever had any association with Epstein. I'd go
for that, if it's *everyone*, not just those with an "R"
next to their name on the ballot.
On 9/23/24 18:38, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 9/23/2024 8:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:He left a note saying that he was going to attempt to kill
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 22:10:07 +1000, Mad HamishHe didn't shoot because he never got a line of sight on Trump.
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:41:34 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:15:08 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/15/2024 9:02 PM, Don wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot. >>>>>>>>>>I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the >>>>>>>>>> debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning >>>>>>>>>> ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can >>>>>>>>> singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting. >>>>>>>>>
ObSF:
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like >>>>>>> them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president! >>>>>>
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a >>>>>> lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to >>>>>> avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short >>>>>> fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
There's been differing stories
The latest information I've seen is that he was registered democrat
before he lost voting rights for a felony convinction around 2002
He regained voting rights in 2012 and has been unaffiliated since
He posted in 2020 that he'd voted for Trump in 2016 but wanted him out >>>> and he made contributions to various Democrats in the primaries, his
only political donations (total about $140 so hardly huge amounts)
This year he tagged Nikki Haley into a post suggesting she could form
a combined ticket with Vivek Ramaswamy to make a ticket "we could all
get behind"
So "he's a democrat" seems a dubious interpretation
It's a Republican interpretation.
Anything to avoid the possibility that Trump's dissing everyone but
his base and then betraying his base on the topic of abortion could be
coming back to haunt him.
And, to blame Democrats for /daring/ to follow Trump's lead ("how dare
they! only /we/ can do that!" -- a cry echoed recently by Hezbollah
upon receiving a dose of their own medicine) and so provoking the
attempts.
But, in this case, I think he's just a nutter. And /that/ is assuming
he meant to shoot at Trump; since he didn't shoot, who can say what
(if anything) he had in mind?
Trump and apologizing for failing to do so.
He was using the wrong sort of gun so his planning was
defective. The gun he was using was not very accurate at over
100 yards and the closest he could have gotten was at least
3 times further.
Assasins this year are not a good crop. ;^)
bliss-wanted to be a gun nut but was not financially capable.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 02:30:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt ><usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <5musejhgi2f0hhbdg0gf3ks66qdci6rduj@4ax.com>,
Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
Meanwhile Trump is twice divorced, has cheated on all 3 wives, was >>>besties with Epstein for about 15 years until they fell out over >>>realestate (Epstein went to Trump for advice about how do do something >>>after he'd bought a house, Trump then outbid him for it)
Yeah, Trump is not exactly a person of sterling character.
Though the Trump/Epstein falling out was actually when Epstein
made advances on another Mar-A-Lago member's 14 year old
daughter, and Trump expelled him and cancelled his membership.
No, they fell out in 2004 when Epstein was looking at buying
property, got Trump's advice on how to make alterations (I think
moving an outdoor pool or something) and then found that Trump had
outbid him on the house
See >https://www.realestate.com.au/news/inside-623m-mansion-fight-that-led-to-donald-trumps-fallout-with-jeffrey-epstein/
There's claims that Epstein was kicked out of Mar-a-lago over attempts
to pick up an underage girl but that was a couple of years after
they'd already fallen out (and it's also worth pointing out that the
Trump Organisation has also previously denied that Epstein was ever a
member of any of their clubs so their statements may not be that
believable)
Years before that Trump's on the record as saying Epstein was fun to
hang with and liked them young...
Hey, let's remove from all positions of power or authority
everyone who ever had any association with Epstein. I'd go
for that, if it's *everyone*, not just those with an "R"
next to their name on the ballot.
I'm in favor of investigating everybody who was at all involved in
Epstein.
Funnly enough that does seem to be a major difference between the
Democrats and the Republicans. Democrats support investigating fully, >Republicans support removing Democrats and protecting republicans.
I like Taylor Swift's early songs through her fifth studio album,
"1989". I have yet to listen to any of her newer stuff. I took my wife
and my daughter to see her back in 2012 or so, it was an amazing show.
But I almost lost my hearing to all of the young girls screaming the
entire time.
In article <vdfj1e$2emmg$3@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I like Taylor Swift's early songs through her fifth studio album,
"1989". I have yet to listen to any of her newer stuff. I took my wife
and my daughter to see her back in 2012 or so, it was an amazing show.
But I almost lost my hearing to all of the young girls screaming the
entire time.
Ah. The same reason, back in the day, though I really liked
the Beatles' music, there's no way on this planet or any
other that I would have even considered going to one of their
concerts. I liked their *music*. At a concert, it was clear
the music was completely drowned out by tens of thousands of
teenyboppers shrieking incoherently at the top of their lungs.
I do not now and never have had any interest in hearing
teenyboppers shrieking incoherently at the top of their lungs.
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 23:48:55 +0000, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Oh, and the Gobi is a cold desert. With ice fields and stuff.
Really? Maybe parts of it, those at very high latitudes, are. But
I thought a lot of it was more like the Sahara or Death Valley,
with the usual temperatures we associate with deserts.
But I see that I'm mistaken. While most of it is not covered by
ice and snow, like other cold deserts, it is still considered to
be a cold desert. Nearly all of it is at a high latitude, and
it is close to Siberia, after all.
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for
cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you are
looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told.
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for
cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you are
looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told.
Huh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for
cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you are
looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told.
Huh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
On 10/2/2024 10:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for
cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you are
looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told.
Huh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
Camp Verde, Texas. A little over two hours north of me, been there a
few times. Basically a general store and restaurant now. The camels were successful but a big problem was that the Army's horses and mule would generally not tolerate them. As soon as the horses and mules smelled the camels they'd go crazy and bolt. Soldiers didn't like the smell either.
They were used successfully to transport supplies and for reconnaissance patrols. They performed better than the mules, some of which died on the treks. In fact, one camel was bit by a rattlesnake and showed no ill
effects. (Yeah, may have been a dry bite, who knows.) The commander of
the camel corps extolled their virtues and requested (IIRC) a thousand
more but congress never got around to authorizing it. Army command just
kind of ignored the whole thing.
After the civil way they were sold off as a bunch to a private concern
who sold a few to the Ringling Circus but then the Army reclaimed them,
sent them to Arizona and let them loose. They just died out.
On 10/2/2024 4:02 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 2:58 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 10:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for >>>>>> cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you areHuh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told. >>>>>
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
Camp Verde, Texas. A little over two hours north of me, been there a
few times. Basically a general store and restaurant now. The camels
were successful but a big problem was that the Army's horses and mule
would generally not tolerate them. As soon as the horses and mules
smelled the camels they'd go crazy and bolt. Soldiers didn't like the
smell either.
They were used successfully to transport supplies and for
reconnaissance patrols. They performed better than the mules, some of
which died on the treks. In fact, one camel was bit by a rattlesnake
and showed no ill effects. (Yeah, may have been a dry bite, who
knows.) The commander of the camel corps extolled their virtues and
requested (IIRC) a thousand more but congress never got around to
authorizing it. Army command just kind of ignored the whole thing.
After the civil way they were sold off as a bunch to a private
concern who sold a few to the Ringling Circus but then the Army
reclaimed them, sent them to Arizona and let them loose. They just
died out.
And of course I forgot to mention that they were Arabian camels, so
two humps.
Um, check that.
The two humped Bactrian camel is native to the steppes of Central Asia.
The Arabs use the one-humped Dromedary, found through North Africa
and the Arabian Penninsula. I've seen enough UAE camel race videos
to be certain.
94% of the world's camels are Dromedaries.
pt
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for
cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you are
looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told.
Huh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 25/09/24 10:01, William Hyde wrote:
snip
Puts on de hat.
I recently had dinner with a group of climatologists (one of our
conspiracy group meetings, at which we plotted against all
right-thinking people, as you know) and I failed to find any sign of
desperation.
Yes, because as eco terrorists you wish to hide any weakness but if you
were really confident as opposed to desperate, you would have already
ordered your golden crowns, purple robes and the media's housing section
would be in just two sections, tiny homes, (Be Quick for the Gotland
Island Special Offer!), and the new medieval castles with modern
architectural features such as drone stations instead of crenellations.
Takes off D hat.
Now you're getting it! Welcome to team liberty!
Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum. Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.). Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*]. Absurd, perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to
2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic >>>>> economic decline. But even if we accept that this was possible then, it >>>>> isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in >>>> the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?
There is a lot of hype around the concept of Small Nuclear Reactors;
yet many of the regulatory issues that apply to large power stations
will continue to apply to small (soi disant portable) reactors as
well - including waste disposal, safety, proliferation and decomissioning. >>>
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefullyOh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree
that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. Better than >>>>> coal, but not good enough).
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance >>>> we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!
Hydro has several fundamental limits. Many of the places in the
world where hydro can be cost effective have already been developed. Like >>> all power sources, it also has downsides (silting, effects on migrating
fish populations (e.g. salmon) and ecosystem) along with the upsides (flood >>> control, agricultural irrigation, at. al).
Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum. Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.). Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*]. Absurd,
perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20
This has been discussed before, and I think you were proven wrong about >>nuclear.
1) No, Chris asserted that "human ingenuity" is sufficient to
provide effectively infinite power from nuclear reactors.
He didn't prove anything other than wishful thinking. The
discussion was in the context of expanding the existing fleet
using existing technology within the context of the current
US legal regime which doesn't allow breeder reactors, which
even Chris would admit have proliferation issues at scale.
His dreams about infinite U from seawater are also wishful
thinking until the first large-scale extraction plant is
built and functioning economically.
I maintain that nuclear energy is a vital part of the energy
mix. I don't believe it can _replace_ all the other forms of
energy in that mix. Note that the world currently consumes
18TW and only a miniscule portion of that is from nuclear.
2) You really need to do your own research rather than parroting
right wing talking points without understanding the underlying
physical priciples.
Energy growth _cannot_ physically grow
forever at the rate it has grown for the last century and a
half, which is the point of that chapter in the textbook
referenced above. I challenge you to read it and then provide
constructive criticism of the presented physics.
On 10/2/2024 4:02 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 2:58 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 10:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for >>>>>> cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you areHuh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told. >>>>>
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
Camp Verde, Texas. A little over two hours north of me, been there a
few times. Basically a general store and restaurant now. The camels
were successful but a big problem was that the Army's horses and mule
would generally not tolerate them. As soon as the horses and mules
smelled the camels they'd go crazy and bolt. Soldiers didn't like the
smell either.
They were used successfully to transport supplies and for
reconnaissance patrols. They performed better than the mules, some of
which died on the treks. In fact, one camel was bit by a rattlesnake
and showed no ill effects. (Yeah, may have been a dry bite, who
knows.) The commander of the camel corps extolled their virtues and
requested (IIRC) a thousand more but congress never got around to
authorizing it. Army command just kind of ignored the whole thing.
After the civil way they were sold off as a bunch to a private concern
who sold a few to the Ringling Circus but then the Army reclaimed
them, sent them to Arizona and let them loose. They just died out.
And of course I forgot to mention that they were Arabian camels, so two
humps.
Um, check that.
The two humped Bactrian camel is native to the steppes of Central Asia.
The Arabs use the one-humped Dromedary, found through North Africa
and the Arabian Penninsula. I've seen enough UAE camel race videos
to be certain.
94% of the world's camels are Dromedaries.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for
cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you are >>>>looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told.
Huh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
In Quartzsite, Arizona, there is a gravesite with a small pyramid made
of quartz and petrified wood with a metal camel figure on the top that
is called the "Hi Jolly Monument". It commemorates a Syrian camel driver >named "Hadji Ali" (anglicized into "Hi Jolly") who was hired by the US
Army when they tried an experiment to see if camels could be used in the >western deserts of the US to transport people and freight. You can read
about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi_Jolly_Monument
On 10/2/2024 4:02 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 2:58 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 10:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for >>>>>> cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you areHuh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told. >>>>>
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
Camp Verde, Texas. A little over two hours north of me, been there a
few times. Basically a general store and restaurant now. The camels
were successful but a big problem was that the Army's horses and mule
would generally not tolerate them. As soon as the horses and mules
smelled the camels they'd go crazy and bolt. Soldiers didn't like the
smell either.
They were used successfully to transport supplies and for
reconnaissance patrols. They performed better than the mules, some of
which died on the treks. In fact, one camel was bit by a rattlesnake
and showed no ill effects. (Yeah, may have been a dry bite, who
knows.) The commander of the camel corps extolled their virtues and
requested (IIRC) a thousand more but congress never got around to
authorizing it. Army command just kind of ignored the whole thing.
After the civil way they were sold off as a bunch to a private
concern who sold a few to the Ringling Circus but then the Army
reclaimed them, sent them to Arizona and let them loose. They just
died out.
And of course I forgot to mention that they were Arabian camels, so
two humps.
Um, check that.
The two humped Bactrian camel is native to the steppes of Central Asia.
The Arabs use the one-humped Dromedary, found through North Africa
and the Arabian Penninsula. I've seen enough UAE camel race videos
to be certain.
94% of the world's camels are Dromedaries.
pt
On 9/22/2024 3:57 AM, D wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 22/09/24 03:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be
unqualified
individuals.
Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences, while many climate
hysterics come
from gender science, postmodernism, economics, agriculture and other >>>>> hobby-sciences.
Nonsense. You must be Anthony Watts. Your statement is completely
false. 100%.
Rest of D (short for deranged?) ravings elided.
Initially I chose D for Dishonest because of his plagiarism followed by
D for Dunce but D for Deranged is more accurate.
You can do better than that. On the other hand, this is usually how climate >> hysterics work.
Yup. I am mostly just sitting back watching with my popcorn.
Lynn
On 26/09/2024 10:10, D wrote:
I always wondered if it would be possible to build long power cables from
iceland to northern europe?
Often suggested, but very expensive to build for the capacity, and the times when high demand makes it look more viable are also the ones when copper prices are quite high.
See, for example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelink
G.
On 26/09/24 00:58, D wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 25/09/24 10:01, William Hyde wrote:
snip
Puts on de hat.
I recently had dinner with a group of climatologists (one of our
conspiracy group meetings, at which we plotted against all
right-thinking people, as you know) and I failed to find any sign of
desperation.
Yes, because as eco terrorists you wish to hide any weakness but if you
were really confident as opposed to desperate, you would have already
ordered your golden crowns, purple robes and the media's housing section >>> would be in just two sections, tiny homes, (Be Quick for the Gotland
Island Special Offer!), and the new medieval castles with modern
architectural features such as drone stations instead of crenellations.
Takes off D hat.
Now you're getting it! Welcome to team liberty!
I am not betraying any confidences as the following is information
freely available from public records.
(Please do not ask for references. If I am not making stuff up, I just
copy and paste from scientific sources.)
A massive acreage , (I don't know how to spell hectareage), in both the Arctic and Antarctica has been bought by The William Hyde Very Big
Company Inc. The company's owners are Canadian shell companies with solicitors as trustees for some scientific Government grant money so individual identity has not yet been traced.
Now that I'm a welcomed member of team liberty and can produce such insightful rational evidence as above without assistance, references or
much thought, I have no need for a mentor any more so you are back in my
kill file. Bye.
1) No, Chris asserted that "human ingenuity" is sufficient to
provide effectively infinite power from nuclear reactors.
NO! This is an outright falsehood. Unhappy at losing arguments despite
his distorting my claims by selectively snipping my text (I've
complained to him close a dozen times about this), Scott now is
inventing my text. I never said this.
How about this:
I hereby promise to donate $1000 to the charity of Scott's choice
if he can show that I said this. Let's see it, Scott!
I maintain that nuclear energy is a vital part of the energy
mix. I don't believe it can _replace_ all the other forms of
energy in that mix. Note that the world currently consumes
18TW and only a miniscule portion of that is from nuclear.
2) You really need to do your own research rather than parroting
right wing talking points without understanding the underlying
physical priciples.
Scott, you clearly don't believe that. How many citations did I give
in this argument? 8? 10? You completely ignored all of them; no signs
that you read them. You gave 2 citations as I remember. One to your cherished textbook (see below) which I believe you read, and one to an estimate of confirmed Uranium reserves which it was obvious you didn't
read (it later went into great detail as to why the confirmed reserves
were much smaller than the actual minable Uranium out there.) You
don't do your own research/reading, you've just been parroting the left wing talking points of your textbook.
Energy growth _cannot_ physically grow
forever at the rate it has grown for the last century and a
half, which is the point of that chapter in the textbook
referenced above. I challenge you to read it and then provide
constructive criticism of the presented physics.
Scott, I've read substantial portions of your physics textbook. It's a
mess. It's a self-published screed that has never undergone the
critical review process of an academic publisher. It's meant to be emotionally disturbing and convince its readers that they must reduce
their standard of living since no single alternative energy source can replace fossil fuels(!). It was reviewed by the official journal of
physics educators and completely panned; I've never seen a journal
review of a science book that was that negative. This is the quality
of science that you believe in, Scott?
Chris
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 9:01:40 +0000, D wrote:
You're confusing politics with laws of nature. Add to that that plenty
of
people move around without passports form time to time, myself included,
and yes, I have flown without ID or passports to.
It is an error to confuse politics with laws of nature.
However, if climate change mostly threatens the lives of people
in poor countries with little economic or military clout, then
people in rich countries will not be motivated to change
political obstacles in their way. Hence, from the viewpoint of
people living in the poor countries concerned, the political
obstacles will be just as immovable as ones posed by the laws of
nature.
It dismays me that I even have to _explain_ such things.
John Savard
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to
2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic >>>>> economic decline. But even if we accept that this was possible then, it >>>>> isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in >>>> the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?
There is a lot of hype around the concept of Small Nuclear Reactors;
yet many of the regulatory issues that apply to large power stations
will continue to apply to small (soi disant portable) reactors as
well - including waste disposal, safety, proliferation and decomissioning. >>>
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefullyOh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree
that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. Better than >>>>> coal, but not good enough).
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance >>>> we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!
Hydro has several fundamental limits. Many of the places in the
world where hydro can be cost effective have already been developed. Like >>> all power sources, it also has downsides (silting, effects on migrating
fish populations (e.g. salmon) and ecosystem) along with the upsides (flood >>> control, agricultural irrigation, at. al).
Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum. Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.). Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*]. Absurd,
perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20
This has been discussed before, and I think you were proven wrong about
nuclear.
1) No, Chris asserted that "human ingenuity" is sufficient to
provide effectively infinite power from nuclear reactors. He
didn't prove anything other than wishful thinking. The
discussion was in the context of expanding the existing fleet
using existing technology within the context of the current
US legal regime which doesn't allow breeder reactors, which
even Chris would admit have proliferation issues at scale.
