On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring >>empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's >>role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that >>calls the theory into question.
Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their unfounded and unscientific views.
The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need flat-earthers and science deniers.
Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
harmful?
In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's rule.
Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no doubt to make much stronger statements.
Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the science of man-made CO2.
Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy by suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry "think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco Institute.To be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global
warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are
guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely
difficult to deal with -
"I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in
mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
group pressures" Groupthink commentary
It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as
padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring >>empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's >>role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that >>calls the theory into question.
Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their unfounded and unscientific views.
The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need flat-earthers and science deniers.
Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
harmful?
In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's rule.
Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no doubt to make much stronger statements.
Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the science of man-made CO2.
Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy by suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed byTo be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global
propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry "think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco Institute.
warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are
guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely
difficult to deal with -
"I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures" Groupthink commentary
It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as
padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased theinstability in human reasoning-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.
On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
calls the theory into question.
Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
unfounded and unscientific views.
The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
flat-earthers and science deniers.
Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
harmful?
In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
rule.
Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
doubt to make much stronger statements.
Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the science of man-made CO2.
Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy byTo be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
"think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco Institute.
that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely difficult to deal with -
"I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures" Groupthink commentary
It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
instability in human reasoning-It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.
You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension.
https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/
The link also includes a trailer
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
calls the theory into question.
Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
unfounded and unscientific views.
The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
flat-earthers and science deniers.
Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
harmful?
In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
rule.
Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
doubt to make much stronger statements.
Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
science of man-made CO2.
Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy byTo be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely difficult to deal with -
suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
"think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
Institute.
"I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures" Groupthink commentary
It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
the instability in human reasoning-It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.
You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension.
https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/
The link also includes a trailerThe trick indeed !, how many tricks I have noted over the years obscuring genuine research in solar system and Earth science research.
On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 13:13:46 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
calls the theory into question.
Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
unfounded and unscientific views.
The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
flat-earthers and science deniers.
Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
harmful?
In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
rule.
Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
doubt to make much stronger statements.
Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
science of man-made CO2.
Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy byTo be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can
suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
"think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
Institute.
control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely difficult to deal with -
"I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
group pressures" Groupthink commentary
It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
the instability in human reasoning-It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.
You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension.
https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/
Then watch the programme and find out about it.The link also includes a trailerThe trick indeed !, how many tricks I have noted over the years obscuring genuine research in solar system and Earth science research.
Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.
ROFL. No they are not. If you think they are, provide evidence of how
retired astronauts are somehow in the pockets of some company in the fossil fuel industry.
On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 13:13:46 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
calls the theory into question.
Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
unfounded and unscientific views.
The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
flat-earthers and science deniers.
Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
harmful?
In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
rule.
Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
doubt to make much stronger statements.
Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
science of man-made CO2.
Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy byTo be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can
suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
"think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
Institute.
control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely difficult to deal with -
"I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
group pressures" Groupthink commentary
It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
the instability in human reasoning-It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.
You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension.
https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/
Then watch the programme and find out about it.The link also includes a trailerThe trick indeed !, how many tricks I have noted over the years obscuring genuine research in solar system and Earth science research.
Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.Deaths caused directly by hor or cold (and both are more extreme with
global warming) are pretty insignificant in comparison with the deaths
from extreme weather events, resource wars, broken food chains, and collapsing economies that we'll be seeing in the coming decades.
On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 17:05:29 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.Deaths caused directly by hor or cold (and both are more extreme with
global warming) are pretty insignificant in comparison with the deaths
from extreme weather events, resource wars, broken food chains, and
collapsing economies that we'll be seeing in the coming decades.
And NONE of those has come to pass. Storms are NO MORE extreme than 100 years ago
but we have TEN TIMES as many people occupying more dense areas so storms have >a greater impact. And oh yes, it COSTS more because of INSURANCE.
I am delighted that Wikipedia finally assigned the correct rotation period for the Earth even if they still have to adjust the Equatorial rotation velocities to suit the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
I am delighted that Wikipedia finally assigned the correct rotation period for the Earth even if they still have to adjust the Equatorial rotation velocities to suit the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems-the seasons, differential rotation across latitudes for plate tectonics/spherical deviation and other things brought up over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
That is the way things proceed so apart from a slight dismay that this newsgroup has fallen on difficult times, things get done behind the scenes. It will be the same for direct/retrograde resolution for Venus and Mercury, the proper explanation for
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:08:43 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:and one is not "better" or "more correct" than the other!
I am delighted that Wikipedia finally assigned the correct rotation period for the Earth even if they still have to adjust the Equatorial rotation velocities to suit the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EarthIndeed... from that Wiki page...
Rotation period 1.0 d
(24h 00m 00s) average synodic rotation period (solar day)
Sidereal rotation period 0.99726968 d[19]
(23h 56m 4.100s)
It is not my fault if you cannot comprehend the difference between "synodic period" and "sidereal period". You don't get to accept one of them and reject the other one, for they are both valid in their own realm. Of course, they are NOT interchangeable,
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 34:08:56 |
| Calls: | 9,668 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,716 |
| Messages: | 6,169,127 |