His dreams about infinite U from seawater are also wishful
thinking until the first large-scale extraction plant is
built and functioning economically.
I maintain that nuclear energy is a vital part of the energy
mix. I don't believe it can _replace_ all the other forms of
energy in that mix. Note that the world currently consumes
18TW and only a miniscule portion of that is from nuclear.
2) You really need to do your own research rather than parroting
right wing talking points without understanding the underlying
physical priciples. Energy growth _cannot_ physically grow
forever at the rate it has grown for the last century and a
half, which is the point of that chapter in the textbook
referenced above. I challenge you to read it and then provide
constructive criticism of the presented physics.
Good. You make ... what, the third? ... that has come to my
attention. In the past, when I've said this, what I've gotten
from the global warming folks in the conversation is "Noooooo,
nuclear is teh evulzzz!!!"
The people who speak in public about global climate change are seldom the people who work at the science. The same as with any other major issue.
We are not in general a charismatic bunch, we do not wow the audience with out speaking abilities (with a few exceptions like Asimov). So the public face of the cause is people who are political. And among that crowd, "nuclear" is almost an obscenity.
Hydro is great, but as has been pointed out, all the good
sites have been taken.
I am not at all sure this is true. And yes, some dams were put in the wrong place and should be demolished (most of those do not produce power anyway).
On 2024-09-26, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum. Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.). Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*]. Absurd,
perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20
Your arguments are as nonsensical now as they were 4 months ago
when you tried the same thing (well, you've modified the rate down to 2.3% instead of 2.8%). You and Murphy do not understand very basic things
about scientific extrapolation and modeling.
Yes, if energy usage grows at 2.3%/year, after 400 years we'll be over
the boiling point of water. But it's equally true and informative
that if energy usage grows at 100%/year, after 15 years we'll be far above the boiling point of water. Ie, both have no relation to reality.
Modeling of the future is not done directly based on historical data;
it is done based on expected value in the future. As you very well
know, having carefully read the evidence and citations I presented
4 months ago, the expected energy growth is far less than even 2.3%/year.
The US forecast I presented back then was for growth between 0 and 15%
total by year 2050.
So how about some current figures: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html From 2010 to 2019 growth rate was 1.5%/year worldwide.
In 2023 it was markably higher (2.2%) but that was pretty much due to
a big bump by China (6.6%).
The energy growth in the developed countries (OECD) was -1.5% in 2023.
Does that mean we have to worry about reaching the freezing point of
water instead? (Not a serious question). As countries develop, their
growth rate will eventually decrease, given current concerns.
In any case, I know of no scientists predicting a growth rate of 2.3%/year. Your model does not reflect reality and your comments are pointless.
D wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate scientists I >>> know.
Hmm, we agree on something. This scares me. ;)
Surely we both agree that the rat is black's best defense against 1e4?
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming >>> to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve
catastrophic economic decline. But even if we accept that this was
possible then, it isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few
decades.
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in
the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?
I do not have expertise in this field. I cannot speak on this as a scientist but as a lay person. Answer: I don't know.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be
carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to >>> such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. >>> Better than coal, but not good enough).
Oh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance
we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!
I don't want to say that Hydro and Nuclear will solve our problems. There is no one solution. But I don't think we can afford at this point to ignore any means of dealing with the crisis.
Nor will expanding Hydro and Nuclear be easy or cheap.
I spent the summer of 2023 coughing due to ash from unprecedented fires in forests which may no longer be sustainable. Despite the beauty of a blood-red moon high in the sky, I'd rather have less of that in the future.
William Hyde
(I don't know Mann's position on nuclear power itself,
just on general climate issues).
I didn't say that unlimited nuclear energy was possible; I only said
that the Uranium supply was not going to be the limiting factor to the use
of nuclear energy. There is plenty of Uranium available at managable cost.
I think the trick, is to adopt the strategy of swedens own climate
clowns Greta and Rockström to get more media time. Maybe you could glue >yourself to a runway? ;)
In article <lln184F3mt6U1@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
I didn't say that unlimited nuclear energy was possible; I only said
that the Uranium supply was not going to be the limiting factor to the use >> of nuclear energy. There is plenty of Uranium available at managable cost.
And besides uranium, there's thorium. According to my CRC
handbook in the entry on thorium, it is "about as common as
lead", and "there is probably more available energy in the
Earth's crust from thorium as there is from uranium and all
fossil fuels put together."
I'd love to see more work done on thorium reactors.
On 9/27/2024 3:55 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <lln184F3mt6U1@mid.individual.net>,That _sounds_ like an obvious answer to I have to ask what the catch is.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
I didn't say that unlimited nuclear energy was possible; I only said
that the Uranium supply was not going to be the limiting factor to
the use
of nuclear energy. There is plenty of Uranium available at managable
cost.
And besides uranium, there's thorium. According to my CRC
handbook in the entry on thorium, it is "about as common as
lead", and "there is probably more available energy in the
Earth's crust from thorium as there is from uranium and all
fossil fuels put together."
I'd love to see more work done on thorium reactors.
In article <lln184F3mt6U1@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
I didn't say that unlimited nuclear energy was possible; I only said
that the Uranium supply was not going to be the limiting factor to the use >> of nuclear energy. There is plenty of Uranium available at managable cost.
And besides uranium, there's thorium. According to my CRC
handbook in the entry on thorium, it is "about as common as
lead", and "there is probably more available energy in the
Earth's crust from thorium as there is from uranium and all
fossil fuels put together."
I'd love to see more work done on thorium reactors.
In article <b10db61b-0f2d-6fb7-2008-cbc4617750cb@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I think the trick, is to adopt the strategy of swedens own climate
clowns Greta and Rockstr??m to get more media time. Maybe you could glue
yourself to a runway? ;)
I don't recognize Rockstr??m right off, but I believe Greta has
shifted her activism to joining Hamas and Hezbollah in their
demand for a Judenrein Middle East. (Und Morgen die Welt!)
Never played that... lately I've been playing the scandinavian. I will
meditate deeply on this!
I do like the Scandinavian, especially the gambit variation.
But I see videos on youtube of Magnus playing the rat. If it gets popular I'll have to abandon it, perhaps for the Great Snake, Pterodactyl, or Hippopotamus.
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in >>>> the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?
I do not have expertise in this field. I cannot speak on this as a
scientist but as a lay person. Answer: I don't know.
Don't be so "scientist". ;)
I'm afraid that's central to our discussions. One shouldn't be dogmatic from a position of ignorance.
William Hyde
Lynn McGuire wrote:
All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
Indeed they do.
But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power
sucked in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
It's an unsolved problem and a hard one. But we really need it, and
should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent funding.
Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the expansion of
one highway in Toronto.
If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts content,
while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and even undo some of
the damage we've already done.
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
Indeed they do.
But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power
sucked in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
It's an unsolved problem and a hard one. But we really need it, and
should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent funding.
I'm not sure it's a solvable problem. My suspicion is that, like the >emission control systems in 1970s cars, it's trying to solve the wrong >problem and that a newer and simpler approach needs to be found to
prevent the problem in the first place. I don't know what that approach
will be. If I did, I would be rich.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/2/2024 4:02 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 2:58 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 10:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for >>>>>>> cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you are >>>>>>> looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told. >>>>>>Huh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
Camp Verde, Texas. A little over two hours north of me, been there a >>>> few times. Basically a general store and restaurant now. The camels
were successful but a big problem was that the Army's horses and mule
would generally not tolerate them. As soon as the horses and mules
smelled the camels they'd go crazy and bolt. Soldiers didn't like the
smell either.
They were used successfully to transport supplies and for
reconnaissance patrols. They performed better than the mules, some of
which died on the treks. In fact, one camel was bit by a rattlesnake
and showed no ill effects. (Yeah, may have been a dry bite, who
knows.) The commander of the camel corps extolled their virtues and
requested (IIRC) a thousand more but congress never got around to
authorizing it. Army command just kind of ignored the whole thing.
After the civil way they were sold off as a bunch to a private concern >>>> who sold a few to the Ringling Circus but then the Army reclaimed
them, sent them to Arizona and let them loose. They just died out.
And of course I forgot to mention that they were Arabian camels, so two
humps.
Um, check that.
The two humped Bactrian camel is native to the steppes of Central Asia.
The Arabs use the one-humped Dromedary, found through North Africa
and the Arabian Penninsula. I've seen enough UAE camel race videos
to be certain.
94% of the world's camels are Dromedaries.
What I found interesting was that the Camel evolved originally
in North America in the Eocene.
On 10/2/2024 7:25 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 10/2/2024 4:02 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:Yep, rushed to add that and screwed up again.
On 10/2/2024 2:58 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 10/2/2024 10:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 04:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <rh3ofjh7lppb4srpb0csegat3bn7vdq5f6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
That's why two types of camels exist: one for hot deserts, one for >>>>>>> cold deserts. The number of humps is the clue as to which you are >>>>>>> looking at, when you are looking at a camel. Or so I have been told. >>>>>>Huh. I wasn't aware of that distinction. I recall reading
that the U.S. Army experimented with camels for use in the
Southwest, and abandoned the project for some reason.
And way back when... there was a TV western where Our Hero
rode a bactrian (two hump) camel. Not that I expect the
TV people to get this right, but did the Army try to use
the wrong kind of camel?
I have no idea.
More likely they found out why the camel has been described as "a
horse designed by a committee".
Camp Verde, Texas. A little over two hours north of me, been there
a few times. Basically a general store and restaurant now. The
camels were successful but a big problem was that the Army's horses
and mule would generally not tolerate them. As soon as the horses
and mules smelled the camels they'd go crazy and bolt. Soldiers
didn't like the smell either.
They were used successfully to transport supplies and for
reconnaissance patrols. They performed better than the mules, some
of which died on the treks. In fact, one camel was bit by a
rattlesnake and showed no ill effects. (Yeah, may have been a dry
bite, who knows.) The commander of the camel corps extolled their
virtues and requested (IIRC) a thousand more but congress never got
around to authorizing it. Army command just kind of ignored the
whole thing.
After the civil way they were sold off as a bunch to a private
concern who sold a few to the Ringling Circus but then the Army
reclaimed them, sent them to Arizona and let them loose. They just
died out.
And of course I forgot to mention that they were Arabian camels, so
two humps.
Um, check that.
The two humped Bactrian camel is native to the steppes of Central Asia.
The Arabs use the one-humped Dromedary, found through North Africa
and the Arabian Penninsula. I've seen enough UAE camel race videos
to be certain.
94% of the world's camels are Dromedaries.
pt
This one sounds interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/09/26/carbon-atmosphere-burying-wood/
Would take a lot of wood; there are some fast growing but
otherwise useless trees (you-clipped-us, for example) that
would be suitable for this purpose.
In article <vFGLO.120073$WtV9.87808@fx10.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
This one sounds interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/09/26/carbon-atmosphere-burying-wood/
Would take a lot of wood; there are some fast growing but
otherwise useless trees (you-clipped-us, for example) that
would be suitable for this purpose.
I hesitate to mention hemp (since my impression is that most
of the people pushing hemp are really more interested in the
wacky tabaky variety) but hemp (the non-psychoactive kind)
does have some seriously good points. It's fast growing,
nitrogen fixing, produces what's apparently a good quality
fiber, and if you grow a big excess and bury the excess...
I think it would be pulling carbon out of the air faster
than trees, which are pretty slow growing.
There may be other plants that are even better at this.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible. Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line. Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
then* does the fossil go offline."
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate scientists I >>> know.
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming >>> to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve
catastrophic economic decline. But even if we accept that this was
possible then, it isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few
decades.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be
carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to >>> such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. >>> Better than coal, but not good enough).
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. There is no >>> conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently have a >>> carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's beyond our >>> abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
William Hyde
All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
Indeed they do.
But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power sucked in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
It's an unsolved problem and a hard one. But we really need it, and should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent funding.
Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the expansion of one highway in Toronto.
If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts content, while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and even undo some of the damage we've already done.
So, long shot or no, the payoff is huge.
William Hyde
On 10/3/2024 4:21 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible. Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line. Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
then* does the fossil go offline."
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate scientists >>>> I know.
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the
warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve >>>> catastrophic economic decline. But even if we accept that this was
possible then, it isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few
decades.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be
carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to >>>> such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural
gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. There is no >>>> conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently have a >>>> carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's beyond our >>>> abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
William Hyde
All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
Indeed they do.
But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power sucked
in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
It's an unsolved problem and a hard one. But we really need it, and should >> take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent funding.
Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the expansion of
one highway in Toronto.
If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts content,
while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and even undo some of
the damage we've already done.
So, long shot or no, the payoff is huge.
William Hyde
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
Lynn
On 9/25/2024 1:16 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <c0056f49-7df6-41f8-ee4c-8125d5ff0952@example.net>,The big hurdle for me to buy an electric car when my current vehicle
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Give me an electric car that goes as far (or further) than my gasoline
car, with a charging time that is equal, at a cost that is equal, and I
will definitely buy it.
I think hybrid is, given current technology, a superior
solution. My Prius got right around 50 MPG. With a 10.5 gallon
tank, that's 450 miles before the "low fuel" light lights, and
comfortably 50 miles range beyond that. (I got the "Low Fuel"
light a few miles from home in San Jose, drove back to work in
South San Francisco the next day, and drove to Costco next to
the San Francisco Airport at lunch to refuel. Slightly over
10 gallons to fill, so I still had a comfortable margin.)
I drove it for 13 years, no trouble with the battery, sold it
to a friend's son who was going off to college, and it's still
going strong. I tend to drive cars until they drive no more.
I'm contemplating a plug-in hybrid next time I have to buy a
car. Not nearly the electric range of a full electric, but
plenty for a retired person's trips to the store and whatnot.
And a normal gas car's range on gas for long trips.
dies is that I live in an apartment building and the owner will not
install chargers for electric cars.
Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 10/3/2024 10:58 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <vFGLO.120073$WtV9.87808@fx10.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
This one sounds interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/09/26/carbon-
atmosphere-burying-wood/
Would take a lot of wood; there are some fast growing but
otherwise useless trees (you-clipped-us, for example) that
would be suitable for this purpose.
I hesitate to mention hemp (since my impression is that most
of the people pushing hemp are really more interested in the
wacky tabaky variety) but hemp (the non-psychoactive kind)
does have some seriously good points. It's fast growing,
nitrogen fixing, produces what's apparently a good quality
fiber, and if you grow a big excess and bury the excess...
I think it would be pulling carbon out of the air faster
than trees, which are pretty slow growing.
There may be other plants that are even better at this.
Seeding the open ocean with iron is also proposed - creates
an algal bloom, which dies and sinks to the ocean floor.
Only in some areas, with a high silica content. Otherwise it just dies
and rots.
The ecological side effects are not well studied.
Still well worth studying, in my opinion. We should not be leaving any stones unturned.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:03:20 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 1:16 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <c0056f49-7df6-41f8-ee4c-8125d5ff0952@example.net>,The big hurdle for me to buy an electric car when my current vehicle
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Give me an electric car that goes as far (or further) than my gasoline >>>> car, with a charging time that is equal, at a cost that is equal, and I >>>> will definitely buy it.
I think hybrid is, given current technology, a superior
solution. My Prius got right around 50 MPG. With a 10.5 gallon
tank, that's 450 miles before the "low fuel" light lights, and
comfortably 50 miles range beyond that. (I got the "Low Fuel"
light a few miles from home in San Jose, drove back to work in
South San Francisco the next day, and drove to Costco next to
the San Francisco Airport at lunch to refuel. Slightly over
10 gallons to fill, so I still had a comfortable margin.)
I drove it for 13 years, no trouble with the battery, sold it
to a friend's son who was going off to college, and it's still
going strong. I tend to drive cars until they drive no more.
I'm contemplating a plug-in hybrid next time I have to buy a
car. Not nearly the electric range of a full electric, but
plenty for a retired person's trips to the store and whatnot.
And a normal gas car's range on gas for long trips.
dies is that I live in an apartment building and the owner will not
install chargers for electric cars.
This may not help at all, but one of my neighbors runs a charging
cable from his house to his car from time time. He has one of those
bridge things to go over the cable where it crosses the sidewalk.
But then, he has a house, and so most likely the ability to
install/use a 240V socket if that is needed.
Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 10/3/2024 10:58 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <vFGLO.120073$WtV9.87808@fx10.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
This one sounds interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/09/26/carbon-atmosph
ere-burying-wood/
Would take a lot of wood; there are some fast growing but
otherwise useless trees (you-clipped-us, for example) that
would be suitable for this purpose.
I hesitate to mention hemp (since my impression is that most
of the people pushing hemp are really more interested in the
wacky tabaky variety) but hemp (the non-psychoactive kind)
does have some seriously good points. It's fast growing,
nitrogen fixing, produces what's apparently a good quality
fiber, and if you grow a big excess and bury the excess...
I think it would be pulling carbon out of the air faster
than trees, which are pretty slow growing.
There may be other plants that are even better at this.
Seeding the open ocean with iron is also proposed - creates
an algal bloom, which dies and sinks to the ocean floor.
Only in some areas, with a high silica content. Otherwise it just dies
and rots.
The ecological side effects are not well studied.
Still well worth studying, in my opinion. We should not be leaving any stones unturned.
I hesitate to mention hemp (since my impression is that most
of the people pushing hemp are really more interested in the
wacky tabaky variety) but hemp (the non-psychoactive kind)
does have some seriously good points. It's fast growing,
nitrogen fixing, produces what's apparently a good quality
fiber, and if you grow a big excess and bury the excess...
I think it would be pulling carbon out of the air faster
than trees, which are pretty slow growing.
There may be other plants that are even better at this.
On 10/3/2024 6:06 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/3/2024 3:23 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 10/3/2024 4:02 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/25/2024 8:03 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 9/25/2024 1:16 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <c0056f49-7df6-41f8-ee4c-8125d5ff0952@example.net>,The big hurdle for me to buy an electric car when my current vehicle >>>>> dies is that I live in an apartment building and the owner will not >>>>> install chargers for electric cars.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Give me an electric car that goes as far (or further) than my
gasoline
car, with a charging time that is equal, at a cost that is equal, >>>>>>> and I
will definitely buy it.
I think hybrid is, given current technology, a superior
solution. My Prius got right around 50 MPG. With a 10.5 gallon
tank, that's 450 miles before the "low fuel" light lights, and
comfortably 50 miles range beyond that. (I got the "Low Fuel"
light a few miles from home in San Jose, drove back to work in
South San Francisco the next day, and drove to Costco next to
the San Francisco Airport at lunch to refuel. Slightly over
10 gallons to fill, so I still had a comfortable margin.)
I drove it for 13 years, no trouble with the battery, sold it
to a friend's son who was going off to college, and it's still
going strong. I tend to drive cars until they drive no more.
I'm contemplating a plug-in hybrid next time I have to buy a
car. Not nearly the electric range of a full electric, but
plenty for a retired person's trips to the store and whatnot.
And a normal gas car's range on gas for long trips.
One of my cousins has a new Tesla Y (he traded his model 3 with 100K
miles in for it). He has a Tesla Level 2 charger (50 amps, 230 volt) >>>> in his house garage. His girlfriend just moved into his house also.
She likes his Tesla Y so much that she bought one also. His Telsa EV >>>> charger basically gives 35 miles of battery charge per hour of charging. >>>>
Now they are are jockeying to see who gets the Telsa Charger stall in >>>> the garage. No fights yet according to my cousin. The cost to
install a second charger is $1,500 so he is not going to do that at
this time.
I'm surprised at the prices I see quoted for a Tesla charger. Mine cost
$500, plus about 350 for the installation, in 2019. That's before a 30%
Federal tax rebate.
Mine has a 20' cable - it has to reach over a garden bed. Perhaps
your cousin could get a similarly long cable that can reach both cars.
pt
A second charger would need another 230 volt, 50 amp outlet installed in
his garage with wiring behind sheetrock, and a new 50 amp, 230 circuit
breaker installed in the breaker box. I am not sure if he has 150 amp
or 200 amp service to his house. If he has to replace the circuit
breaker box and the underground service to the house, the costs really
go up.
Both of their Model Y's have the 310 mile battery installed. My
cousin's Y has the dual motors (400+ hp). I drove it the other night,
incredible acceleration.
Lynn
The Tesla wall charger can be daisy chained, and they are smart
enough to share the power between the cars - a new cable run
is not required.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n62obz1Wj0s >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rspz786Dao
There's other videos. Search 'multiple tesla wall chargers' in
YT.
The 'long cable' I suggested is a bit of a redneck solution,
since you'd have to manually move the cable between the cars.
But it's probably the cheapest.
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 >emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 >>emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 >>emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
This is why I'm dubious about climate change targets.
I'm a Canadian and every last one of us could commit suicide tomorrow
and not help climate change as much as China or India or both reducing
their emissions by 10-20%
I'm NOT a "denier" but DO deny any international convention where
China and India are NOT part of the solution can possibly be
effective.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:05:57 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2
emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
This is why I'm dubious about climate change targets.
I'm a Canadian and every last one of us could commit suicide tomorrow
and not help climate change as much as China or India or both reducing
their emissions by 10-20%
I'm NOT a "denier" but DO deny any international convention where
China and India are NOT part of the solution can possibly be
effective.
While your point seems valid and may be, in your case, honestly meant,
you should be aware that this can be seen as an attempt to maintain
the gap between "us" and "them".
We enjoy the results of a century or so of industrialization, most of
it with no concern for externalized costs. (I actually read an article
that suggests that the reason certain French painter's paintings look
softer and vaguer as time goes on is precisely because they were
painting what they were seeing, and what they were seeing was softer
and vaguer because of growing air pollution.) Resting on this
foundation of wealth, we can afford to put the brakes on the pollution express.
But the rest of the world is in catch-up mode. Asserting that they
must do what we are doing currently as opposed to what we did in the
past to get where we are today can be seen as asserting that they are
not to be allowed to catch up, but to remain forever poor.
I would hope that they are taking advantage of the tech we have
developed to reduce pollution or even invent new and better tech for
this -- that they can, IOW, do better than we did, a rather low bar.
Thus does the dead hand of the past continue to influence the present.
But, again, you may be reacting to what you see happening, not to some ideology.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 >>>emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
As it happens, Chinese CO2 emissions are down 1% this year, and they've
added more solar/battery than any other country in the world over
the last two years. One might expect that decrease to become
larger in future years.
It may take a while, but they're actually doing better at
moving to carbon neutral energy sources that most of the
west (and far better than the US republicans).
I'm NOT a "denier" but DO deny any international convention where
China and India are NOT part of the solution can possibly be
effective.
Well they are building a lot of solar and wind capacity.
But like some other nations they have to continue to use
Coal and other fossil fuels until their capacity is high enough
to replace other none-emitting sources.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 >>>emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
As it happens, Chinese CO2 emissions are down 1% this year, and they've
added more solar/battery than any other country in the world over
the last two years. One might expect that decrease to become
larger in future years.
It may take a while, but they're actually doing better at
moving to carbon neutral energy sources that most of the
west (and far better than the US republicans).
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 22:42:46 +0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The problem is that if you want to turn CO2 into solid carbon that can
be readily stored, it takes as much energy as you got from burning the
carbon into CO2 in the first place. Assuming 100% efficiency, which you
don't even come close to.
That's true. But cars burn gasoline because it's a very efficient
portable
source of energy. Carbon capture plants don't have to be portable. So
they can use nuclear power from the grid. Only if the carbon capture
plants had to run on fossil fuels would this make things worse
instead of better.
John Savard
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
I'm NOT a "denier" but DO deny any international convention where
China and India are NOT part of the solution can possibly be
effective.
Well they are building a lot of solar and wind capacity.
But like some other nations they have to continue to use
Coal and other fossil fuels until their capacity is high enough
to replace other none-emitting sources.
Problem is that Chinese coal is mostly crap and their methods of
extraction are inefficient and hazardous. The US is fortunate
(or unfortunate depending on how you look at it) to have lots of
solid clean anthracite coal still left, while China never had
much in the first place and has had to depend on soft bituminous
coal. (North Korea did have some, which is part of why vinylon
fabric was so popular there since it could be synthesized directly
from hard coal and and lime, but now most of it is gone there too).
So there is plenty of other reason for China to move away from coal, thankfully.
--scott
On 10/21/24 08:48, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:05:57 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2
emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
This is why I'm dubious about climate change targets.
I'm a Canadian and every last one of us could commit suicide tomorrow
and not help climate change as much as China or India or both reducing
their emissions by 10-20%
I'm NOT a "denier" but DO deny any international convention where
China and India are NOT part of the solution can possibly be
effective.
Well they are building a lot of solar and wind capacity.
But like some other nations they have to continue to use
Coal and other fossil fuels until their capacity is high enough
to replace other none-emitting sources.
Until all those fuel burners are replaced with electrical
While your point seems valid and may be, in your case, honestly meant,
you should be aware that this can be seen as an attempt to maintain
the gap between "us" and "them".
We enjoy the results of a century or so of industrialization, most of
it with no concern for externalized costs. (I actually read an article
that suggests that the reason certain French painter's paintings look
softer and vaguer as time goes on is precisely because they were
painting what they were seeing, and what they were seeing was softer
and vaguer because of growing air pollution.) Resting on this
foundation of wealth, we can afford to put the brakes on the pollution
express.
powered vehicles we have nothing to brag about in the USA.
Clean anthracite ain't clean in the modern sense.
We were selling coal to China until recently but I think Canada is
making up the differnece.
bliss - hair splitting done at low cost.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:14:50 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2
emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
As it happens, Chinese CO2 emissions are down 1% this year, and they've
added more solar/battery than any other country in the world over
the last two years. One might expect that decrease to become
larger in future years.
It may take a while, but they're actually doing better at
moving to carbon neutral energy sources that most of the
west (and far better than the US republicans).
While you're right they're still building more coal plants too.
On 10/21/24 08:48, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:05:57 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2
emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
This is why I'm dubious about climate change targets.
I'm a Canadian and every last one of us could commit suicide tomorrow
and not help climate change as much as China or India or both reducing
their emissions by 10-20%
I'm NOT a "denier" but DO deny any international convention where
China and India are NOT part of the solution can possibly be
effective.
Well they are building a lot of solar and wind capacity.
But like some other nations they have to continue to use
Coal and other fossil fuels until their capacity is high enough
to replace other none-emitting sources.
Until all those fuel burners are replaced with electrical
While your point seems valid and may be, in your case, honestly meant,
you should be aware that this can be seen as an attempt to maintain
the gap between "us" and "them".
We enjoy the results of a century or so of industrialization, most of
it with no concern for externalized costs. (I actually read an article
that suggests that the reason certain French painter's paintings look
softer and vaguer as time goes on is precisely because they were
painting what they were seeing, and what they were seeing was softer
and vaguer because of growing air pollution.) Resting on this
foundation of wealth, we can afford to put the brakes on the pollution
express.
powered vehicles we have nothing to brag about in the USA.
--But the rest of the world is in catch-up mode. Asserting that they
must do what we are doing currently as opposed to what we did in the
past to get where we are today can be seen as asserting that they are
not to be allowed to catch up, but to remain forever poor.
I would hope that they are taking advantage of the tech we have
developed to reduce pollution or even invent new and better tech for
this -- that they can, IOW, do better than we did, a rather low bar.
Thus does the dead hand of the past continue to influence the present.
But, again, you may be reacting to what you see happening, not to some
ideology.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:38:29 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
=20Until all those fuel burners are replaced with electrical
powered vehicles we have nothing to brag about in the USA.
LA smog is, as I understand it, pretty much a thing of the past.
On 2024-10-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 >>>>emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
As it happens, Chinese CO2 emissions are down 1% this year, and they've
added more solar/battery than any other country in the world over
the last two years. One might expect that decrease to become
larger in future years.
But the 1% decrease is mostly due to the massive collapse in large-scale >construction projects in China. (China produces more cement than the
rest of the world combined, and cement production emits extremely
large amounts of CO2.)
China continues to have large increases in their energy usage (you did
read those citations I gave last time, Scott?) Their coal usage is
currently higher than it ever has been before and continues to
increase now by large amounts, with many new plants scheduled to come
on-line in the future. >https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/15/china-boosts-global-coal-power.html
A report by Global Energy Monitor found that net coal capacity
grew by 48.4 GW in 2023, with China accounting for about two-thirds of
new coal plant capacity. China started construction on 70.2 GW of new
coal-power capacity last year, almost 20 times the rest of the world’s
3.7 GW.
The large solar power increases are very nice; the world be worse
off without them. But China's energy use is increasing. The developed
world is reducing both their energy usage and coal consumption; China is >increasing both.
It may take a while, but they're actually doing better at
moving to carbon neutral energy sources that most of the
west (and far better than the US republicans).
Please give facts to support your claim. Most people would not
claim that China is currently moving away from coal power.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-10-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire >>>><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 >>>>>emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
As it happens, Chinese CO2 emissions are down 1% this year, and they've
added more solar/battery than any other country in the world over
the last two years. One might expect that decrease to become
larger in future years.
But the 1% decrease is mostly due to the massive collapse in large-scale >>construction projects in China. (China produces more cement than the
rest of the world combined, and cement production emits extremely
large amounts of CO2.)
China continues to have large increases in their energy usage (you did
read those citations I gave last time, Scott?) Their coal usage is >>currently higher than it ever has been before and continues to
increase now by large amounts, with many new plants scheduled to come >>on-line in the future. >>https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/15/china-boosts-global-coal-power.html
A report by Global Energy Monitor found that net coal capacity
grew by 48.4 GW in 2023, with China accounting for about two-thirds of
new coal plant capacity. China started construction on 70.2 GW of new
coal-power capacity last year, almost 20 times the rest of the world’s >> 3.7 GW.
The large solar power increases are very nice; the world be worse
off without them. But China's energy use is increasing. The developed
world is reducing both their energy usage and coal consumption; China is >>increasing both.
It may take a while, but they're actually doing better at
moving to carbon neutral energy sources that most of the
west (and far better than the US republicans).
Please give facts to support your claim. Most people would not
claim that China is currently moving away from coal power.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
On 2024-10-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-10-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 >>>>>> emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ?
As it happens, Chinese CO2 emissions are down 1% this year, and they've >>>> added more solar/battery than any other country in the world over
the last two years. One might expect that decrease to become
larger in future years.
But the 1% decrease is mostly due to the massive collapse in large-scale >>> construction projects in China. (China produces more cement than the
rest of the world combined, and cement production emits extremely
large amounts of CO2.)
China continues to have large increases in their energy usage (you did
read those citations I gave last time, Scott?) Their coal usage is
currently higher than it ever has been before and continues to
increase now by large amounts, with many new plants scheduled to come
on-line in the future.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/15/china-boosts-global-coal-power.html
A report by Global Energy Monitor found that net coal capacity
grew by 48.4 GW in 2023, with China accounting for about two-thirds of >>> new coal plant capacity. China started construction on 70.2 GW of new >>> coal-power capacity last year, almost 20 times the rest of the world’s >>> 3.7 GW.
The large solar power increases are very nice; the world be worse
off without them. But China's energy use is increasing. The developed
world is reducing both their energy usage and coal consumption; China is >>> increasing both.
It may take a while, but they're actually doing better at
moving to carbon neutral energy sources that most of the
west (and far better than the US republicans).
Please give facts to support your claim. Most people would not
claim that China is currently moving away from coal power.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
And that supports your argument how? It says that China has not
yet hit peak coal usage, but should soon. Coal usage in China has not
gone down and is not the reason that CO2 is down this year.
I wanted facts that support your claim, not ones that merely say it is
not really as bad as it appears.
Chris
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:38:29 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
=20Until all those fuel burners are replaced with electrical
powered vehicles we have nothing to brag about in the USA.
LA smog is, as I understand it, pretty much a thing of the past.
Having lived there, I can confirm that it is far better than
the 70s and 80s. I recall playing softball one saturday
in 1985 and having to stop between home and first to catch
my breath.
On the other hand, it's worse now that it was a decade
ago, simply due to population growth over the last
couple decades (and wildfires).
Having lived there, I can confirm that it is far better than
the 70s and 80s. I recall playing softball one saturday
in 1985 and having to stop between home and first to catch
my breath.
On the other hand, it's worse now that it was a decade
ago, simply due to population growth over the last
couple decades (and wildfires).
Batteries are not a power source - they are a power store.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
<about LA smog>
Having lived there, I can confirm that it is far better than
the 70s and 80s. I recall playing softball one saturday
in 1985 and having to stop between home and first to catch
my breath.
And this is in great part due to government regulation of auto manufacturers, >first in California but then across the US. Car manufacturers fought the >emission control requirements tooth and nail, and most of the early attempts >they made to meet them were incredibly poor and reduced both performance and >reliability. Eventually they were driven toward closed-loop fuel injection >control and then the world changed for the better in so many different ways.
Electric vehicles still pollute, it's just that the pollution is done at the >power plant many miles away where it isn't visible. BUT, electric vehicles >only use pollution-causing power when they are running, not when they are >immobilized in traffic on the 101. Cars in LA seem to spend as much time >stopped as moving, and so electric power is likely to be a win.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Batteries are not a power source - they are a power store.
This is true for storage batteries, not for primary batteries like alkaline cells. Some languages make a specific distinction between "l'accumulateur" and "la cellule" but English does not unfortunately.
--scott
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
<about LA smog>
Having lived there, I can confirm that it is far better than
the 70s and 80s. I recall playing softball one saturday
in 1985 and having to stop between home and first to catch
my breath.
And this is in great part due to government regulation of auto manufacturers, first in California but then across the US. Car manufacturers fought the emission control requirements tooth and nail, and most of the early attempts they made to meet them were incredibly poor and reduced both performance and reliability. Eventually they were driven toward closed-loop fuel injection control and then the world changed for the better in so many different ways.
Eventually the emission control requirements wound up resulting in a better technology with higher performance and better reliability as well as a lot less smog.
On the other hand, it's worse now that it was a decade
ago, simply due to population growth over the last
couple decades (and wildfires).
Electric vehicles still pollute, it's just that the pollution is done at the power plant many miles away where it isn't visible. BUT, electric vehicles only use pollution-causing power when they are running, not when they are immobilized in traffic on the 101. Cars in LA seem to spend as much time stopped as moving, and so electric power is likely to be a win.
--scott
On 10/22/2024 9:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:38:29 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
=20Until all those fuel burners are replaced with electrical
powered vehicles we have nothing to brag about in the USA.
LA smog is, as I understand it, pretty much a thing of the past.
Having lived there, I can confirm that it is far better than
the 70s and 80s. I recall playing softball one saturday
in 1985 and having to stop between home and first to catch
my breath.
On the other hand, it's worse now that it was a decade
ago, simply due to population growth over the last
couple decades (and wildfires).
And likely to get much worse if the USSC continues to dismantle
government agencies as "unconstitutional delegations of Congressional >authority".
On 10/23/2024 8:31 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Batteries are not a power source - they are a power store.
This is true for storage batteries, not for primary batteries like alkaline >> cells. Some languages make a specific distinction between "l'accumulateur" >> and "la cellule" but English does not unfortunately.
True enough. I wonder how much energy is required make all the
components of a disposable AA cell, and the cell itself.
I'd be astonished if its less than the power stored in the
cell.
On 10/23/2024 9:38 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/23/24 05:31, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Batteries are not a power source - they are a power store.
This is true for storage batteries, not for primary batteries like
alkaline
cells. Some languages make a specific distinction between
"l'accumulateur"
and "la cellule" but English does not unfortunately.
--scott
Look up Flow Batteries. They are not in automotive use yet but >> would keep gas stations open to supply the fluid with which they
operate.
You would have a future that resembles the immediate past.
bliss
Please give me a URL. Don't make me think.
Lynn
On 10/23/2024 11:13 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/23/2024 5:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:But those same batteries have to power the AC which in LA means a lot
<about LA smog>
Having lived there, I can confirm that it is far better than
the 70s and 80s. I recall playing softball one saturday
in 1985 and having to stop between home and first to catch
my breath.
And this is in great part due to government regulation of auto
manufacturers,
first in California but then across the US. Car manufacturers fought
the
emission control requirements tooth and nail, and most of the early
attempts
they made to meet them were incredibly poor and reduced both
performance and
reliability. Eventually they were driven toward closed-loop fuel
injection
control and then the world changed for the better in so many
different ways.
Eventually the emission control requirements wound up resulting in a
better
technology with higher performance and better reliability as well as
a lot
less smog.
On the other hand, it's worse now that it was a decade
ago, simply due to population growth over the last
couple decades (and wildfires).
Electric vehicles still pollute, it's just that the pollution is done
at the
power plant many miles away where it isn't visible. BUT, electric
vehicles
only use pollution-causing power when they are running, not when they
are
immobilized in traffic on the 101. Cars in LA seem to spend as much
time
stopped as moving, and so electric power is likely to be a win.
--scott
of "out of juice" EVs on the highway to add to the "stop" part of
"stop and go traffic"! :P
How many have you actually seen? The batteries in pure EVs are so large compared to ICE cars, and the consumption running the heat pump so low
in comparison to that of moving the car, that the AC and heat can run
for a long, long time.
I once tested my car in single digit temperatures, and determined that
the interior could be kept at 60F+ for well over a day.
A few hours in stop-and-go with the AC on is easily obtained.
OTOH, I do frequently hear of ICE cars draining their small batteries
running the AC in the same conditions.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
<about LA smog>
Having lived there, I can confirm that it is far better than
the 70s and 80s. I recall playing softball one saturday
in 1985 and having to stop between home and first to catch
my breath.
And this is in great part due to government regulation of auto manufacturers, >first in California but then across the US. Car manufacturers fought the >emission control requirements tooth and nail, and most of the early attempts >they made to meet them were incredibly poor and reduced both performance and >reliability. Eventually they were driven toward closed-loop fuel injection >control and then the world changed for the better in so many different ways.
Eventually the emission control requirements wound up resulting in a better >technology with higher performance and better reliability as well as a lot >less smog.--
On the other hand, it's worse now that it was a decade
ago, simply due to population growth over the last
couple decades (and wildfires).
Electric vehicles still pollute, it's just that the pollution is done at the >power plant many miles away where it isn't visible. BUT, electric vehicles >only use pollution-causing power when they are running, not when they are >immobilized in traffic on the 101. Cars in LA seem to spend as much time >stopped as moving, and so electric power is likely to be a win.
It ain't thinking Lynn but simply typing.
<https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/what-are-flow-batteries>
One of the Initiatives I voted on (ballot in mailbox [one of the new
ones where the sliding slope is replaced with a slot] yesterday, will
be picked up today, should be getting the "we got it!" email tomorrow
or Thursday) involved some changes to how a major natural gas seller
is required to behave. The most interesting arguments were:
1. If you don't pass this, "they" will take your natural gas away.
2. If the power goes out, gas furnaces and stoves keep working.
Our house doesn't have gas, and I can confirm that, if the power goes
out, so does the furnace, the water heater, the stove, and so on.
Also, as became evident some years back when the connections were
marked with little blue flags for some reason and our house was the
only one I went past that didn't have them, a very large number of our >neighbors /do/ have natural gas, so I would not be surprised if it
passes.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:44:52 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
One of the Initiatives I voted on (ballot in mailbox [one of the new
ones where the sliding slope is replaced with a slot] yesterday, will
be picked up today, should be getting the "we got it!" email tomorrow
or Thursday) involved some changes to how a major natural gas seller
is required to behave. The most interesting arguments were:
1. If you don't pass this, "they" will take your natural gas away.
2. If the power goes out, gas furnaces and stoves keep working.
Our house doesn't have gas, and I can confirm that, if the power goes
out, so does the furnace, the water heater, the stove, and so on.
Also, as became evident some years back when the connections were
marked with little blue flags for some reason and our house was the
only one I went past that didn't have them, a very large number of our
neighbors /do/ have natural gas, so I would not be surprised if it
passes.
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted
in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
On 10/4/2024 3:32 AM, D wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible. Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line. Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
then* does the fossil go offline."
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate scientists >>>>> I know.
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the
warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve >>>>> catastrophic economic decline. But even if we accept that this was >>>>> possible then, it isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least for a few >>>>> decades.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be
carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 >>>>> to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural >>>>> gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. There is >>>>> no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently >>>>> have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's >>>>> beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
William Hyde
All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
Indeed they do.
But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power sucked >>> in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
It's an unsolved problem and a hard one. But we really need it, and
should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent funding.
Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the expansion of >>> one highway in Toronto.
If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts content,
while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and even undo some of >>> the damage we've already done.
So, long shot or no, the payoff is huge.
William Hyde
I think the key for that to succeed, is to think about where CO2 is used
most. If those capture systems could then be used to feed processes
requireing CO2, a nice business might start.
I think Holcim has some project looking into that for concrete
manufacturing, but I'm not sure.
The problem is that the CO2 capture system require stainless steel absorbers as CO2 is an acid gas. That drives the cost of the CO2 adsorption plant to the same cost as the power generator.
Lynn
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I votedI disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear
in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent, and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.
In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs, not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral positions.
On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I votedI disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be
in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear
signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent, >> and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.
I very strongly disagree. Voting is critical; at a minimum we must distinguish our distaste for current candidates from the apathetic not
caring about the issue. Vote for the candidate you agree with most; if
there actually are none, then write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "Hatsune
Miku" if you're somewhat younger. That sends a clear signal; not
voting sends nothing at all in the US (it does send a signal in those countries with mandatory voting.) You are not going to find a
candidate that represents your view 100% unless you're the candidate yourself.
This is now the third Presidential election in a row that I can't vote
for either major party candidate - in the previous 40 years it only
happened once. Times are changing. But the need to vote is still there.
In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through >> the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the
threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs, >> not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral
positions.
D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of
today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly
to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society. We're unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group.
There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in
a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
government should do. That's cancel culture. Would you really not
vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
because of that, D? Just about the only group who philosophically
should not vote are the anarchists.
As they say "Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives."
Chris
On 10/23/2024 7:11 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/23/24 12:01, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/23/2024 9:38 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/23/24 05:31, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Batteries are not a power source - they are a power store.
This is true for storage batteries, not for primary batteries like
alkaline
cells. Some languages make a specific distinction between
"l'accumulateur"
and "la cellule" but English does not unfortunately.
--scott
Look up Flow Batteries. They are not in automotive use yet but
would keep gas stations open to supply the fluid with which they
operate.
You would have a future that resembles the immediate past.
bliss
Please give me a URL. Don't make me think.
Lynn
I am sorry for the attempt, considering your primitive
political views as expressed here on occasion I should not tried
to make you thini or type.
It ain't thinking Lynn but simply typing.
<https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/what-are-flow-batteries>
bliss
Thank you for the URL. I have never heard of these.
Huh, there is no lithium in the batteries. I am not a big fan of liquid >lithium batteries due to their narrow range of operating temperature, 59
F to 85 F. Also due to their tendency to have runaway exothermic
reactions above 140 F.
"Vanadium emerging as electrolyte of choice for flow batteries"
"There are different types of flow batteries out there, from polysulfide >redox, hybrid, to organic, as well as a long list of electrochemical >reaction couplings (including zinc-bromine and iron-chromium), though
none have reached the performance, efficiency, or cost levels needed for >wide scale adoption - yet."
"Most of the commercially-available flow batteries use a vanadium liquid >electrolyte, a material found primarily in Russia."
We are not friends with Russia at the moment. I had to tell all of my >customers in Russia goodbye a couple of years ago. That has cost me and
my primary business quite a bit of money.
On 10/25/2024 5:14 AM, D wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:44:52 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
One of the Initiatives I voted on (ballot in mailbox [one of the new
ones where the sliding slope is replaced with a slot] yesterday, will
be picked up today, should be getting the "we got it!" email tomorrow
or Thursday) involved some changes to how a major natural gas seller
is required to behave. The most interesting arguments were:
1. If you don't pass this, "they" will take your natural gas away.
2. If the power goes out, gas furnaces and stoves keep working.
Our house doesn't have gas, and I can confirm that, if the power goes
out, so does the furnace, the water heater, the stove, and so on.
Also, as became evident some years back when the connections were
marked with little blue flags for some reason and our house was the
only one I went past that didn't have them, a very large number of our >>>> neighbors /do/ have natural gas, so I would not be surprised if it
passes.
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted
in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
I disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be
doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear
signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent, >> and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.
In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through >> the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the
threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs, >> not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral
positions.
If you fail to vote, the signal you send isn't "You politicians are incompetent, and need to improve." Rather it's "You can safely
ignore me and my views."
Its exactly as effective as threatening to hold your breath until
you turn blue.
pt
D wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:44:52 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
One of the Initiatives I voted on (ballot in mailbox [one of the new
ones where the sliding slope is replaced with a slot] yesterday, will
be picked up today, should be getting the "we got it!" email tomorrow
or Thursday) involved some changes to how a major natural gas seller
is required to behave. The most interesting arguments were:
1. If you don't pass this, "they" will take your natural gas away.
2. If the power goes out, gas furnaces and stoves keep working.
Our house doesn't have gas, and I can confirm that, if the power goes
out, so does the furnace, the water heater, the stove, and so on.
Also, as became evident some years back when the connections were
marked with little blue flags for some reason and our house was the
only one I went past that didn't have them, a very large number of our >>>> neighbors /do/ have natural gas, so I would not be surprised if it
passes.
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted
in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
I disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be
doing democracy a disservice by voting.
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
By not voting, I send a clear signal
Any signal you think you are sending utterly overwhelmed by the vast numbers who do not vote out of laziness or lack of concern. Absolutely nobody cares that you do not vote.
Many years ago the Rhinoceros party ran on a platform of resigning if elected. Sounds like a party you could vote for!
William Hyde
On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I votedI disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be
in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear
signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent, >> and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.
I very strongly disagree. Voting is critical; at a minimum we must distinguish our distaste for current candidates from the apathetic not
caring about the issue. Vote for the candidate you agree with most; if
there actually are none, then write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "Hatsune
Miku" if you're somewhat younger. That sends a clear signal; not
voting sends nothing at all in the US (it does send a signal in those countries with mandatory voting.) You are not going to find a
candidate that represents your view 100% unless you're the candidate yourself.
This is now the third Presidential election in a row that I can't vote
for either major party candidate - in the previous 40 years it only
happened once. Times are changing. But the need to vote is still there.
In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through >> the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the
threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs, >> not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral
positions.
D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of
today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly
to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society. We're unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group.
There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in
a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
government should do. That's cancel culture. Would you really not
vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
because of that, D? Just about the only group who philosophically
should not vote are the anarchists.
As they say "Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives."
On 10/25/2024 4:11 AM, D wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/4/2024 3:32 AM, D wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>, >>>>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never >>>>>>>>> taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing >>>>>>>> unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization >>>>>>>> on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force, >>>>>>>> the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible. Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line. Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
then* does the fossil go offline."
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars, >>>>>>>> we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate
scientists I know.
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit
the warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did
not involve catastrophic economic decline. But even if we accept >>>>>>> that this was possible then, it isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at >>>>>>> least for a few decades.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to
be carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 >>>>>>> and CH4 to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non- >>>>>>> fracked natural gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time.
There is no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We
don't currently have a carbon capture system worth anything, but >>>>>>> I can't believe it's beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
William Hyde
All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
Indeed they do.
But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power
sucked in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
It's an unsolved problem and a hard one. But we really need it,
and should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent
funding.
Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the
expansion of one highway in Toronto.
If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts
content, while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and
even undo some of the damage we've already done.
So, long shot or no, the payoff is huge.
William Hyde
I think the key for that to succeed, is to think about where CO2 is
used most. If those capture systems could then be used to feed
processes requireing CO2, a nice business might start.
I think Holcim has some project looking into that for concrete
manufacturing, but I'm not sure.
The problem is that the CO2 capture system require stainless steel
absorbers as CO2 is an acid gas. That drives the cost of the CO2
adsorption plant to the same cost as the power generator.
Lynn
Ah, but I don't think cost or feasibility has ever stopped the eco-
fascist crowd! ;)
But slowly it seems as if rationality and the laws of physics are
overtaking the politicians in the EU at least. Several car
manufacturers have communicated that they will continue to sell ICE
cars past 2030 or even 2035, since it would be financial suicide for
them to go all EV when the politicians told them to.
Another bright spot is the swedish mining company LKAB who were
thinking about producing CO2-free steel by 2035, they scrapped the
idea too, since it turned out they would need all the current
electricity produced by sweden to make the process work, and doubling
the power generation and distribution capacity of the country by 2035
would be impossible.
Finally, it also seems as if Northvolt, the eco-bubble battery
manufacturer started in Sweden, is close to bankruptcy, due to china
outcompeting the. The investors are getting more and more reluctant to
throw good money after bad, so I hope it crashes soon.
But this is what happens when politicians try to dictate to the
markets what works and what doesn't, so I hope the current generation
has learned their lesson, although probably not. ;)
The sad part is that a lot of pension money has been invested in this
madness, so future pensions will suffer, but hey, the people voted for
it, so they can only blame themselves. ;)
Huh, I wonder how you make carbon free steel since the definition of
steel is carbon added to iron using anthracitic coal ?
Lynn
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a
wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in
fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/25/2024 4:11 AM, D wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/4/2024 3:32 AM, D wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>, >>>>>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never >>>>>>>>>> taken into account or ever discussed.
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases >>>>>>>>> cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing >>>>>>>>> unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
But ...
We are in a Catch 22. Trying to run techological civilization >>>>>>>>> on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible. To the extent the attempt is compelled by force, >>>>>>>>> the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever >>>>>>>>> it is successfully compelled.
I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible. Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line. Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only >>>>>>>>> then* does the fossil go offline."
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars, >>>>>>>>> we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate
scientists I know.
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the >>>>>>>> warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not >>>>>>>> involve catastrophic economic decline. But even if we accept that >>>>>>>> this was possible then, it isn't now. Nuclear is a must, at least >>>>>>>> for a few decades.
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be >>>>>>>> carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and >>>>>>>> CH4 to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non- fracked >>>>>>>> natural gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. There is >>>>>>>> no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently >>>>>>>> have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's >>>>>>>> beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
William Hyde
All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
Indeed they do.
But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power >>>>>> sucked in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
It's an unsolved problem and a hard one. But we really need it, and >>>>>> should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent funding. >>>>>>
Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the expansion >>>>>> of one highway in Toronto.
If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts content, >>>>>> while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and even undo some >>>>>> of the damage we've already done.
So, long shot or no, the payoff is huge.
William Hyde
I think the key for that to succeed, is to think about where CO2 is used >>>>> most. If those capture systems could then be used to feed processes
requireing CO2, a nice business might start.
I think Holcim has some project looking into that for concrete
manufacturing, but I'm not sure.
The problem is that the CO2 capture system require stainless steel
absorbers as CO2 is an acid gas. That drives the cost of the CO2
adsorption plant to the same cost as the power generator.
Lynn
Ah, but I don't think cost or feasibility has ever stopped the eco-
fascist crowd! ;)
But slowly it seems as if rationality and the laws of physics are
overtaking the politicians in the EU at least. Several car manufacturers >>> have communicated that they will continue to sell ICE cars past 2030 or
even 2035, since it would be financial suicide for them to go all EV when >>> the politicians told them to.
Another bright spot is the swedish mining company LKAB who were thinking >>> about producing CO2-free steel by 2035, they scrapped the idea too, since >>> it turned out they would need all the current electricity produced by
sweden to make the process work, and doubling the power generation and
distribution capacity of the country by 2035 would be impossible.
Finally, it also seems as if Northvolt, the eco-bubble battery
manufacturer started in Sweden, is close to bankruptcy, due to china
outcompeting the. The investors are getting more and more reluctant to
throw good money after bad, so I hope it crashes soon.
But this is what happens when politicians try to dictate to the markets
what works and what doesn't, so I hope the current generation has learned >>> their lesson, although probably not. ;)
The sad part is that a lot of pension money has been invested in this
madness, so future pensions will suffer, but hey, the people voted for it, >>> so they can only blame themselves. ;)
Huh, I wonder how you make carbon free steel since the definition of steel >> is carbon added to iron using anthracitic coal ?
He didn't say "carbon free steel", he said "CO2-free steel".
CO2-free steel production uses green hydrogen to replace carbon in the first part of the process, though of course some carbon must be added to the iron ore (assuming it is not already there) to make steel.
I believe it's called the HYBRIT process.
William Hyde
On 10/25/24 06:45, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted >>>> in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3I disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be >>> doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent, >>> and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.
I very strongly disagree. Voting is critical; at a minimum we must
distinguish our distaste for current candidates from the apathetic not
caring about the issue. Vote for the candidate you agree with most; if
there actually are none, then write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "Hatsune
Miku" if you're somewhat younger. That sends a clear signal; not
voting sends nothing at all in the US (it does send a signal in those
countries with mandatory voting.) You are not going to find a
candidate that represents your view 100% unless you're the candidate
yourself.
This is now the third Presidential election in a row that I can't vote
for either major party candidate - in the previous 40 years it only
happened once. Times are changing. But the need to vote is still there.
In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through >>> the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the >>> threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs, >>> not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral
positions.
D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of
today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly
to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate
yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society. We're
unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group. >>
There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in
a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
government should do. That's cancel culture. Would you really not
vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
because of that, D? Just about the only group who philosophically
should not vote are the anarchists.
As they say "Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives."
Chris
All American Anarchists should always vote for the most competent
candidate. We should do that because as bad as
government is it is far better constrained by even imperfect
basic law than by men acting on whims and without information.
We see in nations where Government has collapsed and
anarchy prevales that misery excalates. We see in nations
ruled by dictatorships of the Left or of the Right that misery
ensues. So goverment by the Constitution is better but certain
branches of the Government have resigned their proper functions
and allowed one or more other branches to improperly
execute the duty of other branches. One branch has the duty
of comparing non-basic law to the basic law for conflict
but the so called justices have dragged the common law of
superstitious monarchies into the case. They presume to
place their interpretation of religion against modern science
and in addition prominent members have accepted large gifts
from parties who have interests in the presented cases.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:02:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a >wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in
fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
I know there used to be the Communist Party of Canada which was Moscow leaning and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) which was Beijing leaning. I haven't seen either on any ballot I've voted on
since 1991.
Plus as you say numerous independents. We had a provincial election
last Saturday and we had 3 parties plus an independent.
Most states have much looser rules for candidates for President then for
the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see for the state of >Washington a long list including at least 3 Marxist candidates (at least
one of those is Trotskyist). None claim to be American Communist Party.
Most states have much looser rules for candidates for President then for
the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see for the state of >Washington a long list including at least 3 Marxist candidates (at least
one of those is Trotskyist). None claim to be American Communist Party.
In article <ij5phjl9hutoiu3gsievs8f3lcnpijiobc@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:02:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a
wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in
fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
I know there used to be the Communist Party of Canada which was Moscow
leaning and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) which was
Beijing leaning. I haven't seen either on any ballot I've voted on
since 1991.
Plus as you say numerous independents. We had a provincial election
last Saturday and we had 3 parties plus an independent.
Most states have much looser rules for candidates for President then for
the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see for the state of Washington a long list including at least 3 Marxist candidates (at least
one of those is Trotskyist). None claim to be American Communist Party.
I pulled this out since it's off-topic to our off-topic digression from
the original off-topic post.
On 2024-10-26, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <ij5phjl9hutoiu3gsievs8f3lcnpijiobc@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:02:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a >>> >wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in
fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
I know there used to be the Communist Party of Canada which was Moscow
leaning and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) which was
Beijing leaning. I haven't seen either on any ballot I've voted on
since 1991.
Plus as you say numerous independents. We had a provincial election
last Saturday and we had 3 parties plus an independent.
Most states have much looser rules for candidates for President then for
the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see for the state of
Washington a long list including at least 3 Marxist candidates (at least
one of those is Trotskyist). None claim to be American Communist Party.
Really? I would disgree. It takes a very major effort to get on the
ballot for President in most states (due to Democrat and Republican
Party pressure). The state of Washington is unusual; it has the 2nd
longest list at 10. States like NY have many fewer. NY has 2 this
year - no other party was able navigate the labyrinth, much less any >indvidual.
In article <ij5phjl9hutoiu3gsievs8f3lcnpijiobc@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:02:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a
wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in
fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
I know there used to be the Communist Party of Canada which was Moscow
leaning and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) which was
Beijing leaning. I haven't seen either on any ballot I've voted on
since 1991.
Plus as you say numerous independents. We had a provincial election
last Saturday and we had 3 parties plus an independent.
Most states have much looser rules for candidates for President then for
the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see for the state of >Washington a long list including at least 3 Marxist candidates (at least
one of those is Trotskyist). None claim to be American Communist Party.
On 2024-10-26, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <ij5phjl9hutoiu3gsievs8f3lcnpijiobc@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:02:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a >> >wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in
fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
I know there used to be the Communist Party of Canada which was Moscow
leaning and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) which was
Beijing leaning. I haven't seen either on any ballot I've voted on
since 1991.
Plus as you say numerous independents. We had a provincial election
last Saturday and we had 3 parties plus an independent.
Most states have much looser rules for candidates for President then for the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see for the state of Washington a long list including at least 3 Marxist candidates (at least one of those is Trotskyist). None claim to be American Communist Party.
Really? I would disgree. It takes a very major effort to get on the
ballot for President in most states (due to Democrat and Republican
Party pressure). The state of Washington is unusual; it has the 2nd
longest list at 10. States like NY have many fewer. NY has 2 this
year - no other party was able navigate the labyrinth, much less any indvidual.
In article <lo5fd4F2tf7U2@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-26, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <ij5phjl9hutoiu3gsievs8f3lcnpijiobc@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:02:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a >> >> >wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in
fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
I know there used to be the Communist Party of Canada which was Moscow
leaning and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) which was
Beijing leaning. I haven't seen either on any ballot I've voted on
since 1991.
Plus as you say numerous independents. We had a provincial election
last Saturday and we had 3 parties plus an independent.
Most states have much looser rules for candidates for President then for >> > the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see for the state of
Washington a long list including at least 3 Marxist candidates (at least >> > one of those is Trotskyist). None claim to be American Communist Party.
Really? I would disgree. It takes a very major effort to get on the
ballot for President in most states (due to Democrat and Republican
Party pressure). The state of Washington is unusual; it has the 2nd
longest list at 10. States like NY have many fewer. NY has 2 this
year - no other party was able navigate the labyrinth, much less any
indvidual.
Well, I did a brief check and it appears that the Libertarian Party
candidate is on the ballot of 47 states (though not NY), while the Green Party candidate is on the ballot of 38 states. That qualifies as most
IMHO. Of course, that is assuming that very few House and Senate
elections have as many as 3 candidates, let alone 4.
On 10/23/24 12:01, Lynn McGuire wrote:snippage and editing
On 10/23/2024 9:38 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Look up Flow Batteries.
Please give me a URL. Don't make me think.
I am sorry for the attempt, considering your primitive
political views as expressed here on occasion I should not tried
to make you think or type.
Really? I would disgree. It takes a very major effort to get on the
ballot for President in most states (due to Democrat and Republican
Party pressure). The state of Washington is unusual; it has the 2nd
longest list at 10. States like NY have many fewer. NY has 2 this
year - no other party was able navigate the labyrinth, much less any
indvidual.
That's because we're [USA] so ... democratic.
As far as ease for getting your name on the presidential ballot, let's
look at New York. It requires 45,000 valid signatures, including 500
from each of at least one-half of the congressional districts. This
year the signatures were due by May 28, before many parties even knew
their nominees! The two major parties, of course, are exempt from this requirement since they have already proved their "legitimacy".
It cost many millions of dollars total to get on the ballot for most
of the states. Kennedy's PAC last year was targeting spending 10-15
million for 10 of the harder states. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-ballot-access/
On 28/10/24 10:49, Chris Buckley wrote:
snip
As far as ease for getting your name on the presidential ballot, let's
look at New York. It requires 45,000 valid signatures, including 500
from each of at least one-half of the congressional districts. This
year the signatures were due by May 28, before many parties even knew
their nominees! The two major parties, of course, are exempt from this
requirement since they have already proved their "legitimacy".
It cost many millions of dollars total to get on the ballot for most
of the states. Kennedy's PAC last year was targeting spending 10-15
million for 10 of the harder states.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-ballot-access/
Knowing little about the electoral processes in the USA, I was
gobsmacked to read your post and the beginning of that article.
Initially I thought that might partly explain why from about 320,000,000 possibilities you get such trash as Trump, Biden and Harris.
And Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc but then I realised this pot from Aotearoa
was calling your kettle black as with no such monetary obstruction, we don't do much better with only 5,000,000 to select from.
On 10/27/24 16:35, Titus G wrote:
On 28/10/24 10:49, Chris Buckley wrote:
snip
As far as ease for getting your name on the presidential ballot, let's
look at New York. It requires 45,000 valid signatures, including 500
from each of at least one-half of the congressional districts. This
year the signatures were due by May 28, before many parties even knew
their nominees! The two major parties, of course, are exempt from this
requirement since they have already proved their "legitimacy".
It cost many millions of dollars total to get on the ballot for most
of the states. Kennedy's PAC last year was targeting spending 10-15
million for 10 of the harder states.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-ballot-access/
Knowing little about the electoral processes in the USA, I was
gobsmacked to read your post and the beginning of that article.
Initially I thought that might partly explain why from about 320,000,000
possibilities you get such trash as Trump, Biden and Harris.
And Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc but then I realised this pot from Aotearoa
was calling your kettle black as with no such monetary obstruction, we
don't do much better with only 5,000,000 to select from.
Biden is the best President since Roosevelt.
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did everything asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others.
Obama was just Ok but he spent a lot of time trying to
get the health care system working.
.
Which Bush? We had one competent one term and one incompetent
who served two terms.
Clinton played a good saxophone
And it started with Reagan,
On 28/10/24 04:21, Paul S Person wrote:
snip
Really? I would disgree. It takes a very major effort to get on the
ballot for President in most states (due to Democrat and Republican
Party pressure). The state of Washington is unusual; it has the 2nd
longest list at 10. States like NY have many fewer. NY has 2 this
year - no other party was able navigate the labyrinth, much less any
indvidual.
That's because we're [USA] so ... democratic.
Ignoring exoplanets, The Economist magazine lists only 20 or 21
countries as democratic. The USA is not one of those.
On 28/10/24 14:16, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/27/24 16:35, Titus G wrote:
On 28/10/24 10:49, Chris Buckley wrote:
snip
As far as ease for getting your name on the presidential ballot, let's >>>> look at New York. It requires 45,000 valid signatures, including 500 >>>> from each of at least one-half of the congressional districts. This
year the signatures were due by May 28, before many parties even knew
their nominees! The two major parties, of course, are exempt from this >>>> requirement since they have already proved their "legitimacy".
It cost many millions of dollars total to get on the ballot for most
of the states. Kennedy's PAC last year was targeting spending 10-15
million for 10 of the harder states.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-ballot-access/
Knowing little about the electoral processes in the USA, I was
gobsmacked to read your post and the beginning of that article.
Initially I thought that might partly explain why from about 320,000,000 >>> possibilities you get such trash as Trump, Biden and Harris.
And Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc but then I realised this pot from Aotearoa >>> was calling your kettle black as with no such monetary obstruction, we >>> don't do much better with only 5,000,000 to select from.
Biden is the best President since Roosevelt.
Firstly, Bliss, I have no interest in your internal problems and am only interested in your foreign policy as represented by your empire building
so I have a different perspective and emphasis to you regarding your Presidents. Thank you for your serious reply.
It was Roosevelt who responded to a question about the influence of
Israel on policy with something like, "There are no Palestinians voting
in USA elections." Followers in office have now taken that to the nth
degree and Biden supports genocide in Israel to obtain power at home.
Don't mention Epstein. A decade ago, Biden's son, Hunter, was receiving $50,000 a month from the Ukrainian Gas company prior to the overthrow of
the pro Russian Ukrainian government. On youtube you can watch Biden
gloating over his successful threat to withhold US funds unless the
Ukrainian Attorney General was fired to prevent the corruption
investigation of the same Gas company continuing. Coincidentally Hunter
was paying his father $50,000 a month for rental of something as yet
unknown with regard to which there is an ongoing investigation. Crack
smoking Hunter calls his father "Pedo Pete" and his daughter writes in
her diary that she used to shower with her father in her nymphomaniac
drug ridden days. Biden is Trash.
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did everything
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others.
Harris is married to a Jew. She will give lip service only to oppose
Israeli apartheid and genocide. Her integrity is questioned given she
happily sought jail terms for marijuana smokers whilst admitting that
she smoked when at Uni.
Obama was just Ok but he spent a lot of time trying to
get the health care system working.
.
Which Bush? We had one competent one term and one incompetent
who served two terms.
Obama and Bush senior are products of your secret service.
Junior supervised the slaughter of over a million and the displacement
of a further four million in a country of about twenty million thought
to be the greatest threat to Israel. The Bush family money came partly
from supporting Nazi Germany.
Clinton played a good saxophone
Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to distract his public
from seminal stains where they shouldn't have been. Have you read about
the "boys on the track"? Don't mention Epstein or Les Wexner.
And it started with Reagan,
It started with the wealth from financial support for both 'sides' in
WW2 until making a choice in 1942 when the base of the almost in charge
ever since ruling Likud political party, Lehi or the Stern Gang, changed sides shifting their support of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to
communist Russia after Stern's death.
I have no intention of arguing or debating politics as I believe that in
a group such as this that it is internecine in the sense of being
mutually destructive. It is an interesting exercise to summarise ones
views and you now know my opinions. My principal interest here is
Fiction and I will certainly read any reply with interest but hopefully
will not respond. Thank you to those reading this far.
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did everything
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California
which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area.
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did everything
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California
which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area.
I dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain
Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that
catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but
no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy
about not leading the ticket.
I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since
he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did everything
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California
which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area.
I dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain
Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but
no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy
about not leading the ticket.
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did everything
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California >>>> which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area.
I dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain
Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that
catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but
no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy
about not leading the ticket.
I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since
he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
On 2024-10-27, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <lo5fd4F2tf7U2@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-26, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <ij5phjl9hutoiu3gsievs8f3lcnpijiobc@4ax.com>,Really? I would disgree. It takes a very major effort to get on the
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:02:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never voted in an election here in Ontario where there was not a
wide spectrum of choice, from Libertarian to Communist (generally, in >>> >> >fact, two communist parties) plus occasional independents.
I know there used to be the Communist Party of Canada which was Moscow >>> >> leaning and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) which was >>> >> Beijing leaning. I haven't seen either on any ballot I've voted on
since 1991.
Plus as you say numerous independents. We had a provincial election
last Saturday and we had 3 parties plus an independent.
Most states have much looser rules for candidates for President then for >>> > the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see for the state of
Washington a long list including at least 3 Marxist candidates (at least >>> > one of those is Trotskyist). None claim to be American Communist Party. >>>
ballot for President in most states (due to Democrat and Republican
Party pressure). The state of Washington is unusual; it has the 2nd
longest list at 10. States like NY have many fewer. NY has 2 this
year - no other party was able navigate the labyrinth, much less any
indvidual.
Well, I did a brief check and it appears that the Libertarian Party
candidate is on the ballot of 47 states (though not NY), while the Green
Party candidate is on the ballot of 38 states. That qualifies as most
IMHO. Of course, that is assuming that very few House and Senate
elections have as many as 3 candidates, let alone 4.
I thought the question was the ease at getting on the ballot, not the
number of candidates. And of course the state of Washington will only
have two candidates on the ballot for the House elections- that's
required by their law! They have a top-two primary system where the primary >is open but only the top two advance. If you check the primaries
there, the number of candidates ranged from 4 to 11, about the same as
the presidential election. Most districts in my state, Maryland, have
3 candidates this year.
As far as ease for getting your name on the presidential ballot, let's
look at New York. It requires 45,000 valid signatures, including 500
from each of at least one-half of the congressional districts. This
year the signatures were due by May 28, before many parties even knew
their nominees! The two major parties, of course, are exempt from this >requirement since they have already proved their "legitimacy".
It cost many millions of dollars total to get on the ballot for most
of the states. Kennedy's PAC last year was targeting spending 10-15
million for 10 of the harder states. >https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-ballot-access/
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
????????Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did everything
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California >>>>> which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area.
I dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain
Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that
catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but
no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy
about not leading the ticket.
????????I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since
he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
????????last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Indeed, immigrants add 2 trillion dollars a year to the
USA GDP.
https://theconversation.com/proof-that-immigrants-fuel-the-us-economy-is-found-in-the-billions-they-send-back-home-227542
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did
everything
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California >>>>> which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area.
I dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain
Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that
catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but
no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy
about not leading the ticket.
I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since
he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
has concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries
of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
Lynn
On 10/28/2024 4:50 PM, D wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
????????Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did >>>>>>> everythingI dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain >>>>>> Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than >>>>>>> most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of
California
which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area. >>>>>>
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that >>>>>> catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but >>>>>> no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy >>>>>> about not leading the ticket.
????????I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since
he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
????????last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Indeed, immigrants add 2 trillion dollars a year to the
USA GDP.
https://theconversation.com/proof-that-immigrants-fuel-the-us-
economy- is-found-in-the-billions-they-send-back-home-227542
Haha, nice! The conversation, as everyone knows, is yet another
socialist rag and nest of woke vipers.
From this, it appears that, since you are unable to fault the
logic of the article's argument, you resort to ad hominem
attacks on the source.
This is a well known logical fallacy. https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ad-hominem.html
pt
On 10/28/24 18:53, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 10/28/2024 4:50 PM, D wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
????????Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did >>>>>>>> everythingI dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain >>>>>>> Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all >>>>>>> sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than >>>>>>>> most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of
California
which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area. >>>>>>>
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that >>>>>>> catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but >>>>>>> no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy >>>>>>> about not leading the ticket.
????????I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since >>>>>> he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He >>>>>> was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
????????last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Indeed, immigrants add 2 trillion dollars a year to the
USA GDP.
https://theconversation.com/proof-that-immigrants-fuel-the-us- economy- >>>> is-found-in-the-billions-they-send-back-home-227542
Well no one knows how much they send home except perhaps
the people who sell them International Money Orders but I doubt
it is as much as 1 billion. The GDP is enhanced by their and
others underpaid work but they have to live most of them in
an expensive nation so they send home what is a lot of cash
in the terms of the home but they have to pay for a lot of stuff
in the USA such as health care that they might get free at
home.
Haha, nice! The conversation, as everyone knows, is yet another socialist >>> rag and nest of woke vipers.
From this, it appears that, since you are unable to fault the
logic of the article's argument, you resort to ad hominem
attacks on the source.
This is a well known logical fallacy.
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ad-hominem.html
pt
And Putin-Stupid as well, D.
Walk up and smell the gun powder.
bliss
On 10/28/2024 4:50 PM, D wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
????????Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did >>>>>>> everythingI dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain >>>>>> Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than >>>>>>> most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California >>>>>>> which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area. >>>>>>
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that >>>>>> catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but >>>>>> no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy >>>>>> about not leading the ticket.
????????I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since
he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
????????last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Indeed, immigrants add 2 trillion dollars a year to the
USA GDP.
https://theconversation.com/proof-that-immigrants-fuel-the-us-economy-
is-found-in-the-billions-they-send-back-home-227542
Haha, nice! The conversation, as everyone knows, is yet another socialist
rag and nest of woke vipers.
From this, it appears that, since you are unable to fault the
logic of the article's argument, you resort to ad hominem
attacks on the source.
This is a well known logical fallacy. https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ad-hominem.html
pt
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did
everything
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than
most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California >>>>> which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area.
I dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain
Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that
catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but
no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy
about not leading the ticket.
I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since
he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries
of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
On 10/28/2024 4:50 PM, D wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
????????Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did >>>>>>> everythingI dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain >>>>>> Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than >>>>>>> most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of
California
which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area. >>>>>>
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that >>>>>> catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but >>>>>> no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy >>>>>> about not leading the ticket.
????????I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since
he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
????????last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Indeed, immigrants add 2 trillion dollars a year to the
USA GDP.
https://theconversation.com/proof-that-immigrants-fuel-the-us-economy-
is-found-in-the-billions-they-send-back-home-227542
Haha, nice! The conversation, as everyone knows, is yet another
socialist rag and nest of woke vipers.
From this, it appears that, since you are unable to fault the
logic of the article's argument, you resort to ad hominem
attacks on the source.
This is a well known logical fallacy. >https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ad-hominem.html
On 10/26/2024 10:31 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:27:59 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 10/25/24 06:45, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted >>>>>> in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3 >>>>>> miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't >>>>>> recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was >>>>>> the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not >>>>>> the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted >>>>>> at all.I disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be >>>>> doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear >>>>> signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent,
and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.
I very strongly disagree. Voting is critical; at a minimum we must
distinguish our distaste for current candidates from the apathetic not >>>> caring about the issue. Vote for the candidate you agree with most; if >>>> there actually are none, then write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "Hatsune
Miku" if you're somewhat younger. That sends a clear signal; not
voting sends nothing at all in the US (it does send a signal in those
countries with mandatory voting.) You are not going to find a
candidate that represents your view 100% unless you're the candidate
yourself.
This is now the third Presidential election in a row that I can't vote >>>> for either major party candidate - in the previous 40 years it only
happened once. Times are changing. But the need to vote is still there. >>>>
In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through
the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the >>>>> threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs,
not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral >>>>> positions.
D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of
today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly
to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate >>>> yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society. We're >>>> unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group.
There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in >>>> a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
government should do. That's cancel culture. Would you really not
vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
because of that, D? Just about the only group who philosophically
should not vote are the anarchists.
As they say "Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives." >>>>
Chris
All American Anarchists should always vote for the most competent
candidate. We should do that because as bad as
government is it is far better constrained by even imperfect
basic law than by men acting on whims and without information.
We see in nations where Government has collapsed and
anarchy prevales that misery excalates. We see in nations
ruled by dictatorships of the Left or of the Right that misery
ensues. So goverment by the Constitution is better but certain
branches of the Government have resigned their proper functions
and allowed one or more other branches to improperly
execute the duty of other branches. One branch has the duty
of comparing non-basic law to the basic law for conflict
but the so called justices have dragged the common law of
superstitious monarchies into the case. They presume to
place their interpretation of religion against modern science
and in addition prominent members have accepted large gifts
from parties who have interests in the presented cases.
An excellent summary of our current situation. Just two quibbles and
an observation:
1. Freedom of religion and a prohibition on a State Church (which
would include Science acting as a religion, BTW) /are/ part of the
basic law (the Constitution, as amended).
2. The concept that human life begins at conception /is/ modern
science; they are merely drawing the inevitable consequences from this
belief. It is truly amazing that so many anti-modernist Christians
("Evangelicals") have adopted the /scientific/ viewpoint and abandoned
the historical Christian viewpoint (that human life begins when the
child draws breath independently of the mother. And, yes, spending
time on a respirator for a while /does/ count.)
3. Abortion has been discouraged for a long long time. The Hippocratic
Oath, from 3 or 4 centuries BC, includes a pledge by doctors not to
provide a drug to induce one. But this was because they believed the
fetus to be a human being (except potentially); it was because they
believed it to be the property of the father. Abortion was regarded as
a form of property theft. Keep in mind that the mother was also,
unless hanky-panky was involved, the property of the father.
I am confused. So are you saying that my wife could have been killed at >birth in 1958 since she was born three weeks late and had hyaline
membrane disease ? The USA Army doctor in Camp Jama, Japan built a >hodgepodge oxygenated incubator for her in which she lived for six weeks >until her body absorbed the hyaline membrane and was able to breath
normal air.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has
concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries
of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
As the old saying goes, 'one swallow doesn't make a summer'.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software engineering field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
On 10/29/2024 11:58 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <tV6UO.740250$_o_3.85292@fx17.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
<SNIP>
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals.Ā Our economy would crash without them.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries >>>> of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
As the old saying goes, 'one swallow doesn't make a summer'.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software engineering >>> field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
For that matter, software engineers who STAY in India probably have a
bigger adverse affect on American software engineer salaries then
software engineers who emigrate to the USA.
That is true now. Just ask Boeing how well that went with the computer >software for the Boeing 737 Max.
On 10/29/2024 11:10 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/28/2024 7:26 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/24 01:49, The Horny Goat wrote:Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:16:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Harris is not trash but an elected Vice President who did >>>>>>> everythingI dunno - judging by his behalf since July it seems almost certain >>>>>> Biden was pushed, he didn't leap off himself. There have been all
asked of her by her President. Now she is running at
his instigation since her policies will aline more with his than >>>>>>> most others. She served as Attorney-General to the State of California >>>>>>> which is bigger than Autearoa both in population and surface area. >>>>>>
sorts of stories to the effect that Obama and Clinton told him
contributors wouldn't contribute if he was on the ballot after that >>>>>> catastrophic first debate but nobody's saying anything for sure - but >>>>>> no question any time Biden has appeared on camera he seemed grumpy >>>>>> about not leading the ticket.
I sent him a note asking him to stay as a candidate since >>>>> he is slightly younger than myself and he has done a great job. He
was pressured into resigning his candidacy by people like Nancy
Pelosi. I don;t think the people putting the pressure on Biden
were the people choosing Harris. She was Biden;s choice out of
all the other prospective candidates in 2020 and the American
people voted them into offie.
last night after i finished my note to the fellow in
Anteroa(?) shut down my computer and went to bed I realized
that the slurs on Biden he repeated were certainly Trumpite
but from the Putin wing of the Republican Party. Several of
the people riding on Trump's coat tails like Hauley and
MTG are simply following the Putin line ofstructing aid
to the Ukraine on specious grounds. Obstructing the bill
to enhance border security so that the Border Patrol
does not get the new officers it needs badly to do its
Duty properly. Of course when the undocumented persons
are in the USA it is largely Republicans who exploit their
labor as Trump himself has done in the past.
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries
of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
As the old saying goes, 'one swallow doesn't make a summer'.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software engineering >> field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
Just having a larger pool of workers for the same number of jobs
depresses market wages.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has
concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries
of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software engineering >field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
This is likely true. The food service and agricultural industries depend on low-wage labour and much of that has been provided by immigrants willing to take low-wage low-skill jobs. When immigration started to go wrong in the eighties and it became impossible for people to legally immigrate to do this work, it began to be done by illegal immigrants.
Traditionally there were a lot of people from Mexico who came to the US to work the fields during harvest time, and who moved back to Mexico after
the season was over. That was disrupted long ago.
People on the right hand side of the aisle will claim that citizens would be taking these jobs if there were not illegal immigrants to fill them. But the fact that in spite of all attempts to restrict immigration, citizens still refuse to take these jobs, indicate that this is not the case.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries
of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software engineering >> field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
This is referring to a different and just as severe immigration problem. The US has a system called the H1-B visa which exists in order to allow experts in their field to come to America for work. This is for people who really are experts, people who can't be replaced by American citizens because there are so few people in the world able to do their job. When it was set up it was a good system.
However, this system has been hijacked by a number of large companies which have figured out how to game the system and which are using H1-Bs to bring
in moderately-skilled technical people and hold them hostage with the threat of removing their visa. This has caused a total disaster in the software engineering field. These people ARE legal immigrants, but if the system was not broken, they would not be. What is worse, because large companies with huge legal departments are stuffing the box as soon as slots open up, people who really are experts, the people for whom the system was intended, are unable to get the visas that Congress intended for them.
The immigration system is broken, and it needs people on both the left and the right to be able to sit down and fix it. Unfortunately there is a small minority on the right which has found it is to their political advantage for the system to remain broken and which is doing as much as possible to keep
it broken. A solution is possible and it does not involve building a wall. --scott
On 10/29/2024 4:56 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
...
The immigration system is broken, and it needs people on both the
left and
the right to be able to sit down and fix it. Unfortunately there is
a small
minority on the right which has found it is to their political
advantage for
the system to remain broken and which is doing as much as possible to
keep
it broken. A solution is possible and it does not involve building a
wall.
--scott
Yes and they follow their leader in rejecting the solutions
proffered in legislation because they want to exploit the issue of
immigration in their election campaigns.
bliss - who went with her mom to the apricot drying sheds where
mom worked with the sharp tools to make whole apricots into halves.
I guess that y'all canned the apricots then ?
Lynn
On 10/29/2024 4:53 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
This is likely true. The food service and agricultural industries depend
on
low-wage labour and much of that has been provided by immigrants willing to >> take low-wage low-skill jobs. When immigration started to go wrong in the >> eighties and it became impossible for people to legally immigrate to do
this
work, it began to be done by illegal immigrants.
Traditionally there were a lot of people from Mexico who came to the US to >> work the fields during harvest time, and who moved back to Mexico after
the season was over. That was disrupted long ago.
People on the right hand side of the aisle will claim that citizens would
be
taking these jobs if there were not illegal immigrants to fill them. But
the
fact that in spite of all attempts to restrict immigration, citizens still >> refuse to take these jobs, indicate that this is not the case.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries >>>> of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software engineering >>> field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
This is referring to a different and just as severe immigration problem.
The
US has a system called the H1-B visa which exists in order to allow experts >> in their field to come to America for work. This is for people who really >> are experts, people who can't be replaced by American citizens because
there
are so few people in the world able to do their job. When it was set up it >> was a good system.
However, this system has been hijacked by a number of large companies which >> have figured out how to game the system and which are using H1-Bs to bring >> in moderately-skilled technical people and hold them hostage with the
threat
of removing their visa. This has caused a total disaster in the software
engineering field. These people ARE legal immigrants, but if the system
was
not broken, they would not be. What is worse, because large companies with >> huge legal departments are stuffing the box as soon as slots open up,
people
who really are experts, the people for whom the system was intended, are
unable to get the visas that Congress intended for them.
As a recently-retired software engineer I can attest to this. Americans
would be laid off at the same time as H1-Bs were being brought in.
https://www.epi.org/blog/tech-and-outsourcing-companies-continue-to-exploit-the-h-1b-visa-program-at-a-time-of-mass-layoffs-the-top-30-h-1b-employers-hired-34000-new-h-1b-workers-in-2022-and-laid-off-at-least-85000-workers/
https://tinyurl.com/mr3zuvcs
"Since employers aren’t required to test the U.S. labor market to see if any workers are available before hiring an H-1B worker or pay their
H-1B workers a fair wage, employers have exploited the program. Rather
than turning to the H-1B program as a last resort when U.S. workers
cannot be found, most employers hire H-1B workers because they can be underpaid and are de facto indentured to the employer. This is evidenced
by government data showing that technology companies continue to hire
H-1B workers in large numbers while significantly reducing the sizes of
their workforces."
I saw this happening before my eyes. I eventually gave up and moved to working for defense contractors, who paid worse, but were required to
hire US citizens.
pt
"Since employers aren’t required to test the U.S. labor market to see if >> any workers are available before hiring an H-1B worker or pay their
H-1B workers a fair wage, employers have exploited the program. Rather
than turning to the H-1B program as a last resort when U.S. workers
cannot be found, most employers hire H-1B workers because they can be
underpaid and are de facto indentured to the employer. This is evidenced
by government data showing that technology companies continue to hire
H-1B workers in large numbers while significantly reducing the sizes of
their workforces."
I saw this happening before my eyes. I eventually gave up and moved to
working for defense contractors, who paid worse, but were required to
hire US citizens.
This raises questions about the future job of programmers.
On 10/29/2024 3:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/29/2024 11:58 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <tV6UO.740250$_o_3.85292@fx17.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
<SNIP>
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>>>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of >>>>>>> illegals.? Our economy would crash without them.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries >>>>>> of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
As the old saying goes, 'one swallow doesn't make a summer'.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software engineering
field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
For that matter, software engineers who STAY in India probably have a
bigger adverse affect on American software engineer salaries then
software engineers who emigrate to the USA.
That is true now. Just ask Boeing how well that went with the computer
software for the Boeing 737 Max.
What evidence do you have that was the fault of non-domestic engineers?
The fault was not in the engineering. It was purely management
overriding engineering to satisfy "wall street". From mounting
larger engines on a 50+ year-old design (which moved the CG forward)
to the flight control system hacks to pitch the nose down, all
were driven by profit motive. Real engineers would have designed
a modern replacement for the 737, but they were stymied by management.
The reuse of the 737 frame was driven by Boeing's customers, notably >Southwest Airlines, who did not want to retrain and recertify over a >thousand pilots to a new frame, splitting their pilots between the 737 >planes and their 737 Max planes.
Domestic software engineers MIGHT have noted that the flight control
system hacks were dangerous and relied upon only one approach to the
wind instrument.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US has >>>> concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of
illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
This is likely true. The food service and agricultural industries depend on >low-wage labour and much of that has been provided by immigrants willing to >take low-wage low-skill jobs. When immigration started to go wrong in the >eighties and it became impossible for people to legally immigrate to do this >work, it began to be done by illegal immigrants.
Traditionally there were a lot of people from Mexico who came to the US to >work the fields during harvest time, and who moved back to Mexico after
the season was over. That was disrupted long ago.
People on the right hand side of the aisle will claim that citizens would be >taking these jobs if there were not illegal immigrants to fill them. But the >fact that in spite of all attempts to restrict immigration, citizens still >refuse to take these jobs, indicate that this is not the case.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries >>>of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the >>>engineering industry, especially software engineering.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software engineering >>field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
This is referring to a different and just as severe immigration problem. The >US has a system called the H1-B visa which exists in order to allow experts >in their field to come to America for work. This is for people who really >are experts, people who can't be replaced by American citizens because there >are so few people in the world able to do their job. When it was set up it >was a good system.
However, this system has been hijacked by a number of large companies which >have figured out how to game the system and which are using H1-Bs to bring
in moderately-skilled technical people and hold them hostage with the threat >of removing their visa. This has caused a total disaster in the software >engineering field. These people ARE legal immigrants, but if the system was >not broken, they would not be. What is worse, because large companies with >huge legal departments are stuffing the box as soon as slots open up, people >who really are experts, the people for whom the system was intended, are >unable to get the visas that Congress intended for them.
The immigration system is broken, and it needs people on both the left and >the right to be able to sit down and fix it. Unfortunately there is a small >minority on the right which has found it is to their political advantage for >the system to remain broken and which is doing as much as possible to keep
it broken. A solution is possible and it does not involve building a wall.
On 10/29/2024 11:02 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:16:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/26/2024 10:31 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:27:59 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 10/25/24 06:45, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted >>>>>>>> in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3 >>>>>>>> miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't >>>>>>>> recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was >>>>>>>> the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not >>>>>>>> the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted >>>>>>>> at all.I disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be
doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear >>>>>>> signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent,
and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.
I very strongly disagree. Voting is critical; at a minimum we must >>>>>> distinguish our distaste for current candidates from the apathetic not >>>>>> caring about the issue. Vote for the candidate you agree with most; if >>>>>> there actually are none, then write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "Hatsune
Miku" if you're somewhat younger. That sends a clear signal; not
voting sends nothing at all in the US (it does send a signal in those >>>>>> countries with mandatory voting.) You are not going to find a
candidate that represents your view 100% unless you're the candidate >>>>>> yourself.
This is now the third Presidential election in a row that I can't vote >>>>>> for either major party candidate - in the previous 40 years it only >>>>>> happened once. Times are changing. But the need to vote is still there. >>>>>>
In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through
the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the
threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs,
not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral >>>>>>> positions.
D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of >>>>>> today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly >>>>>> to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate
yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society. We're >>>>>> unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group.
There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in >>>>>> a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
government should do. That's cancel culture. Would you really not >>>>>> vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
because of that, D? Just about the only group who philosophically >>>>>> should not vote are the anarchists.
As they say "Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives." >>>>>>
Chris
All American Anarchists should always vote for the most competent
candidate. We should do that because as bad as
government is it is far better constrained by even imperfect
basic law than by men acting on whims and without information.
We see in nations where Government has collapsed and
anarchy prevales that misery excalates. We see in nations
ruled by dictatorships of the Left or of the Right that misery
ensues. So goverment by the Constitution is better but certain
branches of the Government have resigned their proper functions
and allowed one or more other branches to improperly
execute the duty of other branches. One branch has the duty
of comparing non-basic law to the basic law for conflict
but the so called justices have dragged the common law of
superstitious monarchies into the case. They presume to
place their interpretation of religion against modern science
and in addition prominent members have accepted large gifts
from parties who have interests in the presented cases.
An excellent summary of our current situation. Just two quibbles and
an observation:
1. Freedom of religion and a prohibition on a State Church (which
would include Science acting as a religion, BTW) /are/ part of the
basic law (the Constitution, as amended).
2. The concept that human life begins at conception /is/ modern
science; they are merely drawing the inevitable consequences from this >>>> belief. It is truly amazing that so many anti-modernist Christians
("Evangelicals") have adopted the /scientific/ viewpoint and abandoned >>>> the historical Christian viewpoint (that human life begins when the
child draws breath independently of the mother. And, yes, spending
time on a respirator for a while /does/ count.)
3. Abortion has been discouraged for a long long time. The Hippocratic >>>> Oath, from 3 or 4 centuries BC, includes a pledge by doctors not to
provide a drug to induce one. But this was because they believed the
fetus to be a human being (except potentially); it was because they
believed it to be the property of the father. Abortion was regarded as >>>> a form of property theft. Keep in mind that the mother was also,
unless hanky-panky was involved, the property of the father.
I am confused. So are you saying that my wife could have been killed at >>> birth in 1958 since she was born three weeks late and had hyaline
membrane disease ? The USA Army doctor in Camp Jama, Japan built a
hodgepodge oxygenated incubator for her in which she lived for six weeks >>> until her body absorbed the hyaline membrane and was able to breath
normal air.
This is /exactly/ the sort of response that my statement "And, yes,
spending time on respirator for a while /does/ count" was intended to
prevent. Sorry you found it confusing.
If you prefer, you can use "live birth" as the criterion.
I think you will find that Texas uses this criterion to decide when a
human being now exists.
Most, if not all, States use this criterion and designate a new human
being by issuing a birth certificate, so the criteria for issuing
birth certificates is relevant here, particularly since it often (if
not always) goes back to times that were undeniably part of a
Christian culture and so reflects the traditional Christian viewpoint.
Also, the definition of "citizen" in the Constitution is, in part,
about people /born/ in this country. There is nothing about the as-yet
unborn being citizens.
My point was, however, that the SC /was/ using scientific criteria.
That is, it accepted the scientific viewpoint that human beings are
just animals and so their lives start at conception and working from
there. Even Roe v Wade used it -- this is why it started with a long
period in which there can be no restrictions on abortion and then
recognizes that the State has a growing interest in the potential
child. This is basically a matter of "rights in conflict" -- but only
if you accept that human beings are just animals.
It is also why, if a National Abortion Policy is ever adopted, it will
probably look a /lot/ like Roe v Wade. And may even end up in the
Constitution, with perhaps a few additions, just to prevent future
hanky-panky.
What is SC ? State Church ? Supreme Court ?
BTW, people get really touchy about babies and live births. One minute >everything is ok in the delivery process, five minutes later the baby is >dead. Been there, done that, got a baby daughter in a cemetery who was
born dead due to the umbilical cord wrapped three times around her neck.
Traumatic does not even begin to describe the process.
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you
believe that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where
salaries with the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and
the "elite" who actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools
and AI that serve to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software.
Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a
programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my >programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer
has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Many of the elite programmers never graduated from college. Bill Gates,
Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
On 10/30/2024 5:39 AM, D wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 10/29/2024 4:53 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US >>>>>>> has
concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of >>>>>>> illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
This is likely true. The food service and agricultural industries depend >>>> on
low-wage labour and much of that has been provided by immigrants willing >>>> to
take low-wage low-skill jobs. When immigration started to go wrong in >>>> the
eighties and it became impossible for people to legally immigrate to do >>>> this
work, it began to be done by illegal immigrants.
Traditionally there were a lot of people from Mexico who came to the US >>>> to
work the fields during harvest time, and who moved back to Mexico after >>>> the season was over. That was disrupted long ago.
People on the right hand side of the aisle will claim that citizens would >>>> be
taking these jobs if there were not illegal immigrants to fill them. But >>>> the
fact that in spite of all attempts to restrict immigration, citizens
still
refuse to take these jobs, indicate that this is not the case.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries >>>>>> of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software
engineering
field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
This is referring to a different and just as severe immigration problem. >>>> The
US has a system called the H1-B visa which exists in order to allow
experts
in their field to come to America for work. This is for people who
really
are experts, people who can't be replaced by American citizens because >>>> there
are so few people in the world able to do their job. When it was set up >>>> it
was a good system.
However, this system has been hijacked by a number of large companies
which
have figured out how to game the system and which are using H1-Bs to
bring
in moderately-skilled technical people and hold them hostage with the
threat
of removing their visa. This has caused a total disaster in the software >>>> engineering field. These people ARE legal immigrants, but if the system >>>> was
not broken, they would not be. What is worse, because large companies >>>> with
huge legal departments are stuffing the box as soon as slots open up,
people
who really are experts, the people for whom the system was intended, are >>>> unable to get the visas that Congress intended for them.
As a recently-retired software engineer I can attest to this. Americans
would be laid off at the same time as H1-Bs were being brought in.
https://www.epi.org/blog/tech-and-outsourcing-companies-continue-to-
exploit-the-h-1b-visa-program-at-a-time-of-mass-layoffs-the-top-30-
h-1b-employers-hired-34000-new-h-1b-workers-in-2022-and-laid-off-at-
least-85000-workers/
https://tinyurl.com/mr3zuvcs
"Since employers aren’t required to test the U.S. labor market to see if >>> any workers are available before hiring an H-1B worker or pay their
H-1B workers a fair wage, employers have exploited the program. Rather
than turning to the H-1B program as a last resort when U.S. workers
cannot be found, most employers hire H-1B workers because they can be
underpaid and are de facto indentured to the employer. This is evidenced >>> by government data showing that technology companies continue to hire
H-1B workers in large numbers while significantly reducing the sizes of
their workforces."
I saw this happening before my eyes. I eventually gave up and moved to
working for defense contractors, who paid worse, but were required to
hire US citizens.
pt
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you believe
that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where salaries with
the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and the "elite" who >> actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools and AI that serve
to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
Managers have been saying 'With this new software tool, we can
get rid of dedicated programmer positions' since the invention of COBOL.
So far, the complexity of the programs needed has always increased fast enough to prevent this happening.
As I was retiring, I was just starting to see AI software engineering
tools which looked interesting. My company was a defense contractor, and
we were strictly forbidden to use them, lest publicly accessible AIs
'learn' proprietary knowledge and expose it.
I don't think we'll see a class of code-monkeys; rather there will
perhaps be fewer programmers, but they'll be more highly trained
and able to direct the AIs, using extremely high level languages.
pt
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 10/29/2024 4:53 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/28/2024 9:59 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Anyone who has done a honest study on illegal immigration in the US >>>>>>> has
concluded that the American economy is DEPENDENT on the labor of >>>>>>> illegals. Our economy would crash without them.
This is likely true. The food service and agricultural industries depend >>>> on
low-wage labour and much of that has been provided by immigrants willing >>>> to
take low-wage low-skill jobs. When immigration started to go wrong in >>>> the
eighties and it became impossible for people to legally immigrate to do >>>> this
work, it began to be done by illegal immigrants.
Traditionally there were a lot of people from Mexico who came to the US >>>> to
work the fields during harvest time, and who moved back to Mexico after >>>> the season was over. That was disrupted long ago.
People on the right hand side of the aisle will claim that citizens would >>>> be
taking these jobs if there were not illegal immigrants to fill them. But >>>> the
fact that in spite of all attempts to restrict immigration, citizens
still
refuse to take these jobs, indicate that this is not the case.
Nice try, nope. Illegal immigrants allow employers to cut the salaries >>>>>> of legal USA citizens. I have seen it done many times in the
engineering industry, especially software engineering.
There are very few, if any, illegal immigrants in the software
engineering
field. There are a lot of legal immigrants in the software
engineering field, and federal law requires they be paid
the same as domestic engineers.
This is referring to a different and just as severe immigration problem. >>>> The
US has a system called the H1-B visa which exists in order to allow
experts
in their field to come to America for work. This is for people who
really
are experts, people who can't be replaced by American citizens because >>>> there
are so few people in the world able to do their job. When it was set up >>>> it
was a good system.
However, this system has been hijacked by a number of large companies
which
have figured out how to game the system and which are using H1-Bs to
bring
in moderately-skilled technical people and hold them hostage with the
threat
of removing their visa. This has caused a total disaster in the software >>>> engineering field. These people ARE legal immigrants, but if the system >>>> was
not broken, they would not be. What is worse, because large companies >>>> with
huge legal departments are stuffing the box as soon as slots open up,
people
who really are experts, the people for whom the system was intended, are >>>> unable to get the visas that Congress intended for them.
As a recently-retired software engineer I can attest to this. Americans
would be laid off at the same time as H1-Bs were being brought in.
https://www.epi.org/blog/tech-and-outsourcing-companies-continue-to-
exploit-the-h-1b-visa-program-at-a-time-of-mass-layoffs-the-top-30-
h-1b-employers-hired-34000-new-h-1b-workers-in-2022-and-laid-off-at-
least-85000-workers/
https://tinyurl.com/mr3zuvcs
"Since employers aren’t required to test the U.S. labor market to see if >>> any workers are available before hiring an H-1B worker or pay their
H-1B workers a fair wage, employers have exploited the program. Rather
than turning to the H-1B program as a last resort when U.S. workers
cannot be found, most employers hire H-1B workers because they can be
underpaid and are de facto indentured to the employer. This is evidenced >>> by government data showing that technology companies continue to hire
H-1B workers in large numbers while significantly reducing the sizes of
their workforces."
I saw this happening before my eyes. I eventually gave up and moved to
working for defense contractors, who paid worse, but were required to
hire US citizens.
pt
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you believe
that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where salaries with
the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and the "elite" who >> actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools and AI that serve
to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Most programmers that I have worked with had degrees in engineering but I can remember at least one guy with a degree in English.
Many of the elite programmers never graduated from college. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
Lynn
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you believe >that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where salaries with
the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and the "elite" who >actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools and AI that serve
to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
Most programmers that I have worked with had degrees in engineering but
I can remember at least one guy with a degree in English.
On 10/30/2024 3:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you
believe that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where
salaries with the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time,
and
the "elite" who actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools >>>> and AI that serve to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. >>> Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a >>> programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my
programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer
has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Pretty much every programmer I've worked with over the last forty five
years
has had a degree in computer science or computer engineering. There
have been some without degrees that learned on the job (e.g. started
in product support and moved to programming, but those are the exception,
not the rule).
Many of the elite programmers never graduated from college. Bill Gates, >>> Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
Calling either of them 'elite' programmers is inaccurate. Good
businessmen,
perhaps. Perhaps even good idea men.
Windows is, however, a steaming pile. Popular by default, not by design.
And you just outed yourself as an elitist with that last comment.
Lynn
On 10/30/2024 5:29 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 14:12, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/30/2024 3:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
You are an end user, do and say whatever you want. Scott is / was a >professional programmer, to make a statement like that is incredibly >unprofessional in my opinion.
Scott probably knows but maybe does not, is that Bill Gates wrote the
first Basic compiler/interpreter for Microsoft in 2,000 bytes of 8080 >assembly language. It actually ran on the Altair 8800 with 4,000 bytes
of ram. I would call Gates an elite programmer.
Mark Zuckerberg was the only programmer for Facebook for several years.
He got Facebook up and going by himself before hiring any employees. I
would call Zuckerberg an elite programmer.
I could name dozens of other elite programmers. Thompson, Ritchie, >Kernighan, Carmack, etc. So could Scott.
Scott probably knows but maybe does not, is that Bill Gates wrote the
first Basic compiler/interpreter for Microsoft in 2,000 bytes of 8080 >assembly language. It actually ran on the Altair 8800 with 4,000 bytes
of ram. I would call Gates an elite programmer.
On 10/30/2024 3:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Windows is, however, a steaming pile. Popular by default, not by design.
And you just outed yourself as an elitist with that last comment.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you
believe that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where
salaries with the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and >> the "elite" who actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools
and AI that serve to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software.
Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a
programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my >programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer
has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Pretty much every programmer I've worked with over the last forty five years has had a degree in computer science or computer engineering. There
have been some without degrees that learned on the job (e.g. started
in product support and moved to programming, but those are the exception,
not the rule).
Many of the elite programmers never graduated from college. Bill Gates, >Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
Calling either of them 'elite' programmers is inaccurate. Good businessmen, perhaps. Perhaps even good idea men.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you believe
that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where salaries with
the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and the "elite" who >> actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools and AI that serve
to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
That split happened some time in the late seventies or early eighties. There is a very strong distinction between programmers and coders today. It is reflected in academic CS programs, some of which follow the ACM curriculum and teach actual computer science, and some of which are trade schools for coders.
There is a very clear distinction and there has been for some time now.
AI probably won't change things any more than the ability to copy and paste code fragments from the internet has.
--scott
On 10/30/2024 3:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you
believe that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where
salaries with the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and >>>> the "elite" who actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools >>>> and AI that serve to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. >>> Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a >>> programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my
programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer
has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Pretty much every programmer I've worked with over the last forty five
years
has had a degree in computer science or computer engineering. There
have been some without degrees that learned on the job (e.g. started
in product support and moved to programming, but those are the exception,
not the rule).
Many of the elite programmers never graduated from college. Bill Gates, >>> Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
Calling either of them 'elite' programmers is inaccurate. Good
businessmen,
perhaps. Perhaps even good idea men.
Windows is, however, a steaming pile. Popular by default, not by design.
And you just outed yourself as an elitist with that last comment.
Lynn
Mark Zuckerberg was the only programmer for Facebook for several years.
He got Facebook up and going by himself before hiring any employees. I
would call Zuckerberg an elite programmer.
I would call him a founder and businesman. Did he write the
web server that facebook (and myspace at the time) was using?
No, they leveraged opensource software. And he hired a bunch
of programmers once things ramped up. I met with both facebook
and myspace engineering teams in the mid 2000's specifically
to discuss high-end servers.
I could name dozens of other elite programmers. Thompson, Ritchie,
Kernighan, Carmack, etc. So could Scott.
Sure. I don't put Bill Gates in that camp.
On 10/30/2024 5:29 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 14:12, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/30/2024 3:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:And what definition of elitist do you use, Lynn McGuire?
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:And you just outed yourself as an elitist with that last comment.
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you
believe that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where >>>>>> salaries with the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, >>>>>> and
the "elite" who actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools >>>>>> and AI that serve to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. >>>>> Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a >>>>> programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my >>>>> programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer >>>>> has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Pretty much every programmer I've worked with over the last forty five >>>> years
has had a degree in computer science or computer engineering. There
have been some without degrees that learned on the job (e.g. started
in product support and moved to programming, but those are the exception, >>>> not the rule).
Many of the elite programmers never graduated from college. Bill Gates, >>>>> Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
Calling either of them 'elite' programmers is inaccurate. Good
businessmen,
perhaps. Perhaps even good idea men.
Windows is, however, a steaming pile. Popular by default, not by design. >>>
Lynn
Let me say that I used an Amiga computer from Commodore Business
machines. I have a long standing hostility toward Mircosoft
producte. I know that Windows is better than every before but
the interface is so obstuctive that I will not even run it in
a VirtualBox under Linux. When Commodore Business Machines
went out of business I hung around for a while but eventually
the hardware became too difficult to get repaired.
I moved to Linux in 2006 and I have used Window XP and helped
people understand Windows 3.1 and wiped out Windows 10 from
my computers repeatedly as I got other computers to replace
older and less well cared for machines.
Now I do that on Social Security and I could not afford
licenses for the software that Windows or even MacIntosh uses.
I would prefer to be using an updated AmigaOS but the current
hardware is very expensive which is the rule with smaller companies
but I could run an emulator but those are directed toward gamers
rather than writers. I am old and sick unable to do all my own
shopping without a friends assitance with tranportation.
So am I a member of an elite? I have no formal eduation
aside from HS and a few course in the USN plus before I retired
classes to keep my nursing license. oh I am white so maybe I
am an elite. But I am devotely anti-racist abd a survivor
of minor challenges to my health.
But strangely enough my Opinion of Windoss is very
negative.
bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2024.10-Linux 6.6.58-Plasma 5.27.11
You are an end user, do and say whatever you want. Scott is / was a professional programmer, to make a statement like that is incredibly unprofessional in my opinion.
Scott probably knows but maybe does not, is that Bill Gates wrote the first Basic compiler/interpreter for Microsoft in 2,000 bytes of 8080 assembly language. It actually ran on the Altair 8800 with 4,000 bytes of ram. I would call Gates an elite programmer.
Mark Zuckerberg was the only programmer for Facebook for several years. He got Facebook up and going by himself before hiring any employees. I would call Zuckerberg an elite programmer.
I could name dozens of other elite programmers. Thompson, Ritchie, Kernighan, Carmack, etc. So could Scott.
Lynn
On 10/30/2024 4:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you
believe that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where
salaries with the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and >>>> the "elite" who actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools >>>> and AI that serve to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. >>> Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a >>> programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my
programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer
has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Pretty much every programmer I've worked with over the last forty five
years
has had a degree in computer science or computer engineering. There
have been some without degrees that learned on the job (e.g. started
in product support and moved to programming, but those are the exception,
not the rule).
Really? When I started in the early 80s, CS majors were very rare.
The team I worked with at a major Wall Street bank all had college
degrees in other subjects (Biochemistry for me).
That's not to say we were all self taught out of Creative Computing
magazine. I had been working at Columbia, and had free tuition - I
took most of the undergrad, and some grad CS courses before I switched careers.
When my team at my first programming job acquired our first CS grad,
he Made Sure That We ALL Knew He Had a CS Degree. He lasted less than
a year.
pt
On 10/30/2024 6:55 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 5:29 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 14:12, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/30/2024 3:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
You are an end user, do and say whatever you want. Scott is / was a
professional programmer, to make a statement like that is incredibly
unprofessional in my opinion.
Scott probably knows but maybe does not, is that Bill Gates wrote the
first Basic compiler/interpreter for Microsoft in 2,000 bytes of 8080
assembly language. It actually ran on the Altair 8800 with 4,000 bytes
of ram. I would call Gates an elite programmer.
I would call him a competent assembler programmer, which
weren't uncommon in those days of limited memory. Lots of
PDP-8 code, for example needed to fit in 4096 words of
memory. Including fortran compilers, basic interpreters
and a wide range of other software.
Mark Zuckerberg was the only programmer for Facebook for several years.
He got Facebook up and going by himself before hiring any employees. I
would call Zuckerberg an elite programmer.
I would call him a founder and businesman. Did he write the
web server that facebook (and myspace at the time) was using?
No, they leveraged opensource software. And he hired a bunch
of programmers once things ramped up. I met with both facebook
and myspace engineering teams in the mid 2000's specifically
to discuss high-end servers.
I could name dozens of other elite programmers. Thompson, Ritchie,
Kernighan, Carmack, etc. So could Scott.
Sure. I don't put Bill Gates in that camp.
"My First BillG Review" by Joel Spolsky
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/06/16/my-first-billg-review/
Disclosure: I turned down a job offer at Microsoft in 1987. One of my many mistakes in life.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott probably knows but maybe does not, is that Bill Gates wrote the
first Basic compiler/interpreter for Microsoft in 2,000 bytes of 8080
assembly language. It actually ran on the Altair 8800 with 4,000 bytes
of ram. I would call Gates an elite programmer.
As someone who had to fix MBASIC for the HP2101 when Gates admitted
that the product was broken but that they weren't selling enough of
that version for them to fix it, I would not call him either an elite programmer or a good customer service guy either.
I can't speak about Zuckerberg as I never had to fix his code.
--scott
On 10/30/2024 4:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you
believe that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where
salaries with the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, and >>>> the "elite" who actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools >>>> and AI that serve to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. >>> Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a >>> programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my
programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer
has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Pretty much every programmer I've worked with over the last forty five years >> has had a degree in computer science or computer engineering. There
have been some without degrees that learned on the job (e.g. started
in product support and moved to programming, but those are the exception,
not the rule).
Really? When I started in the early 80s, CS majors were very rare.
The team I worked with at a major Wall Street bank all had college
degrees in other subjects (Biochemistry for me).
On 10/31/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
Fortunately, on the server side, I do hope that windows ship of theseus
experiment with WSL, will finally reached the end station, of becoming a
linux. ;)
I suspect that ship sailed a long time. It would have been nice if the >Windows NT project was based on FreeBSD instead of the VAX VMS clone
that Dave Cutler wrote.
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you.
https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows
NT, told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by
the legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers
sacrifices almost everything in their lives to build a new, stable,
operating system aimed at giving Microsoft a platform for growth through
the next decade of development in the computing business."
On 10/31/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/30/2024 3:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:And you just outed yourself as an elitist with that last comment.
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
This raises questions about the future job of programmers. Do you
believe that the field will be split into simple code-monkeys where >>>>>> salaries with the help of AI, will decrease more and more over time, >>>>>> and
the "elite" who actually are the ones who develop new algorithms, tools >>>>>> and AI that serve to reduce the salaries of the code-monkeys?
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. >>>>> Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a >>>>> programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my >>>>> programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer >>>>> has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Pretty much every programmer I've worked with over the last forty five >>>> years
has had a degree in computer science or computer engineering. There
have been some without degrees that learned on the job (e.g. started
in product support and moved to programming, but those are the exception, >>>> not the rule).
Many of the elite programmers never graduated from college. Bill Gates, >>>>> Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
Calling either of them 'elite' programmers is inaccurate. Good
businessmen,
perhaps. Perhaps even good idea men.
Windows is, however, a steaming pile. Popular by default, not by design. >>>
Lynn
Maybe Scott is instead a man of highly refined and good taste? I agree with >> him that windows is steaming excrement. I do acknolwedge "the power of good >> enough" and the predatory practices of Microsoft which has propelled
windows to its current position.
Fortunately, on the server side, I do hope that windows ship of theseus
experiment with WSL, will finally reached the end station, of becoming a
linux. ;)
I suspect that ship sailed a long time. It would have been nice if the Windows NT project was based on FreeBSD instead of the VAX VMS clone that Dave Cutler wrote.
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you. https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows NT, told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by the legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers sacrifices almost everything in their lives to build a new, stable, operating system aimed at giving Microsoft a platform for growth through the next decade of development in the computing business."
Lynn
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you.
https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows NT,
told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by the
legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers sacrifices almost
everything in their lives to build a new, stable, operating system aimed at >> giving Microsoft a platform for growth through the next decade of development
in the computing business."
Lynn
You have probably already read it, but I counter with The Soul of a New >Machine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
As someone who had to fix MBASIC for the HP2101 when Gates admitted
that the product was broken but that they weren't selling enough of
that version for them to fix it, I would not call him either an elite
programmer or a good customer service guy either.
I can't speak about Zuckerberg as I never had to fix his code.
Ahh... so you met him? What was it like?
At that time BSD was likely not considered as mature as VMS,
and to be quite fair, VMS was a well designed and well written
operating system widely proven in production. BSD was mostly
relegated to research roles primarily, the exception being
SUN who used it (plus a bit of system V) for the first four
releases of SunOS before switching to AT&T System V.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
As someone who had to fix MBASIC for the HP2101 when Gates admitted
that the product was broken but that they weren't selling enough of
that version for them to fix it, I would not call him either an elite
programmer or a good customer service guy either.
I can't speak about Zuckerberg as I never had to fix his code.
Ahh... so you met him? What was it like?
Never face to face, just over the telephone too many times where I was
told that everything was someone else's fault, that user-defined functions
in BASIC were superfluous and it didn't matter if they didn't work right,
and that stack machines had no future. (He was in fact right about the
last one unfortunately.)
--scott
D <spam@example.net> writes:
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you.
https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows NT, >>> told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by the
legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers sacrifices almost
everything in their lives to build a new, stable, operating system aimed at >>> giving Microsoft a platform for growth through the next decade of development
in the computing business."
Lynn
You have probably already read it, but I counter with The Soul of a New
Machine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
I met Steve Wallach while consulting at a VC circa 2007. Seemed
like a pretty sharp guy.
On 10/31/2024 4:44 AM, D wrote:
Wasn't Z mainly a php-programmer?
I could name dozens of other elite programmers. Thompson, Ritchie,
Kernighan, Carmack, etc. So could Scott.
Sure. I don't put Bill Gates in that camp.
Probably. I think that Facebook is still a php shop but they have a php >compiler now to generate direct executables. It supposedly cut their
cpu usage by 100X.
Kludge wrote:
in BASIC were superfluous and it didn't matter if they didn't work right,
and that stack machines had no future. (He was in fact right about the
last one unfortunately.)
Was he right or was he just trying to shift the blame?
VMS had one horrible problem. When it ran out of virtual ram, you were >toast. It could not survive that event and required a hard reboot. It >happened on several of our Vaxen.
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <spam@example.net> writes:
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you.
https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows NT, >>>> told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by the
legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers sacrifices almost
everything in their lives to build a new, stable, operating system aimed at
giving Microsoft a platform for growth through the next decade of development
in the computing business."
Lynn
You have probably already read it, but I counter with The Soul of a New
Machine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
I met Steve Wallach while consulting at a VC circa 2007. Seemed
like a pretty sharp guy.
Nice! Consulting for a VC? I hope you increase your fees 4x! ;) I did a >little project mgmt for an AI project and was able to up my fees 2x due to >the AI hype factor. =)
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
VMS had one horrible problem. When it ran out of virtual ram, you were >>toast. It could not survive that event and required a hard reboot. It >>happened on several of our Vaxen.
This was true under 4.7 and maybe under some other pre-5.2 versions too.
The manuals very specifically warned you to make sure your pagefile.sys
and swapfile.sys were large enough. It did get fixed. The way that VMS >handled paging and swapping space differently was kind of interesting and >allowed some useful performance tuning on machines with limited core.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Kludge wrote:
in BASIC were superfluous and it didn't matter if they didn't work right, >>> and that stack machines had no future. (He was in fact right about the
last one unfortunately.)
Was he right or was he just trying to shift the blame?
Well, he made the argument that they were making a product that was broken, >but not enough people were buying it for them to bother fixing it. However, >too many people were buying it for them to stop selling it. I find this >argument abhorrent.
But it IS true that the HP1000 series was of limited industry acceptance and >soon died out and that you won't see stack machine architectures on the >market today. I loved programming those things.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Kludge wrote:
in BASIC were superfluous and it didn't matter if they didn't work right, >>> and that stack machines had no future. (He was in fact right about the
last one unfortunately.)
Was he right or was he just trying to shift the blame?
Well, he made the argument that they were making a product that was broken, >but not enough people were buying it for them to bother fixing it. However, >too many people were buying it for them to stop selling it. I find this >argument abhorrent.
But it IS true that the HP1000 series was of limited industry acceptance and >soon died out and that you won't see stack machine architectures on the >market today. I loved programming those things.
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you.
https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows NT,
told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by the
legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers sacrifices almost
everything in their lives to build a new, stable, operating system aimed at >> giving Microsoft a platform for growth through the next decade of development
in the computing business."
You have probably already read it, but I counter with The Soul of a New >Machine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
The Soul of a New Machine is a non-fiction book written by Tracy Kidder
and published in 1981. It chronicles the experiences of a computer >engineering team racing to design a next-generation computer at a
blistering pace under tremendous pressure. The machine was launched in
1980 as the Data General Eclipse MV/8000.[1]
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Kludge wrote:
in BASIC were superfluous and it didn't matter if they didn't work right, >>> and that stack machines had no future. (He was in fact right about the
last one unfortunately.)
Was he right or was he just trying to shift the blame?
Well, he made the argument that they were making a product that was broken, but not enough people were buying it for them to bother fixing it. However, too many people were buying it for them to stop selling it. I find this argument abhorrent.
But it IS true that the HP1000 series was of limited industry acceptance and soon died out and that you won't see stack machine architectures on the market today. I loved programming those things.
--scott
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <spam@example.net> writes:
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you.
https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows NT, >>>>> told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by the >>>>> legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers sacrifices almost
everything in their lives to build a new, stable, operating system aimed at
giving Microsoft a platform for growth through the next decade of development
in the computing business."
Lynn
You have probably already read it, but I counter with The Soul of a New >>>> Machine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
I met Steve Wallach while consulting at a VC circa 2007. Seemed
like a pretty sharp guy.
Nice! Consulting for a VC? I hope you increase your fees 4x! ;) I did a
little project mgmt for an AI project and was able to up my fees 2x due to >> the AI hype factor. =)
Compensation was generally in pre-IPO shares. Some worked out well,
others didn't.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you.
https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows NT, >>> told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by the
legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers sacrifices almost
everything in their lives to build a new, stable, operating system aimed at >>> giving Microsoft a platform for growth through the next decade of development
in the computing business."
This is a great book, and I recommend it. In some way it's a puff piece,
but it's got some interesting insights about teams working together.
Unfortunately the end product they came up with was pretty dreadful in the end, because of compromises caused by the need for compatibility.
NT turned out to be a shambling monstrosity in spite of the best initial design efforts.
You have probably already read it, but I counter with The Soul of a New
Machine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
The Soul of a New Machine is a non-fiction book written by Tracy Kidder
and published in 1981. It chronicles the experiences of a computer
engineering team racing to design a next-generation computer at a
blistering pace under tremendous pressure. The machine was launched in
1980 as the Data General Eclipse MV/8000.[1]
This is a also great book, and I also recommend it. It's less of a puff piece than Showstopper and it has more technical information (including
good explanations of technical decisions for nontechnical readers).
Unfortunately the end product they came up with was pretty dreadful in the end, because of compromises caused by the need for compatibility.
The 32-bit Eclipse machines kind of died on the market, and never made any real inroads into the vax and system/36 markets.
--scott
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I advocate the reading of "Showstopper", it will amaze you.
https://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generation-Microsoft/dp/1497638836
"Showstopper is the dramatic, inside story of the creation of Windows NT, >>> told by Wall Street Journal reporter G. Pascal Zachary. Driven by the
legendary David Cutler, a picked band of software engineers sacrifices almost
everything in their lives to build a new, stable, operating system aimed at
giving Microsoft a platform for growth through the next decade of development
in the computing business."
This is a great book, and I recommend it. In some way it's a puff piece,
but it's got some interesting insights about teams working together.
Unfortunately the end product they came up with was pretty dreadful in the >end, because of compromises caused by the need for compatibility.
NT turned out to be a shambling monstrosity in spite of the best initial >design efforts.
You have probably already read it, but I counter with The Soul of a New >>Machine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
The Soul of a New Machine is a non-fiction book written by Tracy Kidder >>and published in 1981. It chronicles the experiences of a computer >>engineering team racing to design a next-generation computer at a >>blistering pace under tremendous pressure. The machine was launched in >>1980 as the Data General Eclipse MV/8000.[1]
This is a also great book, and I also recommend it. It's less of a puff >piece than Showstopper and it has more technical information (including
good explanations of technical decisions for nontechnical readers).
Unfortunately the end product they came up with was pretty dreadful in the >end, because of compromises caused by the need for compatibility.
The 32-bit Eclipse machines kind of died on the market, and never made any >real inroads into the vax and system/36 markets.
Ask Walmart. Around here, the illegals go to Walmart and bank cash
money into a Walmart savings account. Then their relatives go to a
Walmart in Mexico and withdraw the money as goods. Happens every day.
kludge wrote:
The 32-bit Eclipse machines kind of died on the market, and never made any >> real inroads into the vax and system/36 markets.
With you knowledge, maybe you could write a sequel? =)
The tendency is to add froth, not strengthen the product, over time.
Probably because they just don't have any way of doing so safely. All
they can test is the froth.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
kludge wrote:
The 32-bit Eclipse machines kind of died on the market, and never made any >>> real inroads into the vax and system/36 markets.
With you knowledge, maybe you could write a sequel? =)
Nobody wants to read a book that begins "We ran the Ada compiler on
hello world when we got in at eight. By dinner time we were still
pacing our cubicles, waiting for a prompt."
--scott
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
The tendency is to add froth, not strengthen the product, over time. >>Probably because they just don't have any way of doing so safely. All
they can test is the froth.
Bill Gates himself says "People don't buy new products for bug fixes.
People buy new products for new features."
I am sorry to say that this attitude is not limited to Microsoft any
longer. It's not even limited to the computer industry.
This is likely true. The food service and agricultural industries depend on >low-wage labour and much of that has been provided by immigrants willing to >take low-wage low-skill jobs. When immigration started to go wrong in the >eighties and it became impossible for people to legally immigrate to do this >work, it began to be done by illegal immigrants.
Traditionally there were a lot of people from Mexico who came to the US to >work the fields during harvest time, and who moved back to Mexico after
the season was over. That was disrupted long ago.
The catch is that it has become so well known that the US southern
border is pretty much wide open that people from LOTS of places other
than Mexico are arriving in Mexico, going to Mexico's northern border
and crossing into the US.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
The catch is that it has become so well known that the US southern
border is pretty much wide open that people from LOTS of places other
than Mexico are arriving in Mexico, going to Mexico's northern border
and crossing into the US.
Yes. We used to have illegal Mexican immigration, but with the PRI out
of power the Mexican economy has improved a bit and there isn't much
of that. Now we get folks from Honduras and Guatemala where bad governments have destroyed the economies who want to get into the US and they are
at the border.
Thing is... the reason why all those people are massing at the border
is that it's not wide open. If it were wide open, there wouldn't be
so many people camping there.
--scott
You are an end user, do and say whatever you want. Scott is / was a >professional programmer, to make a statement like that is incredibly >unprofessional in my opinion.
Scott probably knows but maybe does not, is that Bill Gates wrote the
first Basic compiler/interpreter for Microsoft in 2,000 bytes of 8080 >assembly language. It actually ran on the Altair 8800 with 4,000 bytes
of ram. I would call Gates an elite programmer.
Mark Zuckerberg was the only programmer for Facebook for several years.
He got Facebook up and going by himself before hiring any employees. I
would call Zuckerberg an elite programmer.
On 10/30/2024 2:45 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Most programmers that I have worked with had degrees in engineering but
I can remember at least one guy with a degree in English.
Psychology! But I had a BS. Switched from chemistry end of my sophomore
year so with all my math/science credits I got the BS.
On 10/30/2024 4:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. >>> Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a >>> programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my
programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer
has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Pretty much every programmer I've worked with over the last forty five years >> has had a degree in computer science or computer engineering. There
have been some without degrees that learned on the job (e.g. started
in product support and moved to programming, but those are the exception,
not the rule).
Really? When I started in the early 80s, CS majors were very rare.
The team I worked with at a major Wall Street bank all had college
degrees in other subjects (Biochemistry for me).
That's not to say we were all self taught out of Creative Computing
magazine. I had been working at Columbia, and had free tuition - I
took most of the undergrad, and some grad CS courses before I switched >careers.
When my team at my first programming job acquired our first CS grad,
he Made Sure That We ALL Knew He Had a CS Degree. He lasted less than
a year.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
The catch is that it has become so well known that the US southern
border is pretty much wide open that people from LOTS of places other
than Mexico are arriving in Mexico, going to Mexico's northern border
and crossing into the US.
Yes. We used to have illegal Mexican immigration, but with the PRI out
of power the Mexican economy has improved a bit and there isn't much
of that. Now we get folks from Honduras and Guatemala where bad governments have destroyed the economies who want to get into the US and they are
at the border.
Thing is... the reason why all those people are massing at the border
is that it's not wide open. If it were wide open, there wouldn't be
so many people camping there.
--scott
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 20:50:23 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/30/2024 4:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 4:39 AM, D wrote:
I have no idea and I am in the business of writing and selling software. >>>> Programming is an odd profession, very few programmers actually have a >>>> programming degree. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, one of my >>>> programmers has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and my other programmer >>>> has a double degree in Chemistry and Physics.
Agreed - I did a fair bit of my programming in the interlude between
my math degree (I spent a LOT of time in the library reading the
original journal that reported the solution to the "4 color program"
when it was new. It was way over my head but I loved it) and business
school. I never pretended to be an ace programmer but knew I knew
enough to make a few bucks en route to where I really wanted to go.
On 13/11/24 11:54, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
The catch is that it has become so well known that the US southern
border is pretty much wide open that people from LOTS of places other
than Mexico are arriving in Mexico, going to Mexico's northern border
and crossing into the US.
Yes. We used to have illegal Mexican immigration, but with the PRI out
of power the Mexican economy has improved a bit and there isn't much
of that. Now we get folks from Honduras and Guatemala where bad governments >> have destroyed the economies who want to get into the US and they are
at the border.
The US government shares the responsibility for these "bad governments" >through creating regimes where the authoritarian rich prosper through
the exploitation of their country's resources be they bananas, minerals,
etc or labour for the benefit of the US.
On 11/13/2024 4:40 AM, D wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
The catch is that it has become so well known that the US southern
border is pretty much wide open that people from LOTS of places other
than Mexico are arriving in Mexico, going to Mexico's northern border
and crossing into the US.
Yes. We used to have illegal Mexican immigration, but with the PRI out >>> of power the Mexican economy has improved a bit and there isn't much
of that. Now we get folks from Honduras and Guatemala where bad
governments
have destroyed the economies who want to get into the US and they are
at the border.
Thing is... the reason why all those people are massing at the border
is that it's not wide open. If it were wide open, there wouldn't be
so many people camping there.
--scott
But maybe it is not a binary question? Maybe the border can have various
degrees of openness?
I read today that Trump is thinking about a multi-tier system consisting of >> mine fields, autonomous drones with guns, and the wall.
Then, surely, the border would be truly closed for criminals! =)
Seems unlikely, but if it occurs, would its main role be to keep non-Americans out, or Americans in?
pt
On 11/13/2024 4:40 AM, D wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
The catch is that it has become so well known that the US southern
border is pretty much wide open that people from LOTS of places other
than Mexico are arriving in Mexico, going to Mexico's northern border
and crossing into the US.
Yes. We used to have illegal Mexican immigration, but with the PRI out
of power the Mexican economy has improved a bit and there isn't much
of that. Now we get folks from Honduras and Guatemala where bad
governments
have destroyed the economies who want to get into the US and they are
at the border.
Thing is... the reason why all those people are massing at the border
is that it's not wide open. If it were wide open, there wouldn't be
so many people camping there.
--scott
But maybe it is not a binary question? Maybe the border can have various
degrees of openness?
I read today that Trump is thinking about a multi-tier system consisting
of mine fields, autonomous drones with guns, and the wall.
Then, surely, the border would be truly closed for criminals! =)
Seems unlikely, but if it occurs, would its main role be to keep >non-Americans out, or Americans in?
Seems unlikely,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:00:28 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/13/2024 4:40 AM, D wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
The catch is that it has become so well known that the US southern
border is pretty much wide open that people from LOTS of places other >>>>> than Mexico are arriving in Mexico, going to Mexico's northern border >>>>> and crossing into the US.
Yes. We used to have illegal Mexican immigration, but with the PRI out >>>> of power the Mexican economy has improved a bit and there isn't much
of that. Now we get folks from Honduras and Guatemala where bad
governments
have destroyed the economies who want to get into the US and they are
at the border.
Thing is... the reason why all those people are massing at the border
is that it's not wide open. If it were wide open, there wouldn't be
so many people camping there.
--scott
But maybe it is not a binary question? Maybe the border can have various >>> degrees of openness?
I read today that Trump is thinking about a multi-tier system consisting >>> of mine fields, autonomous drones with guns, and the wall.
Then, surely, the border would be truly closed for criminals! =)
Seems unlikely, but if it occurs, would its main role be to keep
non-Americans out, or Americans in?
No reason it can't do both, I suppose. It would just take more mines
and more drones, after all.
Some landowners along the border are already uptight about having
their property rendered inaccessible to them. This would probably make
that worse.
Well, unless he plans to build it on the Mexican side ...
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
Seems unlikely,
Please don't encourage the troll.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
Seems unlikely,
Please don't encourage the troll.
Why not?
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
Seems unlikely,
Please don't encourage the troll.
Why not?
Because this group is for discussions of science fiction.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:33:11 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,975 |